On arrival at the laboratory participants were seated in separate cubicles. After having provided informed consent participants read a brief introduction a novel technology of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in the Netherlands via the computer. In this introduction we told them that the Dutch government was considering the implementation of this technology, and had asked a variety of organizations to write a report about the pros and cons of the technology. Next, we informed participants that they would be given the opportunity to read one of these reports produced. Stakeholder trustworthiness was manipulated by informing participants that the report they were about to read came from an organization (i.e.., a stakeholder) that—on basis of behavior in the past that was described in the manipulation— was known to be “very trustworthy and honest in the context of greenhouse gasses and technology” (high-trustworthiness condition) or “not very trustworthy and honest in the context of greenhouse gasses and technology” (low-trustworthiness condition). h However, for reasons of
experimental validity and to avoid suspicion we stressed that this general reputation would not necessarily imply untrustworthy (low-trustworthiness condition) or trustworthy (high-trustworthiness condition) behavior on the behalf of the stakeholder in the present CCS context. In addition, all participants read that the organization was high in expertise: “The organization has a lot of experience and expertise in the context of greenhouse gasses and technology”. h Importantly,
we did not specify which type of stakeholder (e.g., industrial stakeholder, environmental NGO, or government) had allegedly written the report, so participants were provided with information about the stakeholder’s trustworthiness and expertise, but no information was provided about the stakeholder’s identity. Finally, we controlled for stakeholder viewpoint by informing one half of the participants that the stakeholder had indicated to favor the implementation of CCS (proponent of CCS) whereas the other half of participants was informed that the stakeholder opposed CCS (opponent of CCS).
After answering questions concerning their expectations of information quality participants read the report. The report was identical in all experimental conditions, and contained information about eight pros and eight cons of the
implementation of CCS in the Netherlands. After reading the report, participants evaluated the quality of the report and answered questions about their perceived understanding of what CCS entails.
Measures
Manipulation checks. To check the effectiveness of the trustworthiness
manipulation we asked participants to indicate whether they perceived the stakeholder to be trustworthy and honest in the context of greenhouse gasses and technology (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Perceived stakeholder trustworthiness was computed by averaging participants’ responses to the two trustworthiness items (r = .76) with higher scores indicating higher perceived stakeholder trustworthiness. To check whether stakeholder expertise in all experimental conditions indeed was perceived as high we asked participants to indicate whether they perceived the stakeholder to be expert and experienced in the context of greenhouse gasses and technology. Perceived stakeholder expertise was computed by averaging the responses to the two expertise items (r = .71) with higher scores indicating higher perceived stakeholder expertise.
Further, as indicated by Study 2.1, people associate certain levels of credibility with different stakeholders. Hence, the provision of participants with information about a stakeholder’s credibility could induce participants in the low- trust condition to have a different type of stakeholder in mind (e.g., an industrial stakeholder) during the experiment than participants in the high-trust condition (e.g., an environmental NGO). We checked for this, by asking participants to indicate which type of stakeholder they thought had written the report (multiple- choice question: a choice between six different types of stakeholders).
Finally, to check whether participants had perceived the information about the stakeholder’s viewpoint regarding CCS accurately, we asked them to indicate whether the organization had indicated 1) tofavor implementation of CCS, or 2) to oppose implementation of CCS.
Expected information quality. Before being exposed to the information we asked participants about the extent to which they expected the information in the report to be valuable and complete (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Expected quality information quality was computed by averaging participants’ responses to the two items (r = .55), with higher scores indicating higher expected information quality. Perceived information quality. After being exposed to the information in the report participants indicated their quality perceptions of the information that had
been presented to them in terms of correctness, value and completeness (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Perceived information quality was subsequently calculated by averaging the responses to the three items (α = .72), with higher scores indicating higher perceived information quality.
Self-reported understanding of the issue. As an indicator of their understanding of CCS, participants indicated the extent to which they had been able to form an accurate impression of what CCS entails (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).
Results
We tested the hypotheses regarding main effects of stakeholder credibility on information processing (Hypotheses 2, 3a, and 4a) by means of ANCOVA, with stakeholder trustworthiness as independent variable and stakeholder viewpoint as control variable. Further, we tested the mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 3b, and 4b) by means of regression analyses, with stakeholder viewpoint as a control variable next to the independent variable of stakeholder trustworthiness.