Taking a stance on the role of nuclear energy to combat the climate crisis: how communication task and expert’s personal stance impact individuals' intellectual humility and strategies for dealing with a complex topic

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of hypotheses and research questions

Hypothesis and research questions	Dependent variables	N of items
H1a: Topic-specific intellectual humility is higher when the expert does not take a stance in comparison to when she does.	Topic-specific intellectual humility (Hoyle et al., 2016)	9
H1b: Topic-specific intellectual humility is higher when individuals have to inform another person after reading the text without a stance.	Topic-specific intellectual humility (Hoyle et al., 2016)	9
H2a: Individuals rely on their own intuition more when they read that an expert has taken a stance on the issue of nuclear energy.	STRATEGI (Kienhues et al., 2019)	15
H2b: Individuals rely on their own intuition more when they have to persuade another person after reading that an expert has taken a stance.	STRATEGI (Kienhues et al., 2019)	15
RQ1: How are first- and second-hand strategies affected by an expert taking a stance and a subsequent communication task?	STRATEGI (Kienhues et al., 2019)	15
H3a: The solution is perceived as easier when individuals read that an expert has taken a stance on the issue of nuclear energy.	Easiness of a solution	1
H3b: The solution is perceived as easier when individuals must persuade another person after reading that an expert has taken a stance on the issue of nuclear energy.	Easiness of a solution	1
RQ2: How is individuals’ willingness to act against nuclear energy affected by an expert taking a stance against nuclear energy, and a subsequent communication task?	Willigness to act	4
H4: Individuals write more arguments from the opposite site and more factual information when they are instructed to inform.	Willigness to act	4
RQ3: How is individuals’ use of opposing arguments and factual information affected by an expert taking a stance?	Qualitative analysis of written text	/

Table 2. Coding scheme tenor of argumentation

CODE NAME	Description	Examples
Supporting nuclear energy	The number of times a pro-nuclear energy argument was used	Less CO2 emissions, nuclear energy is safe
Opposing nuclear energy	The number of times a contra-nuclear energy argument was used	Nuclear energy causes deadly accidents, nuclear waste is dangerous for the environment
Factual arguments / Scientific and objective arguments	The number of times factual and objective information was used	There is enough uranium for 80 more years, radioactivity causes cancer

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the dependent variables by taking a stance and communication task

Dependent Variable	Taking a stance		Not taking a stance
	Explanation	Persuasion	Explanation	Persuasion
Unambiguousness of solution	3.38 (1.27)	3.86 (1.24)	3.07 (1)	3.11 (1.16)
Intellectual Humility	3.97 (0.84)	4.08 (0.95)	4.19 (0.86)	4.40 (0.81)
Strategies
Reliability evaluation	4.49 (0.87)	4.40 (0.74)	4.52 (0.84)	4.51 (0.92)
Source evaluation	4.50 (0.97)	4.45 (0.93)	4.65 (0.88)	4.59 (0.82)
Expert deference	3.83 (0.87)	3.80 (0.92)	3.95 (0.93)	4.08 (0.86)
Own reliance Searching for information	2.67 (1.03) 4.91 (0.72)	2.79 (0.98) 4.86 (0.69)	2.91 (1.14) 4.88 (0.83)	2.73 (0.86) 4.88 (0.69)
Willingness to act	4.78 (0.89)	4.49 (0.91)	4.47 (0.94)	4.19 (1.13)
Argumentation
Supporting arguments	1.50 (0.96)	0.96 (0.97)	1.85 (1.00)	1.46 (0.99)
Opposing arguments	0.96 (0.13)	0.96 (0.97)	1.00 (0.12)	1.46 (0.99)
Factual information	1.42 (0.19)	2.64 (1.21)	1.43 (0.17)	2.84 (1.45)

Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Figure 1. Comparison of intellectual humility rate by experimental condition.

The dashed lines represent the model without covariates. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 2. Comparison of perception of a single simple solution by experimental condition.

The dashed lines represent the model without covariates. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 3. Comparison of the willingness to act by experimental condition.

The dashed lines represent the model without covariates. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 4. Frequency of different argumentation codes by experimental condition.

Error bars represent standard errors.

Hoyle, R. H., Davisson, E. K., Diebels, K. J., & Leary, M. R. (2016). Holding specific views with humility: Conceptualization and measurement of specific intellectual humility. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 165–172. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.043

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kienhues, D., Hendriks, F., & Bromme, R. (2019, August). Identifying strategies in dealing with science-based information. [Paper presentation]. 18th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Aachen, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study and the R code of the analyses are available in the OSF project repository (https://osf.io/vepsw/).