Supplemental Material

Study 1

Method

For additional moderation analyses, participants filled out several questionnaires

during the experiment. The questionnaires that participants answered after the filler task were

the tolerance of uncertainty questionnaire (Dalbert, 2002, Cronbach’s = .34) and the short

version of the need for cognitive closure scale (Schlink & Walther, 2007, Cronbach’s

= .84). Due to its poor reliability, the tolerance of uncertainty scale was not used for further

analyses.

In the second part of the study one week later, participants’ connotative aspects of

epistemological beliefs (CAEB) regarding knowledge about personality judgments were

measured with the questionnaire by Stahl and Bromme (2007). Ten items measure

epistemological beliefs regarding the texture of knowledge (e.g. subjective vs. objective,

Cronbach’s = .89) and seven items measure epistemological beliefs regarding the variability

of knowledge (e.g. stable vs. instable, Cronbach’s = .67). Since overall reliability was

sufficiently high (Cronbach’s = .83), the two subscales were integrated in a single measure

representing a scale ranging from more naïve (objective and stable) to more sophisticated

(subjective and variable) beliefs.

Materials

Original text in German.

Im Rahmen eines größeren Forschungsprojekts der Universität XX1 untersuchen wir

seit Juni 2014 eine Gruppe von 20 Freiwilligen näher in ihrem Sozial- und Freizeitverhalten.

Hierfür wurden die Teilnehmer in Kleingruppen von 5 Personen aufgeteilt.

1 The name of the city was removed for the reviewing process.

Im Folgenden werden Sie einen Text über einen der anderen Gruppenteilnehmer lesen,

der innerhalb des Projekts entstanden ist. Der Name dieses Teilnehmers, ihrer Zielperson, ist

Michael. Ihre Aufgabe wird es sein, eine Personenbeschreibung zu erstellen, nach der Michael

von jemandem identifiziert werden kann/ Ihre Aufgabe wird es sein, eine möglichst

diagnostisch korrekte Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung der Stimulusperson zu erstellen.

Ihr Adressat ist Julia/Dr. Julia Müller. Julia ist Germanistikstudentin/ Personal- und

Wirtschaftspsychologin an der Universität XX. Sie sitzt gerade in einem anderen Labor der

Universität XX. Dort empfängt sie die Beschreibung von Versuchspersonen wie Ihnen.

Julia/Dr. Julia Müller kennt Michael persönlich. Verwenden Sie Michaels Namen deswegen

auf keinen Fall in Ihrer Beschreibung. Julia/Dr. Julia Müller hat in einem Gruppenexperiment

bereits einen ganzen Tag mit Michael verbracht. So konnte Sie sich eine Meinung über

Michael bilden.

[…]Teilen Sie nun bitte Julia/Dr. Julia Müller mit, was Sie über Michael wissen.

Denken Sie dabei daran, Michaels Namen nicht zu erwähnen. Wie anfangs bereits erwähnt, ist

Ihre Aufgabe eine Persönlichkeitskeitsbeschreibung zu erstellen, nach der Julia Michael

identifizieren kann./Wie anfangs bereits erwähnt, ist Ihre Aufgabe eine möglichst

diagnostisch korrekte Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung von Michael zu erstellen.

English translation.

As part of a larger research project at the University of XX, we have been

investigating a group of 20 volunteers since June 2014 in their social and recreational

behavior. For this the participants were divided into small groups of 5 persons.

Below you will read a text about one of the other participants that was written within

the project. The name of this participant, your target person, is Michael. Your task will be to

create a person description that allows someone else to identify Michael/ Your task will be to

create a diagnostically correct personality description of the target person.

Your audience is Julia/Dr. Julia Müller. Julia is a German literature student /personnel

psychologist at the University of XX. She is currently sitting in another laboratory of the

University of XX. There she receives the description from study participants like you.

Julia/Dr. Julia Müller knows Michael personally. Therefore, do not use Michaels name in

your description. Julia/Dr. Julia Müller has already spent a whole day with Michael in a group

experiment. Thus she could form an opinion about Michael.

[…]Please tell Julia/Dr. Julia Müller now what you know about Michael. Remember

not to mention Michael's name. As mentioned earlier, your job is to create a person

description that allows Julia to identify Michael./As mentioned earlier, your task is to create a

diagnostically correct personality description of Michael.

Explicit opinion scale – Original German version.

Bitte bewerten Sie Michael hinsichtlich der unten dargestellten Eigenschaften und

ordnen Sie ihn nach Ihrer Meinung auf der Skala an.

ehrlich vs. überheblich

stur vs. selbstständig

besserwisserisch vs. kultiviert

sparsam vs. geizig

pedantisch vs. ordentlich

abenteuerlustig vs. lebensmüde

gepflegt vs. eitel

sarkastisch vs. lustig

idealistisch vs. unrealistisch

kultiviert vs. eingebildet

Explicit opinion scale – English translation.

Please rate Michael regarding the characteristics presented below and place him

according to your opinion on the scale.

• honest vs. arrogant

• stubborn vs. independent

• know-it-all vs. sophisticated

• economical vs. stingy

• pedantic vs. orderly

• adventurous vs. suicidal

• well-groomed vs. vain

• sarcastic vs. funny

• idealistic vs. unrealistic

• sophisticated vs. conceited

Results

Message and recall valence.

Table S1

Experiment 1: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of message valence as a function

of audience attitude, audience expertise, and framing

Non-scientific framing Scientific framingAudience expertise

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Expertaudience 0.47 (1.77) -0.21 (1.52) -0.03 (2.12) -0.65 (1.16)Lay person audience 0.84 (1.35) 0.34 (1.15) 1.29 (0.83) -0.50 (2.18)

Table S2

Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of recall valence in Session 1 (Experiment 1) as a

function of audience’s expertise, audience attitude, and framing

Non-scientific framing Scientific framingAudience expertise

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Expertaudience 0.49 (1.39) 0.12 (1.41) 0.87 (1.09) -0.06 (1.16)Lay person audience 0.39 (1.36) 0.75 (0.95) 0.51 (1.39) 0.82 (1.28)

Moderation analyses regarding recall valence.

Because we tested two moderators (need for cognitive closure and CAEB), we applied

the Bonferroni correction so that the alpha level was set to p = .025. There was no moderating

effect by need for cognitive closure on recall valence, ts < 1, ps > .39. There was, however, a

significant three-way interaction of CAEB, audience attitude and audience expertise, b = -

5.10, t(64) = -2.82, p = .006, see Figure S1. For participants with more sophisticated beliefs

regarding knowledge about personality judgments (M +1 SD), there was no interaction effect

of audience’s attitude and audience’s expertise, b = 2.30, t(64) = 1.88, p = .07. There was also

no main effect of audience’s attitude or audience’s expertise, ts < 1.60, ps > .11. For

participants with more naïve beliefs regarding knowledge about personality judgments (M – 1

SD), there was however a significant interaction of audience’s attitude and audience’s

expertise, b = -4.03, t(64) = -2.53, p = .014, indicating that those participants showed an

audience tuning memory bias when communicating with an expert audience, b = 3.65, t(30) =

2.73, p = .011, but not when communicating with a lay person audience, b = -0.33, t(34) = -

0.52, p = .61.

There were also significant interaction effects between CAEB, audience expertise, and

framing, b = -4.83, t(64) = -2.93, p = .006, between CAEB and framing,, b = 4.69, t(64) =

3.34, p = .001, CAEB and audience attitude, b = 3.75, t(64) = 2.48, p = .016, and CAEB and

audience expertise, b = 4.51, t(64) = 3.26, p = .002. There were also significant main effects

of CAEB, b = -4.54, t(64) = 3.53, p < .001, and audience expertise, b = 1.54, t(64) = 2.49, p

= .015.

Figure S1. Recall valence (Study 1) as a function of the audience’s expertise, audience

attitude and CAEB (from naïve to sophisticated beliefs). Grey areas represent 95% CIs.

Exploratory analyses: Accuracy

Method.

Accurate rehearsal and retrieval of the original stimulus information may limit or

reduce the audience-congruent memory bias (see Echterhoff, Higgins, Kopietz, & Groll,

2008, 2008; Kopietz, Hellmann, Higgins, & Echterhoff, 2010). Message production allows

participants to rehearse or reactivate the original target material, and a reduced audience-

attitude effect on recall could be due to more accurate memory for the material. To control for

this possibility, we assessed the accuracy of both rehearsal (i.e., message accuracy) and

retrieval (i.e., recall accuracy). Two independent raters counted the number of accurate

reproductions in the message protocols and free-recall protocols (from both Session 1 and

Session 2). As in several previous saying-is-believing studies (e.g., Echterhoff et al., 2008;

Hellmann, Echterhoff , Kopietz, Niemeier, & Memon, 2011; Kopietz, Echterhoff, Niemeier,

Hellmann, & Memon, 2009; Kopietz et al., 2010), we scored as accurate reproductions idea

units that preserved the propositional content of an idea unit from the original target essay

(see Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). For instance, the idea unit Michael tries to avoid spending

money was scored as an accurate reproduction of the proposition Michael tries to save money

from the original essay. Again, the intercoder correlations were sufficiently high, r(128) = .78

for the message, and r(127) = .80, and r(75) = .84, for recall at Session 1 and Session 2,

respectively.

Results.

There were no significant differences between conditions in the number of accurate

details in the message to the audience, all Fs < 1.25, all ps > .265, and the number of accurate

details in the message did not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, r(126)

= .035, p = .695.

For both the short- and the long-delay sessions, there were no significant differences

between conditions in the number of accurately remembered details in the free-recall

protocols, all Fs < 2.76, all ps > .099, and the number of accurately remembered details did

not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, ps > .07.

Pretest Study 2

Method

For Study 2, we conducted a pretest to find a) a topic in which participants did not

have too much previous knowledge and b) an ambiguous text about that topic. The sample for

the pretest consisted of N = 66 participants (mean age = 27.91, SD = 8.29; 33 female, 19 male,

one undefined, 13 no answer). In the beginning, all participants rated their knowledge (on 7-

point Likert scales from “no knowledge” to “a lot of knowledge”) about eight topics, i.e. the

possibility to cure allergies, man-made climate change, the harmfulness of mobile phone

radiation, the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet, the harmfulness of vaccines, the existence of a

free will, the utility of biofuel, and the utility of eye laser treatment. Afterwards, participants

rated how often they talked about those topics (from 1 = “never” to 7 = “very often”), and

were asked about their evaluation of the topics on a 7-point Likert scale with the opposing

positions as end points (e.g. “Man-made climate change does definitely not exist” and “Man-

made climate change definitely exists”). For each evaluation, participants also rated their

confidence in their answer (from 1 = “not confident at all” to 7 = “very confident”).

Participants were then presented with texts about two of the seven topics that were randomly

chosen. After reading the first text, participants rated how much the text supported each of the

two opposing positions (e.g. “How much does the text present arguments for man-made

climate change?” and “How much does the text present arguments against man-made climate

change?”), and which position the text supported more (e.g. “Which position does the text

predominantly support?”, rated 1 = “man-made climate change exists”; 2 = “man-made

climate does not exist”; 3 = “both positions equally”). Additionally, participants rated the

text’s unambiguousness (“How unambiguously does the text predominantly support one of

the two positions?”, from 1 = “not unambiguously at all” to 7 = “very unambiguously”).

Afterwards, they rated how interesting it was, how plausible its arguments were, how

complex the text was, and how relevant the topic was to them (all items were answered on 7-

point Likert scales). Because these ratings are not relevant for the current study, they are not

reported in the results section. Participants then read the second randomly chosen text and

rated it on the same dimensions as the first text. In the end, we assessed participants’

demographics, debriefed and thanked them and gave them the opportunity to win one of three

vouchers for an online-shop worth 20€ each.

Results

Participants reported having the lowest knowledge regarding the utility of biofuel (M =

3.30, SD = 1.49), which was significantly less than their knowledge about the possibility to

cure allergies (M = 4.38, SD = 1.43), t(65) = 4.97, p < .001, man-made climate change (M =

4.86, SD = 1.46), t(65) = 7.70, p < .001, the harmfulness of mobile phone radiation (M = 4.02,

SD = 1.34), t(65) = 3.56, p < .001, the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet (M = 5.12, SD = 1.42),

t(65) = 7.66, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M = 4.45, SD = 1.59), t(65) = 4.75, p

< .001, and the existence of a free will (M = 5.00, SD = 1.55), t(65) = 7.12, p < .001. The only

topic that did not differ significantly regarding participants’ knowledge was the utility of eye

laser treatment (M = 3.42, SD = 1.66), t(65) = 0.46, p = .636.

Participants also rated the utility of biofuel as being the topic they least talked about

(M = 2.27, SD = 1.40), which was significantly less than their frequency of talking about man-

made climate change (M = 3.89, SD = 1.61), t(65) = 8.86, p < .001, the harmfulness of a

vegetarian diet (M = 4.21, SD = 1.67), t(65) = 7.54, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M

= 3.06, SD = 1.77), t(65) = 3.24, p = .002, and the existence of a free will (M = 3.82, SD =

1.81), t(65) = 6.00, p < .001. The comparison with the topic “the possibility to cure allergies”

was marginally significant (M = 2.73, SD = 1.61), t(65) = 1.86, p = .067. The frequency of

talking about the utility of biofuel did not differ significantly from the frequency of talking

about the harmfulness of mobile phone radiation (M = 2.52, SD = 1.45), t(65) = 1.20, p

= .236, and the utility of eye laser treatment (M = 2.36, SD = 1.51), t(65) = 0.34, p = .733.

Participants were also least confident in their opinion about the utility of biofuel (M =

3.79, SD = 1.76), which was significantly less than their confidence in their opinion about the

possibility to cure allergies (M = 4.86, SD = 1.51), t(65) = 4.01, p < .001, man-made climate

change (M = 5.52, SD = 1.58), t(65) = 7.86, p < .001, the harmfulness of mobile phone

radiation (M = 4.39, SD = 1.41), t(65) = 2.94, p = .004), the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet

(M = 5.92, SD = 1.35), t(65) = 9.11, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M = 5.05, SD =

1.71), t(65) = 5.27, p < .001, and the existence of a free will (M = 5.00, SD = 1.66), t(65) =

4.75, p < .001. Participants’ confidence in their opinion about the utility of biofuel did no

differ significantly from their confidence in their opinion about the utility of eye laser

treatment (M = 4.12, SD = 1.93), t(65) = 1.19, p = .237.

The text about biofuel was rated as equally supporting the position that biofuel can

slow down climate change (M = 3.73, SD = 1.49) and the position that biofuel cannot slow

down climate change (M = 3.80, SD = 1.52), t(14) = 0.09, p = .931. Five participants

answered that the text was more supportive of the position that biofuel can slow down climate

change, four participants stated that the text was more supportive of the position that biofuel

cannot slow down climate change and six participants answered that the text supported both

positions equally. The rating of the text’s unambiguousness was descriptively lowest for the

text about biofuel (M = 3.57, SD = 1.90), but did not differ significantly from the perceived

unambiguousness of the other texts (3.60 ≤ M ≤ 4.90), all ts < 1.73, all ps > .123. Taken

together, on the basis of these data we considered the text about biofuel to be most suited for

this study.

Study 2

Method

Participants rated how certain they were regarding each statement about biofuel

(Cronbach’s = .91) and answered two questions regarding their desire to hear an expert’s

opinion on the topic (r = .55). The questionnaires that participants answered after the filler

task were again the tolerance of uncertainty questionnaire (Dalbert, 2002, Cronbach’s = .73)

and the short version of the need for cognitive closure scale (Schlink & Walther, 2007,

Cronbach’s = .80).

In the second part of the study, participants’ connotative aspects of epistemological

beliefs (CAEB; Stahl & Bromme, 2007) regarding knowledge about biofuel were measured

(Cronbach’s = .83) after the assessment of the memory for the original information.

Materials

Text about biofuels – Original text in German.

Biotreibstoffe – Aktionismus als Reaktion auf Klimawandel oder tatsächlich Bremse?

Die letzten Jahre zeigen deutlich, dass die Menschheit ihre Abhängigkeit von Erdöl

und Kohle verringern muss. Die Verwendung von Erdöl und Kohle schränkt aufgrund der

Abhängigkeit von importierten Rohstoffen den politischen Handlungsspielraum ein und

verursacht durch die knapper werdenden Ressourcen immer mehr Konflikte. Neuartige,

alternative Energiequellen sind gefragt, denn auf Mobilität und Wärme will keiner verzichten.

So galten lange Zeit pflanzlich erzeugte Treibstoffe, auch bekannt als Biotreibstoffe, als die

„saubere“ Lösung all unserer Energieprobleme.

Bioenergien können in erheblichem Maße helfen, Emissionen von Treibhausgasen zu

reduzieren, auch wenn die Kohlendioxidbilanz nicht vollständig neutral sein wird. Die

Nutzung von Biomasse ermöglicht auch einen geschlossenen Nährstoffkreislauf. Das

Verteilen von Gärresten, die bei der Verarbeitung von Biomasse zu Treibstoffen auf den

Feldern entstehen, geben dem Boden wieder Nährstoffe zurück – diese sind von den Pflanzen

sogar besser aufzunehmen als aus dem unvergorenen Material. Eine solche

Kreislaufwirtschaft verringert den Einsatz von synthetischen Düngemitteln, deren Herstellung

und Transport einigen Energieaufwand erfordert und die Produktion von Treibhausgasen

durch die Maschinen mit sich bringt. Dadurch sind im Sinne des Klimaschutzes doppelte

Einsparungen von Kohlendioxid und Energie möglich.

Auslöser für den Boom um die Biotreibstoffe ist ein Paradoxon: Die Industriestaaten

nehmen endlich den von Menschen gemachten Klimawandel ernst. Doch Halbwissen

verursacht Aktionismus, der schwerwiegende Folgen mit sich bringt. Viele Staaten haben

Quoten eingeführt, die den Gebrauch von Biokraftstoffen fördern sollen. Ferner soll nach dem

Bundesemmissionsschutzgesetz im Sinne des Klimaschutzes die Beimischung von

Biotreibstoffen in Benzin und Diesel europaweit gesteigert werden. Erst einmal ein guter

Ansatz. Doch damit werden die durch den Konsum verursachten Umweltprobleme auf

Regenwaldländer abgewälzt. Denn aufgrund des hohen Flächenbedarfs für den Anbau von

Biomasse muss die natürliche Vegetation weichen.

Ist das Verfahren jedoch erst einmal vollständig ausgereift, reichen relativ kleine

Anbauflächen für viel Energie aus. Zudem gibt es immer noch genug Flächen für den Anbau.

Allein Brasilien kann die Anbaufläche verdoppeln, ohne dass dabei der Regenwald abgeholzt

werden muss. Auch die deutsche Landwirtschaft hat genug Kapazitäten, um vier Fünftel des

Rohmaterials für den deutschen Biotreibstoff herzustellen.

Allerdings stellt nicht nur der Verlust artenreicher Lebensräume beim Anbau von

Biomasse ein großes Problem dar. Auch aus rein klimatechnischen Gründen ist die

Vernichtung der Regenwälder ein großes Problem, belegt Prof. Dr. Peter Krübel vom

Fraunhofer-Institut. Bei der Rodung brasilianischer Regen- oder indonesischer Sumpfwälder

zum Anbau von Biomasse, entsteht zwischen 17- bis 423-mal so viel Kohlendioxid, wie

jährlich durch den auf diesem Land gewonnenen Treibstoff eingespart werden soll.

Befürworter sind dieser Studie gegenüber kritisch und argumentieren damit, dass bei

der Verbrennung von pflanzlichen Energieträgern nur so viel Kohlendioxid freigesetzt wird,

wie die Pflanze im Laufe ihres Wachstums aufgenommen hat. Diese Menge an Kohlendioxid

würde zudem genauso in die Atmosphäre abgegeben werden, wenn die Biomasse auf

natürlichem Wege in der Natur verrotten und durch Mikroorganismen zersetzt werden würde.

Wissenschaftler fanden jedoch heraus, dass bei der Züchtung von Biotreibstoffen

durch die Verwendung von mineralischem Dünger und Pestiziden sowie durch Überdüngung

enorme Mengen an Stickstoffgasen – hochaktive Treibhausgase – aus den Böden freigesetzt

werden. Diese beschleunigen den Abbau der Ozonschicht und bewirken eine Versauerung des

Regens. Dadurch wird das, was der Gebrauch von Biotreibstoffen an Kohlendioxid einspart,

allein schon durch den hohen Flächenverbrauch und den intensiven Einsatz von Düngern und

Pflanzenschutzmitteln aufgehoben. Durch die Verwendung von Maschinen und Dünger beim

Anbau reduziert sich neben der Klimabilanz auch die Energiebilanz des gewonnenen

Treibstoffs drastisch.

Bisher erscheint es nicht möglich, pflanzlich erzeugte Kraftstoffe mit möglichst wenig

Energieaufwand zu gewinnen, Flächen nachhaltig und effektiv zu nutzen und die

Nahrungsmittelversorgung gebührend zu berücksichtigen. Solange diese Probleme nicht

bewältigt wurden, darf die Nahrung dieser Welt und ihr Umweltschutz nicht zum Auspuff

hinausgepustet werden.

Text about biofuels – English translation.

Biofuels – actionism in reaction to climate change or can they really slow it down?

The last years clearly show that humanity has to decrease their dependency on oil and

coal. Usage of oil and coal is, due to the dependency on imported resources, limiting the

political scope of actions and leading to more and more conflicts as resources become scarce.

New alternative sources of energy are needed as nobody wants to dispense with

mobility or warmth. For a long time, plant-based fuels, also known as biofuels, were

considered to be the “clean” solution to all of our energy problems.

Biofuels can help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to a considerable extend,

even if the carbon dioxide emission won’t be completely neutral. The use of biomass enables

a closed nutrient cycle. Distribution of digestate, that arises when processing biomass to

biofuels on fields, provides nutrient to the soil - those nutrient are even better absorbed by

plants than unfermented material. Such circular economy lowers the use of synthetic

fertilizers. As the production and transportation of synthetic fertilizers would otherwise

require a lot of energy and release many greenhouse gases through the machines, savings of

energy and carbon dioxide can be doubled.

Trigger for the biofuel-boom is a paradox: Industrial countries are finally taking the

man-made climate change seriously. But superficial knowledge leads to activism with serious

consequences. Many states have introduced quotas that should promote the use of biofuels.

Furthermore, according to the Federal Emission Control Act in sense of climate protection,

the blending of biofuels into gasoline and diesel should be increased across Europe. This is a

good starting point. But by that, climate problems caused by consumption are passed on to

rainforests countries. Due to the large need of area required for the cultivation of biomass, the

natural vegetation has to give way.

Yet, once the process is fully developed, relatively small areas are sufficient for

cultivation to gain a lot of energy. In addition, there are still enough areas for cultivation.

Brazil alone could double the acreage without deforestation of their rainforest. German

agriculture also has enough capacities to produce four fifths of raw materials for German

biofuels.

However, the loss of species-rich habitats isn’t the only problem when producing

biofuels. The climate change as a result of the destruction of rainforest is a big problem too,

explains Prof. Dr. Peter Krübel of the Frauenhofer institute. Deforestation of Brazilian

rainforests or Indonesian swamp forests for the cultivation of biomass would produce between

17 and 423 times as much carbon dioxide as could be saved annually with the produced fuel

in those countries.

Supporters are skeptical about this study and argue that emissions of carbon dioxides

that arise at the combustion of vegetable energy sources are just as high as the carbon dioxide

that has been absorbed in the course of its growths. That amount of carbon dioxide would also

be released into the atmosphere if the biomass rotted naturally or was decomposed by

microorganisms.

However, scientists found because of the use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides, as

well as over-fertilization during the production of biofuels, enormous amounts of nitrogen

gases - highly active greenhouse gases - are released from the soil. These highly active

greenhouse gases accelerate the destruction of the ozone layer and favor acidification of rain.

By that, all savings achieved by the use of biofuels are canceled out by the high land

consumption and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides. The use of machines and

fertilizers during the cultivation furthermore reduces the climate and energy balance of

produced fuel drastically.

So far it doesn’t seem possible to produce herbal fuels without a lot of energy, use

areas effectively and sustainably and consider the food supply adequately. As long as these

problems aren't solved, our world’s food and its climate protection must not be blown out of

the exhaust pipe.

Positive statement about biofuels – Original text in German.

Aufgrund des immer größer werdenden Bedarfs an Mobilität und der daraus

resultierenden höheren Kohlendioxidbelastung, kann nur die Investition in pflanzlich erzeugte

Treibstoffe eine Möglichkeit sein, die Erderwärmung zu stoppen. Durch die Verwendung

brachliegender Flächen führen pflanzlich erzeugte Treibstoffe zusätzlich auch lokal zu einem

Aufschwung in der Landwirtschaft. So können Kleinbauern von dem Anbau von Pflanzen für

Bioenergie profitieren und sich durch den Anbau eines Drittels der Biomasse selbstständig

ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen. Die Herstellung von Biomasse stellt so ein zentrales zweites

Standbein dar. Dadurch kann der ländliche Raum gestärkt und eine Landflucht verhindert

werden. Die Verwendung von Biotreibstoffen ist daher zu befürworten.

Positive statement about biofuels –English translation.

Due to the ever-increasing demand for mobility and the resulting higher carbon

dioxide levels, only the investment in biofuels can be a way to stop global warming. By using

wasteland the production of biofuels also leads to an upswing in local agriculture. Thereby,

small farmers can benefit from planting bioenergy crops and make a living independently by

growing one third of the biomass. The production of biomass is thus a central second pillar.

This can strengthen rural areas and prevent a rural exodus. The use of biofuel should thus be

endorsed.

Negative statement about biofuels – Original text in German.

Die westlichen Länder rauben durch die Verwendung von Nutzpflanzen zur

Treibstoffgewinnung den Armen des Südens die Nahrung. Obwohl 800 Millionen Menschen

auf der Welt bereits hungern, nutzen wir das globale Wachstum im Getreideanbau, um den

Bedürfnissen derjenigen nachzukommen, die die größere Kaufkraft besitzen. Und die wollen

nun mal ihre Autos damit füttern. Es kommt zu einer scharfen Konkurrenz zwischen

Nahrungsmittel- und Treibstofferzeugung, da Biokraftstoffe mittlerweile von Industrieländern

gewinnbringender abgekauft werden. Ausbeutung und Hungerlöhne der Arbeiter machen dort

angebaute Biomasse zu einem günstigen Produkt. Die Verwendung von Biotreibstoffen ist

daher abzulehnen.

Negative statement about biofuels – English translation.

The western countries are robbing the food of poor people in the South by using crops

for fuel. Although 800 million people in the world are already starving, we use global crop

growth to meet the needs of those with greater purchasing power. And they want to feed their

cars with it. There is fierce competition between food and fuel production as biofuels are now

being bought more profitably by developed countries. Exploitation and starvation wages of

the workers make biomass grown there a cheap product. The use of biofuel should thus be

dismissed.

Instructions self-disclosure condition – Original text in German.

Bevor es aber losgeht, möchten wir, dass Sie und Thomas/Dr. Schreiber sich etwas

besser kennen lernen. Hierzu hat Thomas/Dr. Schreiber in der Vorbereitung einen Text über

sich formuliert, indem er sich vorstellen möchte. Sie werden im Anschluss an seine

Vorstellung auch die Möglichkeit dazu bekommen, sich selbst kurz vorzustellen.

Instructions self-disclosure condition – English translation.

Before we start, we want you and Thomas/Dr. Schreiber to get to know each other a

little better. For this purpose, in preparation for this study, Thomas/Dr. Schreiber has written a

text about himself in which he wants to introduce himself. After having read his introduction,

you will also get the opportunity to shortly introduce yourself.

Instructions other-disclosure condition – Original text in German.

Bevor es aber losgeht, möchten wir, dass Sie und Thomas/Dr. Schreiber ihr jeweiliges

Umfeld etwas besser kennen lernen. Hierzu hat Thomas/Dr.Schreiber in der Vorbereitung

einen Text über einen Kommilitonen/Kollegen formuliert. Sie werden im Anschluss an seine

Vorstellung auch die Möglichkeit dazu bekommen, einen Kommilitonen vorzustellen.

Instructions other-disclosure condition – English translation.

Before we start, we want you and Thomas/Dr. Schreiber to get to know each other’s

environment a little better. For this purpose, in preparation for this study, Thomas/Dr.

Schreiber has written a text about a classmate/colleague. After having read his introduction,

you will also get the opportunity to shortly introduce a classmate of yours.

Self-disclosure text – Original text in German.

Mein Name ist Thomas Schreiber. Ich bin in Trier geboren und aufgewachsen und bin

nun seit 6 Jahren in XX. Ich lebe sehr gerne in XX, da es hier ein sehr großes Freizeitangebot

gibt und ich zudem die Mobilität des Fahrradfahrens sehr an XX schätze. Vor allem als ich

neu hierher kam, hatte ich Ängste, ob ich Anschluss finde und ich mich schnell zu Recht

finden kann. Diese Ängste haben mir den Start hier nicht sehr leicht gemacht, weil ich mich

zunächst sehr häufig nur in meiner Wohnung aufgehalten habe. Mittlerweile habe ich aber das

Gefühl hier angekommen zu sein und könnte mir gar nicht mehr vorstellen, wo anders zu

leben. Wenn ich nicht gerade zur Uni gehe/an der Universität forsche, spiele ich Badminton

und gehe gerne ins Kino.

Self-disclosure text – English translation.

My name is Thomas Schreiber. I was born and raised in Trier and have lived in XX for

6 years now. I really like to live in XX, because there are a lot of leisure facilities and I

appreciate the mobility of cycling in XX a lot. Especially when I moved here, I was worried if

I would make friends and would get along here quickly. These fears did not make it very easy

for me to start here because at first I often stayed in my apartment only. Now, I have the

feeling to have fully arrived here and could not imagine living anywhere else. When I'm not

going to/doing research at the university, I play badminton and like to go to the movies.

Other-disclosure text – Original text in German.

Mein Kommilitone/Kollege ist in Trier geboren und aufgewachsen und ist nun seit 6

Jahren in XX. Er lebt sehr gerne in XX, da es hier ein sehr großes Freizeitangebot gibt und er

zudem die Mobilität des Fahrradfahrens sehr an XX schätzt. Vor allem als er neu hierher kam,

hatte er Ängste, ob er Anschluss findet und er sich schnell zu Recht finden kann. Diese

Ängste haben ihm den Start hier nicht sehr leicht gemacht, weil er sich zunächst sehr häufig

nur in seiner Wohnung aufgehalten hat. Mittlerweile hat er aber das Gefühl hier angekommen

zu sein und könnte sich gar nicht mehr vorstellen, wo anders zu leben. Wenn er nicht gerade

zur Uni geht/an der Universität forscht, spielt er Badminton und geht gerne ins Kino.

Other-disclosure text – English translation.

My classmate/colleague was born and raised in Trier and has lived in XX for 6 years

now. He really likes to live in XX, because there are a lot of leisure facilities and he

appreciates the mobility of cycling in XX a lot. Especially when he moved here, he was

worried if he would make friends and would get along here quickly. These fears did not make

it very easy for him to start here because at first he often stayed in his apartment only. Now,

he has the feeling to have fully arrived here and could not imagine living anywhere else.

When he’s not going to/doing research at the university, he plays badminton and likes to go to

the movies.

Instruction communication task – Original text in German.

Für die Beschäftigung mit der Sinnhaftigkeit von Biotreibstoffen wird Ihnen nun ein

Text zu dem Thema präsentiert. Daraufhin werden Sie Ihrem Gesprächspartner mitteilen, was

Sie über das Thema wissen. Ihre Antworten werden dabei direkt an Ihren Gesprächspartner

übermittelt.

Instruction communication task – English translation.

In order to think about the usefulness of biofuels, a text on the topic will now be

presented to you. Afterwards you will tell your conversation partner what you know about the

topic. Your answers will be transmitted directly to your conversation partner.

Explicit opinion scale – Original German version.

Ich habe Angst vor den ökologischen Folgen von Biotreibstoffen.

Die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen hat positive Folgen für die Umwelt.

Ich halte die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen für sinnvoll.

Ich halte die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen nicht für sinnvoll.

Unter Berücksichtigung aller mir bekannter Aspekte ist die Nutzung

von Biotreibstoffen eher negativ zu bewerten.

Unter Berücksichtigung aller mir bekannter Aspekte ist die Nutzung

von Biotreibstoffen eher positiv zu bewerten.

Explicit opinion scale – English translation.

I am worried about the ecological consequences of biofuels.

Using biofuel has a positive impact on the environment.

I think the use of biofuels makes sense.

I do not think it makes sense to use biofuels.

Taking into account all aspects known to me, the use of biofuels must

be evaluated rather negatively.

Taking into account all aspects known to me, the use of biofuels must

be evaluated rather positively.

Results

Message and recall valence.

Table S3

Experiment 2: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of message valence as a function

of audience attitude, audience expertise, and disclosure

Self-disclosure Other-disclosure

Audienceexpertise

Positive attitude

Negative attitude

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Expert oncurrent topic -0.46 (1.74) -1.27 (1.33) -0.13 (1.68) -0.64 (1.39)Expert on different topic 0.57 (1.18) -1.36 (1.59) -0.95 (1.35) -0.64 (1.34)

Lay non-expert -1.17 (1.68) -0.25 (0.94) -0.73 (1.56) 0.21 (1.84)

Table S4

Experiment 2: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of recall valence in Session 1 as a

function of audience attitude, audience expertise, and disclosure

Self-disclosure Other-disclosure

Audienceexpertise

Positive attitude

Negative attitude

Positiveattitude

Negative attitude

Expert oncurrent topic -0.38 (1.68) -0.77 (1.68) 0.40 (1.38) -0.89 (1.58)Expert on different topic 0.07 (0.98) -0.89 (1.64) -0.50 (1.69) -0.11 (1.43)

Lay non-expert -1.12 (1.64) 0.14 (1.05) -0.68 (1.55) -0.17 (1.75)

We ran exploratory analyses to examine possible differences in the audience-

congruent memory bias between specific audience and self-disclosure conditions. The greatest

mean difference between the positive and negative audience-attitude conditions emerged in in

the self-disclosure, expert-on-different topic condition. In this specific condition, audience

attitude has a significant effect on recall valence, t(27) = 1.93, p = .032, d = 0.72. However,

the interaction effect of audience attitude and disclosure within the expert-on-different-topic

condition failed to reach significance, F(1,50) =2.94, p = .093.

In the expert-on-current-topic condition, we found a main effect of audience attitude,

F(1,50) = 4.23, p = .043, which is in line with the simple main effect described in the

manuscript. There was no main or interaction effect of self-disclosure in this condition, Fs <

1.10, ps > .30.

Taken together, the evidence is not sufficiently strong to conclude that there actually

was a greater memory bias under self-disclosure (vs. other-disclosure) in the expert-on-

different topic condition. Future research is needed to examine the possible interaction

between relational motivation (via self-disclosure) and epistemic authority (via topic-specific

expertise) in the present paradigm.

Certainty about explicit opinion and desire for an expert’s opinion.

There were no main or interaction effects of the independent variables on both

participants’ certainty about their opinion on bio fuel, Fs < 1.30, ps > .26, and their desire for

an expert’s opinion, Fs < 2.42, ps > .09.

Moderation analyses regarding recall valence.

Because we tested three moderators, we applied the Bonferroni correction so that the

alpha level was set to p = .017. There were no moderating effects by need for cognitive

closure, tolerance of uncertainty or CAEB on recall valence, ts < 1.40, ps > .16.

Exploratory analyses: Accuracy

Method.

Two independent raters again counted the number of accurate reproductions in the

message protocols and free-recall protocols from both sessions. As in the first study, we

scored as accurate reproductions idea units that preserved the propositional content of an idea

unit from the original target essay. For instance, the idea unit Biofuels can reduce the emission

of greenhouse gases was scored as an accurate reproduction of the proposition Biofuels can

help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to a considerable extend from the original

essay. Also for the coding of accurate reproductions, intercorrelations were sufficiently high,

r(153) = .75, r(151) = .87, and r(123) = .77, for message and recall protocols in Session 1 and

Session 2.

Results.

There were no significant differences between conditions in the number of accurate

details in the message to the audience, all Fs < 1.01, all ps > .317, and the number of accurate

details in the message did not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, r(150)

= -.088, p = .283.

There were no significant differences in the number of accurately remembered details

in the recall between conditions in both sessions, all Fs < 1.77, all ps > .173, and the number

of accurately remembered details did not correlate with the size of the memory bias, ps > .31.

References

Dalbert, C. (2002 ). Die Ungewissheitstoleranzskala (UGTS). In E. Brähler, J. Schumacher &

B. Strauß (Hrsg.), Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie (S. 374-377).

Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Hellmann, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Memon, A. (2011). Talking

about visually perceived events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(5), 658-671.

Kopietz, R., Hellmann, J. H., Higgins, E. T., & Echterhoff, G. (2010). Shared-reality effects

on memory: Communicating to fulfill epistemic needs. Social Cognition, 28(3), 353-

378.

Schlink, S., & Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des

Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(3),

153-161.

Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects

of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York:

Academic Press.