Validation of experimental stimuli

Rationale of poster designs

The emotional poster applied the concept of automatic and quick thinking of System 1

(Kahneman, 2011). In the poster, the concept of fear and danger control from the extended

parallel process model (EPPM) are also used (Maloney et al., 2011). This approach is done

through the use of graphics which are intended to induce fear by depicting the destruction of

earth and our lungs as a result of excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The EPPM states

that when perceived threat is severe enough, it will encourage information seeking behavior and

behavioral change among the viewers as a form of danger or fear control. Thus, the aim of the

emotional poster is to induce fear on the potential harms of excessive CO2 emissions as a way to

motivate the viewer to seek further information and take action. Considering the limitations of

short-term memory suggested by Miller (1956), we only used a short slogan of four words in the

emotional poster to help retain information. The slogan was also presented in a large bold font

with the intention of making it the focal point of the poster. Applying all the principles stated, we

designed a slogan that was short, visually distinctive and fear-inducing aimed to create high

emotional impact towards the viewers.

We decided that the rational poster should include elements to educate readers on the

current situation regarding the rapid increase in carbon emissions. Therefore, statistics, graphs,

and diagrams are included in order to make the rational poster more informative but also

minimalistic to prevent overwhelming the viewer. A dull and simple background is also used in

the poster so that it does not draw the attention of readers away from its content. On top of that,

bold and striking colours are used for graphs and diagrams to make them more visually
appealing. We used System 2 of Kahneman's theory which requires conscious effort to process

information which makes it more resistant to cognitive biases (Kahneman, 2011).

Descriptive statistics

The study aimed to examine the favourableness of participants towards posters, ability of

posters to convey messages and ability to persuade audiences to engage in behavioural changes.

64 participants had participated in this survey, however, only 55 responses were utilized after

excluding incomplete responses, including 23 males (56.6%) and 32 females (43.4%) with age

ranging between 17 to 42 and most participants are age 20 (43.3%) (See Appendix, Figure 1&2).

Besides, most participants completed their high school and tertiary education (See Appendix,

Figure 3).

The results are interpreted by indicating the and comparing the descriptive statistics

including mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Higher mean score illustrated higher

favourableness, clearer messages delivered and higher likelihood to engage in behavioural

changes.

The mean and standard deviation of Item 1 to 3 for emotional appealed poster (Item 1,

M=1.19, SD=2.27; Item 2, M=0.89, SD=2.30; Item 3, M=1.22, SD=2.16) is higher than rational

appealed poster (Item 1, M=1.46, SD=2.33; Item 2, M=1.57, SD=2.30; Item 3, M=2.35,

SD=1.49). Generally, participants perceived emotional appeal poster as more pleasant, exciting

and interesting compared to rational appeal poster (See Appendix, Figure 4 to 6).

In terms of conveying ideas, both posters were able to deliver their messages clearly as

the M for both are above the midpoint (0). However, emotional appeal poster (Item 4, M=2.09,

SD=2.29; Item 5, M=2.11, SD=2.20; Item 6, M=2.43, SD=2.00) performed better in illustrating

messages as the mean and standard deviation for Item 4 to 6 is higher than rational appeal poster
(Item 4, M=3.30, SD=1.07; Item 5, M=2.89, SD=1.25; Item 6, M=3.39, SD=0.83) (See

Appendix, Figure 7 to 9).

Lastly, emotional appeal posters are more likely to persuade audiences to engage in

behavioural changes as the mean and standard deviation of emotional appeal poster (Item 7,

M=1.87, SD=1.93; Item 8, M=1.35, SD=2.00) is higher than rational appeal poster (Item 7,

M=2.30, SD=1.64; Item 8, M=1.91, SD=1.76) for Item 7 and 8 (See Appendix, Figure 10 & 11).

Table 1

Results of descriptive statistics

Rational appeal Emotional appeal

Outcome M SD M SD

Q1 1.19 2.27 1.46 2.33

Q2 0.89 2.30 1.57 2.30

Q3 1.22 2.16 2.35 1.49

Q4 2.09 2.29 3.30 1.07

Q5 2.11, 2.20 2.89 1.25

Q6 2.43 2.00 3.39 0.83

Q7 1.87 1.93 2.30 1.64

Q8 1.35 2.00 1.91 1.76

(See Appendix, Figure 4 to 11)

Discussion

Regarding our hypothesis, we expected to elicit negative emotional responses such as

fear and danger from the first three questions of the survey and we expected rational responses to

be present from question 4 to 8. We found Question 1 to have lower valence from rational poster

(closer to 0), hence resulting in less emotional responses evoked which meets our expectation.

Nonetheless, participants may be misled by the questions in the way that instead of answering

based on the message in the poster, they answered based on the design of each poster. This is

shown in question 2 and 3 where a cluttered informational content in the rational poster is simply

less appealing, in terms of message conveyed and design choice (lower mean score). An

alternative explanation is that the participants prefer to be convinced by using imagery rather

than facts as it is easier and faster to engage System 1. This is further shown as Questions 4 to 8

are designed to activate participants’ System 2 of rational thinking and should have yielded a

higher mean score towards a positive rating. Rather, the emotional poster did a better job. We

also suspect that an overwhelming amount of information might have been presented in the

rational poster and participants simply could not cope with their rational thinking and relied on

System 1 of emotional thinking to make a judgement. Despite this, more research is still needed

to successfully evaluate each individual’s decision-making process when facing emotional and

rational thinking.

Kahneman’s (2011) theory on information processing

In general, Kahneman does well to explain the theory of information processing with

slight issues. His theory proposes that we process information and make judgements using

System 1 and System 2, System 1 functions based on mental heuristics (mental shortcuts), is

autonomic and associated with emotions while System 2 functions based on conscious reflection
and is associated with controlled thought processes. It explains the theory of information

processing well because it fits with current models of willpower, priming and framing while

drawing from real life-examples.

Firstly, Kahneman's dual processing model fits the current literature of willpower: ego

depletion, because the model is in line with Baumeister's theory (Baumeister et al., 1998).

Baumeister states that the more someone uses conscious effort/ability, the less self-control they

have. Kahneman's model reflects this idea as he says that System 2 can become depleted over

time, causing it to be less prominent if used too much without rest. Secondly, Kahneman's model

also fits into the current literature of priming. One of the more popular studies done on priming

by Bateson et al. (2006) showed that having a pair of eyes on a contribution-based honesty box

for drinks increased the amount people paid for their drinks by 3 times. Kahneman's model

explains this by stating that System 1 processes information from the eye subconsciously and

adjusts action based on its intuition and the information processed; explaining how priming

affects behaviour. Lastly, Kahnemans’ model fits with the concept of framing which is linked to

Kahneman and Tversky (1979) prospect theory. In short, it proposes that due to a stronger desire

to avoid negative consequences than gain positive ones, simply reframing questions in a way that

sounds more positive/negative will result in different decisions even though the question means

the same thing. Similar to priming, Kahneman's model explains this through the subconscious

processing and influence of System 1 over people.

The element that makes Kahneman's explanations and model even clearer is the strong

use of day-to-day examples. For example, he uses the effect heuristic by Slovic et al. (2007) to

explain how System 2 can be an apologist for System 1 in the case of defending beliefs. In our

day-to-day lives, this can be clearly seen where people use rational arguments to support their
emotional beliefs instead of using their rationality to come to that belief. Another example used

is the availability heuristic demonstrated by Schwarz et al. (1991). The reasoning behind this

system is that it is easier to root beliefs in what is more available due to the “go with the flow”

functioning of System 1 and a lazy System 2. As a result, people tend to do things that are

statistically incoherent with their goals, for example, choosing to drive because it’s safer than

taking an airplane, when statistically driving results in more deaths. These factors combined

make Kahneman's theory a great explanation of information processing. However, there are still

some areas in which it’s lacking.

What constitutes acceptable behaviour for regular people is both subjective and

context-dependent. Evans and Over (1996) stated that when proponents speak of System 2's

logical capacities, it is about the regularity of rationality founded on deductive logic and maths

norms. The American Philosophical Association defined critical thinking as 'the process of

purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. This process reasoned consideration to evidence, context,

conceptualizations, methods, and criteria.' (Facione 1990). It would mean that System 2 could

also be a prerequisite for critical thinking, or System 2 is adequate for critical thinking, implying

that every instance of System 2 processing is thinking (Bonnefon 2018). Bonnefon (2018)

provides two samples of System 2 processing-related errors. One example is that individuals

often act on their first impulses to undertake and explain them with clever rationalizations.

Overthinking is another example of System 2 failure, during which a person can misunderstand

or confuse information by contemplating it.

Conflict detection, sustained inhibition, and explicit resolution, according to De Neys and

Bonnefon (2013), are the three phases of System 2 that must be successfully completed.

However, if one considers rationality to describe logic and applied math, it becomes clear that
System 2 does not ensure rational behaviour. System 2 breaches of rationality are likely to be

more frequent than non-critical thinking because rationality is made on coarser principles than

critical thinking. When objectively considering a choice, it is simple to create calculation errors.

It discusses the foremost direct links between System 2 and sound decision-making.

Suggestions for poster improvements

A significant priority for posters is the visual impact, as it is essential to capture the

audience's attention. The rational poster has a sub-title, but not a title which is vital to trigger

peoples’ attention and interests. Additionally, the font for the information could be slightly larger

and mix around with fonts or even color to add even more depth and contrast, which helps keep

the viewers' interest to not bore them with the same concept for the entire poster. Furthermore,

more emphasis can be implemented by having some words fully with capital letters to emphasize

the keyword or its importance more. Moreover, the theme could be more cohesive as the color

theme had red, green, black, and white. By having a color theme, it could look more cohesive,

interesting and attention grabbing.

As for the Emotional Appeal poster, some fine-tuning in the design is needed based on

the Questionnaire results. The poster should look more pleasing to the eye as the colors and the

overall execution of the design could have been done better to illustrate the poster's message

better. Nancy D. Albers-Miller and Marla Royne (1999) showed that people respond more

effectively towards more positive emotional appeal advertisements. According to this, the

emotional appeal poster had taken a negative route by showing what could go wrong if reduction

of CO2 emissions is not achieved. A better approach would have been to show both sides of a

coin, a healthy-looking world with many greeneries and healthy people and a toxic world with

unhealthy people and damaged lungs. This approach would have painted a clearer picture and
idea of the negative and positive consequences based on the actions taken about CO2 emissions

rather than solely focusing on the negative outcome.

 References

Albers‐Miller, N. D., & Royne Stafford, M. (1999). An international analysis of emotional and

rational appeals in services vs goods advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(1),

42–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910250769

Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a

real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412–414. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998) Ego Depletion: Is the

Active Self a Limited Resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),

1252-1265.https://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Baumeister%20et%20

al.%20%281998%29.pdf

Bonnefon, J.-F. (2018). The Pros and Cons of Identifying Critical Thinking with System 2

Processing. Topoi, 37(1), 113–119. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9375-2

De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2013). The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in

thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 172-178. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001

Evans, J. S., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. Psychology Press.

Facione, P. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of

Educational Assessment and Instruction. The Delphi Report.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.

Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292,

http://www.albacharia.ma/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/31987/kahnmtversky.pdf?s

equence=1
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Maloney, E. K., Lapinski, M. K., & Witte, K. (2011). Fear Appeals and Persuasion: A Review

and Update of the Extended Parallel Process Model. Social & Personality Psychology

Compass, 5(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00341.x

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity

for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991)

Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195-202.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fritz-Strack/publication/38138513_Ease_of_Retriev

al_as_Information_-_Another_Look_at_the_Availability_Heuristic/links/0046351b2031f

1e9ee000000/Ease-of-Retrieval-as-Information-Another-Look-at-the-Availability-Heurist

ic.pdf

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters. E., & Macgregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic.

European Journal of Operational Research, 117, 1353-1352.

https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/the-affect-heuristic-pau

l-slovic.pdf
Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2
Figure 3

Figure 4
Figure 5

Figure 6
Figure 7

Figure 8
Figure 9

Figure 10
Figure 11