IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v61y2018i1p143-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time

Author

Listed:
  • Carola Braun
  • Katrin Rehdanz
  • Ulrich Schmidt

Abstract

This paper analyses how new information shapes public perception of a controversially discussed technology over time. The test case analysed in this paper is solar radiation management (SRM), a potentially risky, environmental engineering technology, which aims to fight climate change by the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere. Using panel survey data, we show that most respondents initially show strong negative emotions towards SRM and reject the technology. However, public perception is not stable over time as emotions cool off and acceptance increases. The increase in acceptance is greater, the longer the cooling-off period between two surveys. Furthermore, we show that the cooling-off effect is more pronounced for more impulsive respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(1), pages 143-160, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:61:y:2018:i:1:p:143-160
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1291414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2017.1291414
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2017.1291414?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimm, Veronika & Mengel, Friederike, 2011. "Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 113-115, May.
    2. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    3. Peter Cramton & Morley Gunderson & Joseph Tracy, 1999. "The Effect Of Collective Bargaining Legislation On Strikes And Wages," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 475-487, August.
    4. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    5. Gernot Klepper & Wilfried Rickels, 2014. "Climate Engineering: Economic Considerations and Research Challenges," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 270-289.
    6. Wang, Cynthia S. & Sivanathan, Niro & Narayanan, Jayanth & Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Bauer, Monika & Bodenhausen, Galen V. & Murnighan, Keith, 2011. "Retribution and emotional regulation: The effects of time delay in angry economic interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 46-54, September.
    7. Jungmin Lee, 2013. "The Impact of a Mandatory Cooling-off Period on Divorce," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(1), pages 227-243.
    8. Kniebes, Carola & Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Informed and uninformed opinions on new measures to address climate change," Kiel Working Papers 1936, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    10. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    11. Neo, Wei Siong & Yu, Michael & Weber, Roberto A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2013. "The effects of time delay in reciprocity games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 20-35.
    12. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive Abilities and Behavioral Biases," Working Papers 0465, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    2. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cooling-Off in Negotiations - Does It Work?," Working Papers 0463, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Dustin P. Calvillo & Jessica N. Burgeno, 2015. "Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 332-341, July.
    4. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espín & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Working Papers 15-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:332-341 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    7. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.
    9. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    12. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    13. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín, 2013. "Can exposure to prenatal sex hormones (2D:4D) predict cognitive reflection?," Working Papers 698, Barcelona School of Economics.
    14. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    15. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    16. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "On the Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 115-134, Spring.
    17. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    18. Brice Corgnet & Cary Deck & Mark DeSantis & David Porter, 2022. "Forecasting Skills in Experimental Markets: Illusion or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5216-5232, July.
    19. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Eizo Akiyama & Yukihiko Funaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "Diversity in Cognitive Ability Enlarges Mispricing in Experimental Asset Markets," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-08, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Mohammad Noori, 2016. "Cognitive reflection as a predictor of susceptibility to behavioral anomalies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 114-120, January.
    21. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Riener, Gerhard, 2016. "A first test of focusing theory," DICE Discussion Papers 214, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:61:y:2018:i:1:p:143-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.