IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucd/wpaper/202003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?

Author

Listed:
  • Leonhard K. Lades

    (UCD Environmental Policy & Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin)

  • Kate Laffan

    (UCD School of Economics & Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin)

  • Till O. Weber

    (Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University)

Abstract

Understanding the determinants of pro-environmental behaviour is key to address many environmental challenges. Economic theory and empirical evidence suggest that human behaviour is determined by peoples preferences over risk, time, and social consequences. As such, individual differences in these preferences should predict individual differences in pro-environmental behaviour. In a pre-registered study, we measure economic preferences in seven domains (risk taking, patience, present bias, altruism, positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity, and trust) and test whether these preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour in everyday life measured using the day reconstruction method. We find that only altruism is significantly associated with everyday pro-environmental behaviour. This suggests that people recognise everyday pro-environmental behaviours to be beneficial to others, but do not integrate the riskiness, inter-temporal structure, nor other social characteristics of pro-environmental behaviour into their decision-making. We also show in an exploratory analysis that different clusters of everyday pro-environmental behaviours are predicted by patience, positive reciprocity, and altruism, indicating that these considerations are relevant for some, but not other, pro-environmental behaviours.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonhard K. Lades & Kate Laffan & Till O. Weber, 2020. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Working Papers 202003, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:202003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp202003.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmitt, Michael T. & Aknin, Lara B. & Axsen, Jonn & Shwom, Rachael L., 2018. "Unpacking the Relationships Between Pro-environmental Behavior, Life Satisfaction, and Perceived Ecological Threat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 130-140.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    3. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Qiu, Yueming & Colson, Gregory & Grebitus, Carola, 2014. "Risk preferences and purchase of energy-efficient technologies in the residential sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 216-229.
    5. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "How much can we learn about voluntary climate action from behavior in public goods games?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    6. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    7. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    8. Stephan Meier & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 193-210, January.
    9. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2015. "Individual Time Preferences and Energy Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 196-200, May.
    10. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    11. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
    12. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    13. Andreas Knabe & Steffen Rätzel & Ronnie Schöb & Joachim Weimann, 2010. "Dissatisfied with Life but Having a Good Day: Time-use and Well-being of the Unemployed," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(547), pages 867-889, September.
    14. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Editor's Choice Working over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1067-1115.
    15. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Meissner, Thomas & Faure, Corinne, 2019. "A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 377-393.
    16. Ed Diener & Louis Tay, 2014. "Review of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 255-267, March.
    17. Schier, Uta K. & Ockenfels, Axel & Hofmann, Wilhelm, 2016. "Moral values and increasing stakes in a dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 107-115.
    18. Samantha Dockray & Nina Grant & Arthur Stone & Daniel Kahneman & Jane Wardle & Andrew Steptoe, 2010. "A Comparison of Affect Ratings Obtained with Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 269-283, November.
    19. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:304-315 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bonin, Holger & Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Sunde, Uwe, 2007. "Cross-sectional earnings risk and occupational sorting: The role of risk attitudes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 926-937, December.
    22. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    23. Stefano DellaVigna, 2018. "Structural Behavioral Economics," NBER Working Papers 24797, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Melo, Patricia C. & Ge, Jiaqi & Craig, Tony & Brewer, Mark J. & Thronicker, Ines, 2018. "Does Work-life Balance Affect Pro-environmental Behaviour? Evidence for the UK Using Longitudinal Microdata," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 170-181.
    25. Binder, Martin & Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin, 2017. "Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 304-323.
    26. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    27. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Moore, Michael R., 2007. "Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    28. Rui Mata & Renato Frey & David Richter & Jürgen Schupp & Ralph Hertwig, 2018. "Risk Preference: A View from Psychology," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 155-172, Spring.
    29. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    30. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fuhrmann-Riebel, Hanna & D'Exelle, Ben & Verschoor, Arjan, 2021. "The role of preferences for pro-environmental behaviour among urban middle class households in Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    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. Lades, Leonhard K. & Laffan, Kate & Weber, Till O., 2021. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Werthschulte, Madeline & Löschel, Andreas, 2021. "On the role of present bias and biased price beliefs in household energy consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    4. Werthschulte, Madeline & Löschel, Andreas, 2019. "Cost misperceptions and energy consumption: Experimental evidence for present bias and biased price beliefs," CAWM Discussion Papers 111, University of Münster, Münster Center for Economic Policy (MEP).
    5. Thilo K.G. Haverkamp & Heinz Welsch & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "The Relationship between Pro-environmental Behavior, Economic Preferences, and Life Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202204, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    6. Groh, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2022. "On the relevance of values, norms, and economic preferences for electricity consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Elke D. Groh & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "On the relevance of values, norms, and economic preferences for electricity consumption," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202107, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne, 2019. "Exploring the diffusion of low-energy houses: An empirical study in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1382-1393.
    10. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Meissner, Thomas & Faure, Corinne, 2019. "A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 377-393.
    11. Toshi H. Arimura & Elke D. Groh & Miwa Nakai & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "The causal effect of private and organizational climate-related identity on climate protection activities: Evidence from a framed field experiment in Japan," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202229, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Massimo Filippini & Nilkanth Kumar & Suchita Srinivasan, 2021. "Behavioral Anomalies and Fuel Efficiency: Evidence from Motorcycles in Nepal," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/353, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    13. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Amantia Simixhiu & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "Social norms and individual climate protection activities: A framed field experiment for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202230, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    14. Andrej Gill & Florian Hett & Johannes Tischer, 2022. "Time Inconsistency and Overdraft Use: Evidence from Transaction Data and Behavioral Measurement Experiments," Working Papers 2205, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    15. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    16. Dániel Horn & Hubert János Kiss, 2020. "Time preferences and their life outcome correlates: Evidence from a representative survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    17. Groh, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2020. "On the relevance of economic preferences, values, norms, and socio-demographics for electricity consumption," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224587, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," SAFE Working Paper Series 347, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    19. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," Discussion Papers 18/2022, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    20. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Meissner, Thomas & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Making the factors underlying the implicit discount rate tangible," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Time preferences; risk preferences; social preferences; pro-environmental behaviour; day reconstruction method;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ucd:wpaper:202003. 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: Geary Tech (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geucdie.html .

    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.