IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jbusin/v3y2023i1p12-180d1059213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asian Disease Problem Applied to Climate Change: A Study of the Impact of Framing Risk Preferences Driven by Socio-Economic Indicators for Climate-Change-Related Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Ted C. Peterson

    (Department of Operations and Information Systems, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, 201 Presidents’ Cir, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
    Department of Political Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Utah, 201 Presidents’ Cir, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Kacey Tollefson

    (Department of Operations and Information Systems, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, 201 Presidents’ Cir, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

Abstract

The Asian disease problem has long been studied since first introduced by Tversky and Kahneman in 1981. This study explores the mechanics of the Asian disease problem to a scenario reflecting deaths attributed to climate change. The study examines the gain/loss frame setup of the Asian disease problem. To research the Asian disease problem, in partnership with a Qualtrics panel, we surveyed 1209 customers of Utah utilities. Through statistical tests on the survey data, we confirmed the existence of the gain/loss framing effect. Moreover, the framing effect held when separating and examining responses based on unique socio-economic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race, marital status, income, educational attainment, political preference, living status, household size, years at current residence, and energy-saving preference). In short, like the original Asian disease problem, the framing impact varied regardless of the characteristic studied. Based on these findings, we recommend implementing the framing effects of the Asian disease problem to an expanded realm for energy- and climate-related programs, initiatives, and academic research. We believe that this framing could spur action to mitigate climate change. Moreover, we recommend an expanded empirical study of the Asian disease problem to novel and understudied realms beyond our focus area.

Suggested Citation

  • Ted C. Peterson & Kacey Tollefson, 2023. "Asian Disease Problem Applied to Climate Change: A Study of the Impact of Framing Risk Preferences Driven by Socio-Economic Indicators for Climate-Change-Related Risks," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jbusin:v:3:y:2023:i:1:p:12-180:d:1059213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/3/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/3/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pedro Linares & Xavier Labandeira, 2010. "Energy Efficiency: Economics And Policy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 573-592, July.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Michael Greenstone, 2012. "Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    6. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    7. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    8. Bohm, Peter & Lind, Hans, 1992. "A note on the robustness of a classical framing result," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 355-361, June.
    9. Daniel Osberghaus, 2017. "Prospect theory, mitigation and adaptation to climate change," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 909-930, July.
    10. Jason F. Shogren & Laura O. Taylor, 2008. "On Behavioral-Environmental Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 26-44, Winter.
    11. Greene, David L., 2011. "Uncertainty, loss aversion, and markets for energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 608-616, July.
    12. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    13. Wang, X. T., 1996. "Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 145-157, November.
    14. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    15. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    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. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    2. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    3. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    4. Töppel, Jannick & Tränkler, Timm, 2019. "Modeling energy efficiency insurances and energy performance contracts for a quantitative comparison of risk mitigation potential," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 842-859.
    5. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    6. Ramos, A. & Gago, A. & Labandeira, X. & Linares, P., 2015. "The role of information for energy efficiency in the residential sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 17-29.
    7. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    8. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    9. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    10. van Buiten, Marc & Keren, Gideon, 2009. "Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 106-115, January.
    11. Wolfgang Buchholz & Jonas Frank & Hans-Dieter Karl & Johannes Pfeiffer & Karen Pittel & Ursula Triebswetter & Jochen Habermann & Wolfgang Mauch & Thomas Staudacher, 2012. "Die Zukunft der Energiemärkte: Ökonomische Analyse und Bewertung von Potenzialen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 57.
    12. Rockstuhl, Sebastian & Wenninger, Simon & Wiethe, Christian & Häckel, Björn, 2021. "Understanding the risk perception of energy efficiency investments: Investment perspective vs. energy bill perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Samdruk Dharshing & Stefanie Lena Hille, 2017. "The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-508, December.
    14. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "All Frames Created Equal are Not Identical: On the Structure of Kahneman and Tversky's Framing Effects," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-17, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    15. Julia Blasch & Claudio Daminato, 2018. "Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 18/300, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    16. Renata M. Heilman & Petko Kusev & Mircea Miclea & Joseph Teal & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Are Impulsive Decisions Always Irrational? An Experimental Investigation of Impulsive Decisions in the Domains of Gains and Losses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    17. Mandel, David R., 2001. "Gain-Loss Framing and Choice: Separating Outcome Formulations from Descriptor Formulations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 56-76, May.
    18. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    19. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    20. Dominika Czyz & Karolina Safarzynska, 2023. "Catastrophic Damages and the Optimal Carbon Tax Under Loss Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 303-340, June.

    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:gam:jbusin:v:3:y:2023:i:1:p:12-180:d:1059213. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.