Attribution to Anthropogenic Causes Helps Prevent Adverse Events

Can attribution science, a method for quantifying—ex post—humanity’s contribution to adverse climatic events, induce pro-environmental behavioral change? We conduct a conceptual test of this question by studying, in an online experiment with 3,031 participants, whether backward-looking attribution affects future decisions, even when seemingly uninformative to a consequentialist decision-maker. By design, adverse events can arise as a result of participants’ pursuit of higher payoffs (anthropogenic cause) or as a result of chance (natural cause). Treatments vary whether adverse events are causally attributable and whether attribution can be acquired at cost. We find that ex post attributability is behaviorally relevant: attribution to an anthropogenic cause reduces future anthropogenic stress and leads to fewer adverse events compared to no attributability and compared to attribution to a natural cause. Average willingness to pay for ex post attribution is positive. The conjecture that attribution science can be behaviorally impactful and socially valuable has empirical merit.