IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bcc/wpaper/2020-02.html

Impact framing and experience for determining acceptable levels of climate change risk: A lab experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ambika Markanday
  • Steffen Kallbekken and Ibon Galarraga

Abstract

This paper explores how individuals determine acceptable levels of risk (ALR) when making investment decisions on climate change adaptation. An incentivised lab experiment (n=161) is conducted on a sample of the Bilbao population. A 2x2 factorial between-subject design measures ALR in response to visual (photo vs. text-only) and numeric (single-value vs. range) impact framings. The effect of experience on ALR is also measured using a 2-period repeated game within-subject design. Findings support an extension of the dual processing model that argues people exert practical rationality, based on both objective reasoning and subjective experience, when making decisions over moral dilemmas, such as climate change. Subjects in visual conditions had lower ALR, due to greater negative affect, concern, and sense of personal duty and responsibility towards climate change. This suggests a moral judgement of the risk in question. The effect of the visual appeal was lower in the range condition, where greater mental effort led to more objective reasoning. Those that experienced damages in period 1 displayed lower ALR in period 2. No difference in ALR was found between periods for those that did not experience damages. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambika Markanday & Steffen Kallbekken and Ibon Galarraga, 2020. "Impact framing and experience for determining acceptable levels of climate change risk: A lab experiment," Working Papers 2020-02, BC3.
    • Handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2020-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/20201111053032570769538.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    2. Gowdy, John M., 2008. "Behavioral economics and climate change policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 632-644, December.
    3. Aasen, Marianne & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "Public Attitudes Toward Climate Policies: The Effect of Institutional Contexts and Political Values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 106-114.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 2009. "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19, February.
    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. Sabine Roeser, 2010. "Intuitions, emotions and gut reactions in decisions about risks: towards a different interpretation of 'neuroethics'," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 175-190, March.
    8. Lorraine Whitmarsh, 2008. "Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 351-374, April.
    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. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    2. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    3. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    4. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    5. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    7. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    9. van der Linden, Sander, 2014. "On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & Stefano Ghinoi & Matteo Masotti & Francesco Silvestri, 2021. "Economics research and climate change. A Scopus-based bibliometric investigation," SEEDS Working Papers 0321, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Apr 2021.
    11. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    13. Verteramo Chiu, Leslie J. & Turvey, Calum G., 2015. "Perception and Action in a Conflict Zone: a Study of Rural Economy and Rural Life amidst Narcos in Northeastern Mexico," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205447, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0219066 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Baddeley, M., 2011. "Energy, the Environment and Behaviour Change: A survey of insights from behavioural economics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1162, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Nathalie Lazaric & Kevin Maréchal, 2010. "Overcoming inertia: insights from evolutionary economics into improved energy and climate policy," Post-Print hal-00452205, HAL.
    18. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    19. Danijela Vuletic, 2015. "How Effective are Reminders and Frames in Incentivizing Blood Donations," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp554, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    20. Andrew M. Parker & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Baruch Fischhoff, 2007. "Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 342-350, December.
    21. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:bcc:wpaper:2020-02. 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: Sergio Henrique Faria (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.bc3research.org/ .

    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.