IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/exc/wpaper/2016-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Behavioralist as Policy Designer: The Need to Test Multiple Treatments to Meet Multiple Targets

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Hahn
  • Robert D. Metcalfe
  • David Novgorodsky
  • Michael K. Price

Abstract

We explore Tinbergen's fundamental insight that policymakers need at least as many policy instruments as targets. We extend this idea using a large natural field experiment in water resource management. We use social comparisons and loss-framed messages to help achieve two goals of our partner utility: getting consumers to purchase drought-resistant plants and reducing water use. Our results show that seemingly related behavioral instruments can affect different household decisions. By themselves, social comparisons and loss framing have no significant impact on the number of rebate requests; when combined, however, they lead to a 36% increase in requests. Only loss framing leads to a significant increase in the purchase of drought-resistant plants, and only the social comparison reduces water consumption. These results highlight the importance of testing different combinations of instruments, particularly when policymakers have multiple goals and the relationship between instruments and goals is uncertain.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Hahn & Robert D. Metcalfe & David Novgorodsky & Michael K. Price, 2016. "The Behavioralist as Policy Designer: The Need to Test Multiple Treatments to Meet Multiple Targets," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-05, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:exc:wpaper:2016-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://excen.gsu.edu/workingpapers/GSU_EXCEN_WP_2016-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan de Quidt, 2018. "Your Loss Is My Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 522-559.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier & Gautam Rao, 2022. "Estimating Social Preferences and Gift Exchange at Work," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(3), pages 1038-1074, March.
    4. Ali Hortaçsu & Seyed Ali Madanizadeh & Steven L. Puller, 2017. "Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 192-226, November.
    5. Tanjim Hossain & John A. List, 2012. "The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2151-2167, December.
    6. Uri Gneezy & John A List, 2006. "Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1365-1384, September.
    7. Asensio, Omar Isaac & Delmas, Magali A., 2016. "The dynamics of behavior change: Evidence from energy conservation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 196-212.
    8. Daniel A. Brent, 2016. "Estimating Water Demand Elasticity at the Intensive and Extensive Margin," Departmental Working Papers 2016-06, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    9. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    10. Shin, Jeong-Shik, 1985. "Perception of Price When Price Information Is Costly: Evidence from Residential Electricity Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(4), pages 591-598, November.
    11. Lori S. Bennear & Jonathan M. Lee & Laura O. Taylor, 2013. "Municipal Rebate Programs for Environmental Retrofits: An Evaluation of Additionality and Cost‐Effectiveness," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 350-372, March.
    12. de Quidt, Jonathan, 2014. "Your loss is my gain: a recruitment experiment with framed incentives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58208, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Daniel A. Brent & Joseph H. Cook & Skylar Olsen, 2015. "Social Comparisons, Household Water Use, and Participation in Utility Conservation Programs: Evidence from Three Randomized Trials," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 597-627.
    14. Grant D. Jacobsen & Matthew J. Kotchen, 2013. "Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 34-49, March.
    15. Dora L. Costa & Matthew E. Kahn, 2013. "Energy Conservation “Nudges” And Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence From A Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 680-702, June.
    16. Matthew J. Kotchen & Laura E. Grant, 2011. "Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Indiana," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1172-1185, November.
    17. Renwick, Mary E. & Green, Richard D., 2000. "Do Residential Water Demand Side Management Policies Measure Up? An Analysis of Eight California Water Agencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 37-55, July.
    18. Mary E. Renwick & Sandra O. Archibald, 1998. "Demand Side Management Policies for Residential Water Use: Who Bears the Conservation Burden?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(3), pages 343-359.
    19. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    20. List, John A. & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2015. "The behavioralist as nutritionist: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve child food choice and consumption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 135-146.
    21. María Bernedo & Paul Ferraro & Michael Price, 2014. "The Persistent Impacts of Norm-Based Messaging and Their Implications for Water Conservation," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 437-452, September.
    22. 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.
    23. Steven Sexton, 2015. "Automatic Bill Payment and Salience Effects: Evidence from Electricity Consumption," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 229-241, May.
    24. J. Scott Holladay & Jacob LaRiviere & David M. Novgorodsky & Michael Price, 2016. "Asymmetric Effects of Non-Pecuniary Signals on Search and Purchase Behavior for Energy-Efficient Durable Goods," NBER Working Papers 22939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Andrius Kažukauskas & Thomas Broberg & Jūratė Jaraitė, 2021. "Social Comparisons in Real Time: A Field Experiment of Residential Electricity and Water Use," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(2), pages 558-592, April.
    2. Romensen, Gert-Jan & Soetevent, Adriaan, 2017. "Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior," Research Report 17016-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    3. Andor, Mark Andreas & Bensch, Gunther & Fels, Katja M. & Kneppel, Nadine, 2017. "Meta-Analyse kausaler Effekte von verhaltensökonomischen Interventionen auf den Energieverbrauch privater Haushalte," RWI Projektberichte, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, number 177816, May.
    4. Adriaan (A.R.) Soetevent & Gert-Jan Romensen, 2017. "Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior: Field Evidence from Bus Drivers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-073/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Matsukawa, Isamu, 2018. "Information acquisition and residential electricity consumption: Evidence from a field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-19.
    7. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.

    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. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Daniel A. Brent & Corey Lott & Michael Taylor & Joseph Cook & Kimberly Rollins & Shawn Stoddard, 2020. "What Causes Heterogeneous Responses to Social Comparison Messages for Water Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 503-537, November.
    3. Wichman, Casey J. & Taylor, Laura O. & von Haefen, Roger H., 2016. "Conservation policies: Who responds to price and who responds to prescription?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 114-134.
    4. Wichman, Casey J., 2017. "Information provision and consumer behavior: A natural experiment in billing frequency," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 13-33.
    5. Daniel A. Brent & Joseph H. Cook & Skylar Olsen, 2015. "Social Comparisons, Household Water Use, and Participation in Utility Conservation Programs: Evidence from Three Randomized Trials," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 597-627.
    6. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," Working Papers 19-31, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John List & Axel Ockenfels, 2020. "Market Design, Human Behavior and Management," Artefactual Field Experiments 00685, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Robert W. Hahn & Robert D. Metcalfe, 2021. "Efficiency and Equity Impacts of Energy Subsidies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1658-1688, May.
    11. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Holladay, Scott & LaRiviere, Jacob & Novgorodsky, David & Price, Michael, 2019. "Prices versus nudges: What matters for search versus purchase of energy investments?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 151-173.
    13. John A. List & Robert D. Metcalfe & Michael K. Price & Florian Rundhammer, 2017. "Harnessing Policy Complementarities to Conserve Energy: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2017-05, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    14. Gillingham, Kenneth & Tsvetanov, Tsvetan, 2018. "Nudging energy efficiency audits: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 303-316.
    15. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    16. Pérez-Urdiales, María & García-Valiñas, María Ángeles, 2016. "Efficient water-using technologies and habits: A disaggregated analysis in the water sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 117-129.
    17. Tonke, Sebastian, 2020. "Imperfect Procedural Knowledge: Evidence from a Field Experiment to Encourage Water Conservation," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Erwin Bulte & John List & Daan van Soest, 2019. "Toward an Understanding of the Welfare Effects of Nudges: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," Natural Field Experiments 00674, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Brent, Daniel A. & Ward, Michael B., 2019. "Price perceptions in water demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    20. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology adoption; loss aversion; social norms; water conservation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:exc:wpaper:2016-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/exgsuus.html .

    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: J. Todd Swarthout (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/exgsuus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.