1

Preferences for change:

Do individuals prefer voluntary actions,

soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?

Shahzeen Z. Attari

shahzeen.attari@gmail.com

Carnegie Mellon University

Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages 1701-1710

International Conference on Social Dilemmas 2009

2

Risk Reduction Through Governmental Regulations

(Viscusi, 1993) 2

3

Impacts of Climate Change(IPCC, 2007)

3

4

The Social Dilemma of Conservation

Private Interests at odds with collective interests

I

ConserveDo Not

Conserve

Others

Conserve

WIN Free ride

Do Not Conserv

e

Drop in the bucket

LOSE

5

How to Solve Tragedy of Commons

“the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by… coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat pollutants than to discharge”

- Garrett Hardin (1968)

6

Regulations Rest OnPolitical Will and Public Support

6

7

Ways to Change Public Behavior

VOLUNTARY ACTIONSLack of regulations:

e.g. Recycling, Pledging

SOFT REGULATIONSIncentives (taxes) or changes in default: e.g. Tobacco, Carbon, Organ donation

HARD REGULATIONSEnforced rules or bans:

e.g. Seat belt law, Ban smoking, Ban trans fats

8

One Hypothesis…

Hard regulations will be preferred as “we are all in this together” and we may not trust the other person to do the right thing

(Debated in Behavioral Economics)

9

…or Psychological ReactancePeople respond negatively to any force which

restricts their freedom of action (Brehm et al. 1966)

(Mazis et al. 1973)

Women forced to switch their laundry detergent brand expressed strong negative attitudes towards the law

Some even smuggled phosphate detergent from neighboring counties

10

U.S. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel

(EPA, 2007)

11

Issues Studied

11

12

Survey Asks:

Voluntary Action

Would you pledge not to buy low mileage or high emission vehicle?

Would you pledge to buy green energy from energy supplier?

Soft Regulation

Would you support tax breaks for high mileage or low emission vehicles?

Would you support automatic purchase green energy with opt-out allowance?

Hard Regulation

Would you support government restricting purchases of SUVs and trucks?

Would you support government regulation requiring energy mix?

12

13

Framing Affects Behavior

75% Lean 25% Fat

(Levine & Gaeth, 1988)

14

Study Contrasts Two Frames

Environment“damages ecosystem” “pollutes the atmosphere with toxic substances and contributes to climate change”

National Security“dependence on foreign oil”“decreases our national energy security – that is our ability to ensure and control our energy supply.”

15

Four Survey Versions

1 2 3 4

Voluntary?Voluntary

? Voluntary

? Voluntary

?

Soft? Hard? Soft? Hard?

Voluntary? Voluntary

? Voluntary

? Voluntary

?

Soft? Hard? Soft? Hard?

All participants provided reasons for each choice

16

Results: SUV

Soft, National Security

Soft, Environment

Hard, National Security

Hard, Environment

Voluntary Action Regulation

17

Results: Green Energy

Soft, National Security

Soft, Environment

Hard, National Security

Hard, Environment

Voluntary Action Regulation

18

VoluntaryIntercept -2.3 -1.2

Frame (environmental = 1) -0.14 -0.19

Regulatory option (soft = 1) -0.090 -0.62

Pro-environmental attitudes 0.69 0.84

SUV ownership -1.5 0.74

Alternative energy 0.090 12

Green energy 1.3 14

Democrat 0.50 -0.32

Republican -0.67 0.29

Independent 0.13 -0.051

Political views 0.24 0.11

Gender (male = 1) -0.81 -1.0

Age 0.0030 0.0079

Income -0.016 -0.27

Education 0.098 0.15

Max-rescaled R2 0.31 0.29

Significance level: (p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001)

18

19

RegulationIntercept -2.9 -2.8

Frame (environmental = 1) -0.088 -0.20

Regulatory option (soft = 1) 2.2 1.21

Pro-environmental attitudes 0.62 0.73

SUV ownership -0.29 0.081

Alternative energy 0.64 0.72

Green energy 0.98 1.51

Democrat -0.44 0.43

Republican -1.5 -0.19

Independent -1.4 -0.61

Political views 0.089 0.16

Gender (male = 1) -0.28 -0.69

Age 0.0070 0.0032

Income 0.064 -0.069

Education -0.032 0.14

Max-rescaled R2 0.31 0.29

Significance level: (p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001) 19

20

Reasons for PreferencesReason category Count

Economic incentives 167

Personal freedom and need for choice 129

Environmental reasons and cost 109

Lifestyle requirement 70

I already do this 60

More information is needed 31

Safety and health reasons 31

Better choices needed 24

Other reasons (mentioned only once) 24

Government needed 19

Foreign dependency, cost, environment 11

I do not believe in global warming 7

People will accept this 5

This requires too much effort 2

This is a drop in the bucket 2

I do not care 2

21

Findings- Framing did not matter

- For SUVs and Trucks: Soft >> Voluntary >> HardFor Green Energy: Soft ~ Voluntary >> Hard

- Voluntary Actions female, pro-environmental Regulations soft, pro-environmental

- Reasons: Economic incentivesPersonal freedom

22

Defaults Save Lives

Johnson and Goldstein (2003)

23

Future Work

- Are there ways to decrease psychological reactance ?

Introduce soft regulations first

- Preferences for other behaviors:

Health, Safety : Hard >> Soft >> Voluntary

24

Acknowledgments Cliff Davidson

Mike DeKay

Robyn Dawes

Mitch Small

WändiBruine de Bruin

Liz Hohenstein

Funding

ICSD Conference Travel Funding

Environmental Research and Education Foundation

National Science Foundation

Mary Schoen

25

26

Demographics of Participants

209 Pittsburgh residentsMedian Income: $20,001-$50,000Median Age: 28 years47% Male52% Dem, 16% Rep, 13% Ind46% Liberal, 24% Conservative21% Own SUV9% Buy Green Energy

Although a Convenience Sample,Reasonably Representative of Pittsburgh

Demographic

27

Other Measures Used in the Survey

Pro-environmental attitudes (NEPs, Dunlap et al. 2000)

Currently own SUVUse alternative energyPurchase green energyPolitical party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind, Not sure)

Political views (extremely liberal extremely conservative)

GenderAgeIncomeEducation

28

Logistic Regressions

)....(

)....(

2211

2211

1 ii

ii

xxx

xxx

e

e

ii xxxx

xxit

....)(1

)(ln)]([log 2211

Probability of saying yes

Used for categorical, dichotomous responses

Regression results

29

Who are the major carbon players?

India

Russia

Other

China

European Union

U.S.

25% The U.S. emits 21% of the world’s carbon emissions, but has only 5% of the world’s population.

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2007)

30

How to Address the Problem

Supply Side Demand Side

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Renewable electricity generation

Efficient electricity generation

Efficient technologies

Fuel Switching

Adopting efficient technologies

Buying renewable energy

Changing preferences

Changing lifestyle

Conservation

31

Carbon Cycle

(Vaclav Smil, 2007)