A large-scale population survey experiment on preferences, beliefs, and motivated reasoning regarding climate policy instruments

Last registered on July 08, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
A large-scale population survey experiment on preferences, beliefs, and motivated reasoning regarding climate policy instruments
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009305
Initial registration date
July 05, 2022

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
July 08, 2022, 9:27 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Germany
Region
National

Primary Investigator

Name
Johannes Jarke-Neuert
Affiliation
University of Hamburg
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Manuel Frondel
PI Affiliation
Ruhr-Universität Bochum / RWI Leibniz Institute of Economics
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Grischa Perino
PI Affiliation
University of Hamburg
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Daniela Flörchinger
PI Affiliation
RWI Leibniz Institute of Economics
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-07-18
End date
2022-08-15
Keywords
Behavior, Environment & Energy, Governance
Additional Keywords
climate action, policy instruments, information, emissions trading, cap-and-trade, coal phase-out
JEL code(s)
C93, D02, D83, D91, H41, Q54, Q58
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
There is empirical evidence in the economics, political science, social psychology, and neuroscience literature that humans tend towards motivated reasoning. This implies that they discount new information—or scientific evidence—that runs counter to their prior beliefs and attitudes. This experiment aims at providing causal evidence for the existence and the extent of motivated reasoning in the context of climate action. Specifically, two questions are addressed: (1) How do beliefs on effectiveness of climate policy instruments affect individual preferences? (2) Is there evidence for motivated reasoning?
We compare one abstract mitigation option, the reduction of the cap in the EU ETS, with a concrete and intuitive option, the reductions of emissions from a coal-fired power plant in Germany, and with a linear combination of the two. The conjecture is that motivated reasoning is more likely for options people are emotionally attached to, or that are part of their identity. Such emotional links are more likely to exist for the coal phase-out than for the EU ETS.
Each subject makes two sequential choices between the alternatives, whereas the informational condition is manipulated within-subjects. The details of this manipulation are changed across four between-subjects conditions. Three main hypotheses are tested with this design: (1) Provision of information on the effectiveness of mitigation options induces participants to adjust their choices in the second decision in line with the information received. (2) Under baseline, subjects that state to have participated in protests relating to phasing-out coal or extracting coal (prior to making any decision on mitigation options) respond less to information on the relative ineffectiveness of directly reducing emissions by coal-fired power plants. (3) Under a "name and shame" treatment, provision of information on climate effectiveness is less likely vs. basline to induce participants to adjust choices in line with the information provided. Seven further auxiliary hypotheses are also tested.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Flörchinger, Daniela et al. 2022. "A large-scale population survey experiment on preferences, beliefs, and motivated reasoning regarding climate policy instruments." AEA RCT Registry. July 08. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9305-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Partner

Name
forsa Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistische Analysen
Type
private_company
URL
https://www.forsa.de/1/
Name
ForTomorrow gGmbH
Type
private_company
URL
https://www.fortomorrow.eu/
Name
STEAG GmbH
Type
private_company
URL
https://www.steag.com/en/
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We compare an abstract mitigation option, the reduction of the cap in the EU ETS, with a concrete and intuitive option, the reductions of emissions from a coal-fired power plant in Germany, and with a linear combination of the two. The participants in our experiment are free to choose between the following four options:
• A: Reducing the number of allowances in the EU ETS by 10 tons of CO2.
• B: Reducing the emissions from a coal-fired power plant in Germany by 10 tons.
• C: Mixed option with 5 tons each via A and B .
• D: No climate action.
Ten tons of CO2 are roughly equivalent to the carbon footprint of an average German citizen. Participants are informed that decisions are real in that the choices of randomly selected participants will be implemented with the help of the operator of a coal-fired power plant and an NGO that retires EU ETS allowances. Furthermore, we elicit participants’ beliefs about the effectiveness of all options in reducing total GHG emission in the EU.
Each subject makes two sequential choices between alternatives A, B, C and D, whereas the informational condition is manipulated within-subjects between first decision (d=1) and the second decision (d=2). The details of this manipulation are changed across four between-subjects conditions. In the baseline condition BSL (code z=0), subjects choose in d=1 between alternatives A, B, C and D without further information on the true effect of each alternative on total CO2 emissions given, whereas information on the true effect of each alternative on total CO2 emissions under the current rules of the EU ETS are given in d=2. In the Regulatory Uncertainty condition RU (code z=3), information on the true effect of each alternative on total CO2 emissions under the current rules of the EU ETS are given in d=1, and information on the true effect of each alternative on total CO2 emissions under the proposed reform rules of the EU ETS are given in d=2.
The remaining two conditions are identical to BSL (z=0) except a different framing of the decisions, implemented by an additional sentence in the instructions, respectively. In the Environmental Impact Frame condition FREI (code z=1) the sentence stresses that the EU ETS is an instrument restricting markets (as opposed to calling it a “market-based” instrument) and provides the government a strong control on total emissions. In the Name and Shame Frame condition FRNS (code z=2) the sentence emphasizes the importance of coal combustion for CO2 emissions and states how emissions from coal-fired power plants have increased in 2021.
See the supporting document for further details.
Intervention Start Date
2022-07-18
Intervention End Date
2022-08-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
A four-point categorial variable that codes the individual choices d=1 and d=2 for each subject:
The participants in our experiment are free to choose between the following
four options:
A: Reducing the number of allowances in the EU ETS by 10 tons of CO2.
B: Reducing the emissions from a coal-red power plant in Germany by
10 tons.
C: Mixed option with 5 tons each via A and B .
D: No climate action.
See supporting document for further details.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Participants’ beliefs about the effectiveness of all options in reducing total GHG emission in the EU.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
See supporting document.

Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done at survey start by a computer (pseudo-random number generator).
Randomization Unit
Individual-subject-level randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1,800 individuals subjects.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,800 individuals subjects.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The target sample sizes are 600 subjects in BSL (z = 0), and 400 subjects in FREI (code z = 1), FRNS (code z = 2) and RU (code z = 3), respectively.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Supporting Document for the AEA RCT Pre-Registration AEARCTR-0009305, "A large-scale population survey experiment on preferences, beliefs, and motivated reasoning regarding climate policy instruments"
Document Type
other
Document Description
Details on the motivation, choice task, experimental conditions, and hypotheses.
File
Supporting Document for the AEA RCT Pre-Registration AEARCTR-0009305, "A large-scale population survey experiment on preferences, beliefs, and motivated reasoning regarding climate policy instruments"

MD5: b41a0f3922c9ec20b40fbfc992605224

SHA1: 642b02604951f13c338f607754d2cb751264439b

Uploaded At: July 05, 2022

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Dean's Office of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at Universität Hamburg
IRB Approval Date
2022-06-09
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials