Higher Order Risk Preferences and Climate Change Attitudes

Last registered on April 14, 2025

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Higher Order Risk Preferences and Climate Change Attitudes

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0015642

Initial registration date

March 24, 2025

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

April 04, 2025, 12:45 PM EDT

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

Last updated

April 14, 2025, 6:56 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Paul Feldman

Affiliation

Texas A&M University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Andreas Drichoutis

PI Affiliation

Agricultural University of Athens

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Marco Palma

PI Affiliation

Texas A&M University

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2025-03-24

End date

2025-06-01

Keywords

Behavior, Environment & Energy

Additional Keywords

risk aversion, risk apportionment, prudence, temperance, online experiment

JEL code(s)

C90, D81

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.

Abstract

The role of higher-order risk preferences—prudence and temperance—in shaping pro-environmental behavior remains largely unexplored. In this study, we investigate whether these preferences predict real-world climate action. Participants allocated a fixed amount of money ($38)—equivalent to the monthly carbon offset of a typical U.S. citizen—between themselves and Compensators, an organization that facilitates verified CO₂ emission reductions. To minimize experimenter demand effects, the donation decision was made at an earlier point in time. We further collected hypothetical allocation decisions (e.g., 1% of household income) and survey responses on climate-related attitudes and behaviors. We hypothesize that both prudence and temperance influence normative attitudes toward mitigating environmental catastrophes. By examining both outcome-risk and delay-risk dimensions, we provide novel evidence on the psychological foundations of climate action.

External Link(s)

Outcome measure collected in AEA RCT registered trial "Lottery incentives and carbon pricing rebates"

Registration Citation

Citation

Drichoutis, Andreas, Paul Feldman and Marco Palma. 2025. "Higher Order Risk Preferences and Climate Change Attitudes." AEA RCT Registry. April 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15642-3.0

Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Online incentivized experiment that measures willingness to pay/allocate money to mitigate CO2 emissions and elicit higher order risk preferences.

Intervention (Hidden)

In a first phase (January 2025) we recruited 880 participants that made a decision on how much money to donate to a climate change organization and how much to keep for themselves out of fixed amount of money (main outcome measure). In a second phase we elicited measures of risk aversion, prudence and temperance through binary lottery choice tasks (Ebert, 2021). Lottery choices involved outcome-risk and delay-risk (we provide scaled up payoffs). Participants face 7 binary choices of each type or 7 choice tasks x 3 orders of risk (risk aversion, prudence, temperance) x 2 risk outcomes (outcome-risk, delay-risk) = 42 choices.

Ebert, Sebastian. 2021. “Prudent discounting: experimental evidence on higher order time risk preferences.” International Economic Review 62 (4):1489–1511.

Intervention Start Date

2025-04-10

Intervention End Date

2025-06-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Willingness to donate to Compensators, an organization that combats climate change by mitigating CO2 emissions.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

1. (higher-order) risk preferences
2. hypothetical questions to assess willingness to support climate action for 1% of the participant's household income and other self-reported questions related to global warming adoption practices (see pre-analysis plan)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Binary choices measuring risk aversion, prudence, and temperance.

Experimental Design

See the pre-analysis for more details. Online participants complete an online survey. We elicit (higher order) risk preferences (prudence, temperance) using the lottery choice tasks of Ebert (2021).

Ebert, Sebastian. 2021. “Prudent discounting: experimental evidence on higher order time risk preferences.” International Economic Review 62 (4):1489–1511.

Experimental Design Details

The willingness to pay for climate change has already been preregistered and this measure has already been collected (see AEARCTR-0015002), and we are drawing from the same subject pool. Subjects who decide to participate in this additional higher-order risk preference part, all face the same 42 binary choices between lotteries. One in ten subjects will be randomly chosen to be paid based on one of their 42 lottery choices. All subjects see the same set of questions.

Randomization Method

Computer randomization for which subjects get paid based on their choices (1 in 10) and for determining their final payoff based on one random choice (1 in 42) and for determining the outcome of their chosen lottery.

Randomization Unit

All subjects face the same set of questions. Randomizing which subjects get paid (1 in 10) and for what choices (1 in 42).

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Individual participants.

Sample size: planned number of observations

At least 455 subjects.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

No clusters.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

We use standard deviations from the data in Ebert (2021) and Andre et al. (2024a). The first provides summary statistics for the number of risk averse, prudent, and temperate choices in a prior experiment. The latter provides summary statistics for personal contributions to mitigate climate change. Our power analysis is based on simple linear regression tests of how the number of (risk averse, temperate, or prudent) choices may predict a minimum detectable difference of 1.5% to 2.5% increase in contributions to mitigate climate change. See the Pre-Analysis Plan for details.

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB