|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Higher Order Preferences and Climate Change Attitudes
|
After
Higher Order Risk Preferences and Climate Change Attitudes
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
We study the link between higher-order risk preferences and climate change.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
April 01, 2028
|
After
June 01, 2025
|
|
Field
JEL Code(s)
|
Before
|
After
C90, D81
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 06, 2025 12:10 AM
|
After
April 09, 2025 11:04 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Online incentivized experiment.
|
After
Online incentivized experiment that measures willingness to pay/allocate money to mitigate CO2 emissions and elicit higher order risk preferences.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
March 25, 2025
|
After
April 10, 2025
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
April 01, 2026
|
After
June 01, 2025
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Willingness to donate to an organization that combats climate change.
|
After
Willingness to donate to Compensators, an organization that combats climate change by mitigating CO2 emissions.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
wtp for preventing climate change
|
After
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
See the pre-analysis for more details. Online participants complete an online survey.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
400
|
After
At least 455 subjects.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
400
|
After
No clusters.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
5 standard deviations.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
|
After
risk aversion, risk apportionment, prudence, temperance, online experiment
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Recruit 400+ participants using Numerator for an incentivized survey. Participants decide how much money to donate to a climate change organization and how much to keep (main outcome measure). We also collected their risk attitudes through binary lottery choices. Lottery choices consider both delay in payments as well as financial payments. Binary choices measured either risk aversion, prudence, or temperance. Participants face 7 questions of each type or 7x3(order of risk)x2(time or money)=42 choices.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|