The Effect of Cognitive Dissonance on Sustainable Consumption: Evidence from Germany

Last registered on June 29, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Effect of Cognitive Dissonance on Sustainable Consumption: Evidence from Germany
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007882
Initial registration date
June 28, 2021

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
June 29, 2021, 2:20 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Manuel Frondel
Affiliation
RWI
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Jana Eßer
PI Affiliation
RWI
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Daniela Flörchinger
PI Affiliation
RWI
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Stephan Sommer
PI Affiliation
RWI
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-06-29
End date
2022-01-31
Keywords
Environment & Energy
Additional Keywords
Self-image, self-signaling, behavior, pro-social behavior
JEL code(s)
D12, Q56, D91
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The aims of this project are to empirically investigate a) cognitive dissonance avoidance by a change in behavior to comply with the own moral principles, b) cognitive dissonance avoidance by a change in beliefs or the suppression of knowledge, c) pro-social behavior as self-signaling. To this end, we conduct a survey among 4,000 individuals and elicit their attitudes towards sustainable production. Embedded in the survey is a discrete choice task in which respondents can decide on whether they prefer to win a voucher worth 20 euros from either amazon or the sustainable online marketplace memolife. To elicit revealed preferences by inducing incentive-compatible response behavior, one out of 20 respondents can win a voucher by chance, thereby avoiding hypothetical bias. To cause or exacerbate cognitive dissonance, we use two information treatments in which either immediately before or directly after their voucher decision half of the 4,000 respondents are reminded of their previously stated attitude towards sustainable production, while the other half of the participants receives information on criticism about conventional online shopping.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Eßer, Jana et al. 2021. "The Effect of Cognitive Dissonance on Sustainable Consumption: Evidence from Germany." AEA RCT Registry. June 29. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7882-1.0
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)
Our primary analysis aims at exploring how consumers reduce cognitive dissonance resulting from a discrepancy between attitude and behavior in the context of sustainable consumption. To this end, we design a discrete-choice experiment and randomly assign 4,000 participants to four experimental groups of equal size. Prior to the experiment, we ask participants of all groups about their attitude towards sustainable products in general and towards certain aspects of sustainable production in particular. We then inform all participants that they can win a voucher worth 20 euros for their next online purchase. One out of 20 respondents will win a voucher. Respondents can decide on whether they prefer to receive an amazon voucher or a voucher for the sustainable online marketplace memolife, which is the discrete-choice task in our experiment.

Just before learning about the chance to win a voucher and answering the voucher question, Group 1 and Group 3 receive two different treatments that aim at increasing the respondents' cognitive dissonance. It results from having a positive attitude towards sustainable production but choosing the amazon voucher. We remind participants of Group 1 of their attitudes by asking them whether they confirm to either have a positive attitude towards sustainable production, dislike sustainable production, or are indifferent, depending on their previous answers. Participants of Group 3 receive information on criticism about conventional online shopping before we ask them whether they are familiar with these problems. Group 2 and Group 4 receive the same questions as Group 1 and Group 3, respectively, but only after a voucher was chosen.
Intervention Start Date
2021-06-29
Intervention End Date
2021-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The share of memolife vouchers relative to the share of amazon vouchers
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our primary analysis aims at exploring how consumers reduce cognitive dissonance resulting from a discrepancy between attitude and behavior in the context of sustainable consumption. To this end, we design a discrete-choice experiment and randomly assign 4,000 participants to four experimental groups of equal size. Prior to the experiment, we ask participants of all groups about their attitude towards sustainable products in general and towards certain aspects of sustainable production in particular. Following a section with questions on other topics unrelated to the experiment, we then inform all participants that they can win a voucher worth 20 euros for their next online purchase. One out of 20 respondents will win a voucher. Respondents can decide on whether they prefer to receive an amazon voucher or a voucher for the sustainable online marketplace memolife, which is the discrete-choice task in our experiment.

Just before learning about the chance to win a voucher and answering the voucher question, Group 1 and Group 3 receive two different treatments that aim at increasing the respondents' cognitive dissonance. It results from having a positive attitude towards sustainable production but choosing the amazon voucher. We directly remind participants of Group 1 of their attitudes by asking them whether they confirm to either have a positive attitude towards sustainable production, dislike sustainable production, or are indifferent, depending on their previous answers. Participants of Group 3 receive information on criticism about conventional online shopping before we ask them whether they are familiar with these problems. Group 2 and Group 4 receive the same questions as Group 1 and Group 3, respectively, but only after a voucher was chosen.

Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization by computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
0
Sample size: planned number of observations
4000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We design a discrete-choice experiment, in which we randomly assign 4,000 participants to four experimental groups of equal size.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
see pre-analysis plan for an extensive description of the minimum detectable effect size.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Pre-analysis plan Eßer Flörchinger Frondel Sommer

MD5: 6134ff12e1695a3dd50963ef205918f0

SHA1: 639109540e7974f3faa53500789df5e8b3e4adc0

Uploaded At: June 27, 2021

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