Shahzeen Z. Attari shahzeen.attari@gmail Carnegie Mellon University

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

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

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 Reactance People respond negatively to any force which restricts their freedom of action (Brehm et al. 1966) Women forced to switch their laundry detergent brand expressed strong negative attitudes towards the law Some even smuggled phosphate detergent from neighboring counties (Mazis et al. 1973)

10. U.S. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel (EPA, 2007)

11. Issues Studied 11

12. Survey Asks: 12

13. Framing Affects Behavior 75% Lean 25% Fat (Levine & Gaeth, 1988)

14. Study Contrasts Two Frames

15. Four Survey Versions All participants providedreasonsfor each choice

16. Results: SUV Soft, Environment Soft, National Security Hard, Environment Hard, National Security Voluntary Action Regulation

17. Results: Green Energy Soft, National Security Soft, Environment Hard, National Security Hard, Environment Voluntary Action Regulation

18. Voluntary 18

19. Regulation 19

20. Reasons for Preferences

21. Findings - Framing did not matter - For SUVs and Trucks: Soft >> Voluntary >> Hard For Green Energy: Soft ~ Voluntary >> Hard - Voluntary Actions  female, pro-environmental Regulations  soft, pro-environmental - Reasons: Economic incentives Personal 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 ICSD Conference Travel Funding Environmental Research and Education Foundation National Science Foundation Mitch Small Funding Robyn Dawes Mary Schoen Mike DeKay Liz Hohenstein Wändi Bruine de Bruin

26. Demographics of Participants 209 Pittsburgh residents Median Income: $20,001-$50,000 Median Age: 28 years 47% Male 52% Dem, 16% Rep, 13% Ind 46% Liberal, 24% Conservative 21% Own SUV 9% 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 SUV Use alternative energy Purchase green energy Political party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind, Not sure) Political views (extremely liberal   extremely conservative) Gender Age Income Education

28. Logistic Regressions Used for categorical, dichotomous responses Probability of saying yes Regression results

29. Who are the major carbon players? The U.S. emits 21% of the world’s carbon emissions, but has only 5% of the world’s population. 25% Netherlands Environmental AssessmentAgency (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)