The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception
- 819 Downloads
In the ongoing debate about the “energy paradox”, a recent stream of literature highlights the importance of behavioural anomalies such as bounded rationality and self-control problems. However, the role of individual-level factors in explaining the energy paradox is still not fully understood. Combining literature on behavioural anomalies and consumer heterogeneity, the current paper analyses how individual differences influence the perception of energy-related information and susceptibility to choice-framing effects. A choice-based conjoint experiment about energy-saving home improvements was conducted with 363 homeowners in Switzerland. Results show that numeracy and energy literacy have no influence on how much attention individuals pay to energy cost savings. However, impulsivity and risk aversion are found to significantly impact homeowners’ weighting of future energy cost savings. Further, it is found that impulsive homeowners are significantly more susceptible to energy cost-framing effects. A key implication for consumer policy is that general educational programs targeted at enhancing citizens’ knowledge and cognitive abilities are unlikely to increase energy conservation investments. The findings further suggest that consumer policies and business models aimed at reducing impulsiveness and influencing risk perception might foster the uptake of energy-saving measures in the residential housing sector.
KeywordsHousehold behaviour Energy conservation Numeracy Energy literacy Time preferences Cost framing Consumer policy
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
The authors thank the Swiss Federal Office of Energy for funding the survey described in this research article. The research is part of the activities of SCCER CREST (Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research), which is financially supported by the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) under Grant No. 466 KTI.2014.0114.
- Allenby, G. M., & Rossi, P. E. (2003). Perspectives based on 10 years of HB in marketing research. Paper presented at the Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Andor, M., Gerster, A., & Sommer, S. (2016). Consumer inattention, heuristic thinking and the role of energy labels. Retrieved from https://EconPapers.repec.org/. Accessed 06 Dec 2016.
- Bioregional. (2011). Helping to inform the green deal green shoots from pay as you save, August 2011. London: Bioregional.Google Scholar
- Blasch, J., Filippini, M., & Kumar, N. (2016). Boundedly rational consumers, energy and investment literacy, and the display of information on household appliances. CER-ETH-Center of Economic Research at ETH Zurich, Working Paper, 16, 24.Google Scholar
- Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series.Google Scholar
- Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669–700.Google Scholar
- Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment and Decision making, 6(7), 638.Google Scholar
- Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2005). Bounded rationality and directed cognition. Harvard University. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/xgabaix/publications/bounded-rationality-and-directed-cognition-working-paper. Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
- Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Gelman, A., & Park, D. K. (2012). Splitting a predictor at the upper quarter or third and the lower quarter or third. The American Statistician.Google Scholar
- Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. The Journal of Marketing, 3–19.Google Scholar
- Harrison, M. (2010). Valuing the future: The social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1599963. Accessed 2 April 2016.
- Hausman, J. A. (1979). Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 33–54.Google Scholar
- Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 492–507.Google Scholar
- INFE. (2011). Measuring financial literacy: questionnaire and guidance notes for conducting an internationally comparable survey of financial literacy. Periodical measuring financial literacy: questionnaire and guidance notes for conducting an internationally comparable survey of financial literacy.Google Scholar
- Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental education research, 8(3), 239–260.Google Scholar
- Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–477.Google Scholar
- Linares, P., & Labandeira, X. (2010). Energy efficiency: Economics and policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(3), 573–592.Google Scholar
- Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573–597.Google Scholar
- Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. The Journal of Political Economy, 151–158.Google Scholar
- Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2000). Behavioral economics (NBER Working Papers: 7948). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/
- Neumann, L. J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (vol. 60). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299.Google Scholar
- Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(6), 435.Google Scholar
- Pingle, M. (2006). Deliberation cost as a foundation for behavioral economics. In M. Altman (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary behavioral economics: Foundations and developments (pp. 340–355). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Rabin, M., & Thaler, R. H. (2001). Anomalies: Risk aversion. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(1), 219–232.Google Scholar
- Shapira, Z. (1995). Risk taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 165–180.Google Scholar
- U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015). World energy consumption by end-use sector (quadrillion Btu) and shares of total energy use, 2011. Available at www.eia.gov
- US Department of Energy. (2012). Essential principles and fundamental concepts for energy education. Retrieved from Washington: US Department of Energy.Google Scholar