IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v48y2013icp31-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Avineri, Erel
  • Owen D. Waygood, E.

Abstract

The provision of information about transport-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the traveler can be seen as an instrument to increase the likelihood of more sustainable choices being made by individuals. However, as transport-related CO2 emissions are largely seen as a ‘social’ cost rather than a ‘private’ cost to the individual, the behavioral engagement with and response to information on environmental effects of travel choices may be limited. It is argued that framing, studied in a range of contexts, can be used to enhance the evaluation of choice attributes and promote more sustainable choices. An experiment is reported that examines the effect of valence framing of amounts of CO2 emissions on the perceived differences between alternative amounts. Through the use of positive and negative terms, the information is framed to focus attention either on the potential of a travel mode to provide environmental benefit (positive frame) or on its potential to reduce environmental loss (negative frame). Survey participants’ estimates of CO2 amounts were compared for positive and negative framing of the same information using an ordered logit model. The findings imply that negative framing is more effective than positive framing in highlighting differences between CO2 amounts of alternative travel modes and therefore is likely to influence travel-related choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Avineri, Erel & Owen D. Waygood, E., 2013. "Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-38.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:48:y:2013:i:c:p:31-38
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856412001425
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2009. "Additive Utility in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 863-873, May.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Katrina Armstrong & J. Sanford Schwartz & Genevieve Fitzgerald & Mary Putt & Peter A. Ubel, 2002. "Effect of Framing as Gain versus Loss on Understanding and Hypothetical Treatment Choices: Survival and Mortality Curves," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 76-83, February.
    4. John M. Rose & Lorenzo Masiero, 2010. "A comparison of prospect theory in WTP and preference space," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1006, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    5. Smith, Vernon L, 1991. "Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 877-897, August.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
    8. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    9. Avineri, Erel, 2012. "On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 512-521.
    10. Ben-Elia, Eran & Ettema, Dick, 2009. "Carrots versus sticks: Rewarding commuters for avoiding the rush-hour--a study of willingness to participate," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 68-76, March.
    11. Fagley, N. S. & Miller, Paul M., 1997. "Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 355-373, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles Collet & Pascal Gastineau & Benoit Chèze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Frederic Martinez, 2022. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," Working Papers hal-03321706, HAL.
    2. Rahman, Arifur & Crouch, Geoffrey I. & Laing, Jennifer H., 2018. "Tourists' temporal booking decisions: A study of the effect of contextual framing," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 55-68.
    3. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    4. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:110-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:424-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Diacon, Stephen & Hasseldine, John, 2007. "Framing effects and risk perception: The effect of prior performance presentation format on investment fund choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 31-52, January.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Y.Y., 2005. "Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 54-65, September.
    10. Dorison, Charles A & Lerner, Jennifer S & Heller, Blake H & Rothman, Alexander J & Kawachi, Ichiro I & Wang, Ke & Rees, Vaughan W & Gill, Brian P & Gibbs, Nancy & Ebersole, Charles R & Vally, Zahir & , 2022. "In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits : Experimental evidence from 84 countries," Other publications TiSEM 235f67b6-6be5-4061-8693-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    12. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    13. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    14. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    15. Avineri, Erel, 2012. "On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 512-521.
    16. Lorenzo Masiero & David Hensher, 2011. "Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 249-271, March.
    17. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip, 2004. "Strategic Risk Management Behavior: What Can Utility Functions Tell Us?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20388, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Teck H. Ho & Noah Lim & Colin Camerer, 2005. "Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000476, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    21. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    22. Rey, David & Dixit, Vinayak V. & Ygnace, Jean-Luc & Waller, S. Travis, 2016. "An endogenous lottery-based incentive mechanism to promote off-peak usage in congested transit systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 46-55.
    23. Geng, Kexin & Wang, Yacan & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guarda, Pablo, 2023. "Commuter departure time choice behavior under congestion charge: Analysis based on cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:48:y:2013:i:c:p:31-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.