a dirty word or a dirty world n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 61

A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World?. Attribute Framing, Politics, and Query Theory. David Hardisty, Eric Johnson & Elke Weber Columbia University NSF SES-03455840 & SES-0352062 NIA 5R01AG027934-02 . TAX. A Paradox?. Leading economists and climate scientists advocate a CO 2 tax

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World?


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. A Dirty Word Or A Dirty World? Attribute Framing, Politics, and Query Theory David Hardisty, Eric Johnson & Elke Weber Columbia University NSF SES-03455840 & SES-0352062 NIA 5R01AG027934-02

    2. TAX

    3. A Paradox? • Leading economists and climate scientists advocate a CO2 tax • Few US politicians mention a CO2 tax • Meanwhile, the carbon offset (and credit) industry allows people to voluntarily pay more

    4. The Quayle Conjecture “Our party has been accused of fooling the public by calling tax increases ‘revenue enhancement’. Not so. No one was fooled.”-- J. Danforth Quayle, V.P., 1989-1993

    5. Attribute Framing • Labels make a big difference • People pay more for 75% lean than 25% fat (Levin & Gaeth, 1988) • Doctors & patients prefer survival rate to mortality rate (Marteau, 1980; McNeil, Pauker, Sox & Tversky, 1982) • Women, but not men, prefer an 80% fat-free chocolate bar (Braun, Gaeth & Levin, 1997)

    6. Political Ideology • Strong, reliable individual differences based on political conservatism (Jost, 2006) • Conservatives sensitive to the labeling of financial options (Morris, Carranza & Fox, in press) • Perhaps conservatives are uniquely sensitive to the “tax” label

    7. Predictions • More support for the offset label than the tax label • More support among Democrats than Republicans across labels • Republicans more strongly affected by the labeling

    8. Study 1: Participants • 275 US Residents • Mean age = 41 (SD = 13) • Recruited and run online • 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, 37% none of the above • No significant demographic differences among parties

    9. Study 1: Methods • Proposal to increase cost of certain products believed to contribute to global warming through energy use and resulting CO2 emissions • Price increases would fund programs to decrease CO2 levels by funding alternative energies or carbon sequestration • Proposal described as carbon tax or carbon offset (between subjects manipulation)

    10. Study 1: Methods Suppose you are purchasing a round trip flight from Los Angeles to New York city, and you are debating between two tickets, one of which includes a carbon tax [offset]. You are debating between the following two tickets, which are otherwise identical. Which would you choose?

    11. Study 1: Methods • How strongly would you prefer Ticket A or Ticket B? (-2 = Strongly Prefer B to +2 = Strongly Prefer A) • Do you think the carbon tax [offset] included in Ticket A should be made mandatory for all airline tickets sold in the US? (-3 = DefinitelyNot to 3 = Definitely)

    12. Study 1: Methods • Environmental attitudes questionnaire (NEPr, Dunlap et al., 2000) • Demographic questions, including political affiliation

    13. Study 1: Flight Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    14. Study 1: Flight Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    15. Study 1: Flight Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    16. Study 1: Flight Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    17. Study 1: Gas Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Brand 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    18. Study 1: Electricity Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Option 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    19. Study 1: Computer Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Computer 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    20. Study 1: Preferences 2 1.5 1 0.5 Offset Mean Preference for the More Costly Product 0 Tax -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 Democrat Independent Republican

    21. Study 1: Support for Regulation 3 2 1 Offset Mean Support for Regulation 0 Tax -1 -2 -3 Democrat Independent Republican

    22. What About Environmental Attitudes? 16 14 12 10 Mean NEPr 8 6 4 2 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    23. Study 1: Environmental Attitudes 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Tax Proportion Choosing the Costlier Option 0.5 Offset 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 25 50 75 100 Environmental Attitudes (NEPr) Quartile

    24. Study 1: Education 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Tax Proportion Choosing the Costlier Option 0.5 Offset 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2-Year Degree or Less Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

    25. Study 1: Discussion • Effect of labeling depended on political affiliation • Little is known about the cognitive or affective processes driving attribute framing effects • In Study 2, we explored the cognitive mechanisms underlying preference construction

    26. Query Theory (Johnson et al., 2007) • Preferences constructed from memory • Series of mental queries for and against each option • The resulting balance of evidence determines your preference • Order matters: due to output interference, the second query generates less support

    27. Query Theory: Empirical Support • Endowment effect: ownership changes the order of queries (Johnson et al., 2007) • Intertemporal choice: accelerate-delay effect (Weber et al., 2007) • Reversing the natural order of queries eliminates these effects

    28. Query Theory: Hypotheses • Label will affect ordering of thoughts supporting or opposed to carbon fee • Republicans will have immediate, negative thoughts in response to the tax label • The ordering will affect the balance of support, in turn predicting choices

    29. Study 2: Participants • 373 US Residents • 39% Democrats, 21% Republicans, 24% Independents, 16% none of the above

    30. Study 2: Methods • Participants practiced listing their thoughts • Read description of tax/offset program • Listed thoughts about the two airline tickets • Indicated their choice, preference strength, and support for regulation • Reported positive & negative feelings (“affect”) • Self-coded their thoughts • Reported demographics

    31. Study 2: Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    32. Study 2: Choices 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Offset Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.5 Tax 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Democrat Independent Republican

    33. Study 2: Positive Affect 4 3.5 3 Offset Mean Positive Affect 2.5 Tax 2 1.5 1 Democrat Independent Republican

    34. Study 2: Negative Affect 4 3.5 3 Offset Mean Negative Affect 2.5 Tax 2 1.5 1 Democrat Independent Republican

    35. Thought Examples • good for the environment • carbon offset is not that much more than regular ticket • what does the extra money do to offset the carbon

    36. Thought Examples • we are taxed too much • I don't want to pay additional tax

    37. Thought Examples • Why would I ever pay extra for this? • I really don't care about a 'carbon tax' • If it's the same thing, get rid of the tax • The government needs to stop taxing us randomly • I will be old or dead by the time this world has an energy crisis • And by that i mean a huge one where we are all f***ed • This is a ridiculous thought to have

    38. Thought Examples • tree huggers • how do I really know which one has carbon emissions? • save the world

    39. Order of Thoughts • Order calculated as the Standardized Median Rank Difference (SMRD) • SMRD scores vary from +1 (supportive thoughts first) to -1 (opposed thoughts first)

    40. Study 2: Number of Thoughts • Participants listed 2.7 thoughts (SD = 1.4) • No effect of party or frame

    41. Study 2: Order of Thoughts 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Offset Mean SMRD Score 0 Tax -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 Democrat Independent Republican

    42. Study 2: Content of Thoughts 2 1.5 1 0.5 Offset Mean Supporting Minus Opposed Thoughts 0 Tax -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 Democrat Independent Republican

    43. Study 2: Thought Order and Content • Order & content highly correlated, r = .68, p < .001.

    44. Study 2: Mediation Frame x Party β =0.82, p < .0001 Choice

    45. Study 2: Mediation Order & Balance of Thoughts β =0.23, p < .05 β =0.87, p < .0001 β =0.84, p < .0001 β =1.43, p < .0001 Frame x Party Choice

    46. Study 2: Mediation Order & Balance of Thoughts β =0.23, p < .05 β =0.87, p < .0001 β =1.43, p < .0001 β =0.84, p < .0001 Frame x Party β =0.82, p < .0001 Choice (β = 0.59, p = .054) Sobel Test, Order: z = 2.3, p < .05 Sobel Test, Content: z = 3.0, p < .001

    47. Study 2: Education 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Tax Proportion Choosing the Costlier Product 0.5 Offset 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2-Year Degree or Less Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

    48. Study 2: Discussion • Replicates Study 1 • As predicted by Query Theory, differential framing effect driven by a cognitive difference in the order & balance of thoughts supporting each option

    49. Can you make Republicans like taxes? • What if we manipulate the order of thoughts?

    50. Study 3: Results 0.7 Offset 0.6 Tax 0.5 0.4 Proportion Choosing the Costlier Ticket 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 First Thoughts Second Thoughts