The graphical interfaces were similar to those employed in Study 1 but with the addition of a pie chart illustrating
the emission policy preferences of participants in that study, relative to the emission cut option displayed in the bar chart.
Study 2 incorporated the same framing manipulation as Study 1 in conjunction with a normative message about
the emission policy preferences of participants from the first study.
In summary, we are interested in how framing and persuasive normative messages influence Australians GHG
emission policy preferences.
Specifically, normative information about
the emission policy preferences of respondents in our first study successfully increased emission cuts in the loss condition.
However, the novel result was that a normative message — this time regarding
the emission policy preferences of others within a presumed peer group — also increased the amount people were prepared to reduce Australia's emissions.
Consistent with previous theorising and empirical research highlighting that foregone - gains are preferred over losses [10], [19]--[23], people supported higher levels of emission cuts when the costs were framed as a foregone - gain than when they were framed as a loss (the one exception to this pattern was in Study 2, where the framing effect was eliminated when combined with a normative message about
the emission policy preferences of others).
Not exact matches
[Andy Revkin — Mr. Gore is sticking with his
preference for taxing sources of
emissions and limiting costs for citizens that bears no resemblance to «cap and trade» bills like those that have faltered in Congress of late and shares some of the architecture, if not details, of the «cap and dividend» approach of Peter Barnes and a similar proposal from James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who has moved far into the
policy realm lately.]
Participants were subsequently asked to indicate their
policy preferences regarding how Australia should manage its CO2
emissions using a graphical interface.