Suchergebnisse

This thesis focuses on two important aspects of climate change. First, it deals with recent behavioral instruments to induce individual climate protection, as well as their behavioral underpinnings. Second, it investigates possible factors supporting the emergence of skepticism towards climate change in the light of increasing online news consumption. All of the studies presented here draw insights based on lab- and field experimental data and test causal hypotheses. Central findings are: (1) Neither does transparency on the potential influence and purpose of a pro-environmental default reduce its effectiveness, nor do different aspects of psychological reactance change that. (2) Defaults can have detrimental effects on highly intrinsically motivated contributions to climate protection, relative to recommendations and mandatory minimum contributions, although interaction with source information appears to be negligible. (3) Proclaimed doubt in the independence of news media does not appear to negatively affect consumers' trust in news media- and scientific sources reporting on recent events in climate change. Findings contribute to a better understanding of how pro-environmental nudges work, their effectiveness in relation to conventional instruments, and of the role of proclaimed media distrust on public trust in media and scientific sources reporting on climate change. The former is central to an improved understanding of behavioral instruments that become increasingly important worldwide as governmental policy-tools. The latter is essential for a better understanding of contemporary online environments and their impact on the emergence of fake news, echo chambers, and filter bubbles. ; Diese Thesis widmet sich zwei zentralen Aspekten des Klimawandels. Erstens beschäftigt sie sich sowohl mit neueren Verhaltensinstrumenten zur Motivation individuellen Klimaschutzverhaltens, als auch mit deren Verhaltensgrundlagen. Zweitens untersucht sie mögliche Einflussfaktoren auf die Entstehung von Skeptizismus gegenüber Klimawandel, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund des ansteigenden online Nachrichtenkonsums. Alle der hier vorgestellten Studien ziehen Schlussfolgerungen auf Basis labor- und feldexperimenteller Daten und testen kausale Hypothesen. Wesentliche Ergebnisse sind: (1) Weder beeinflusst Transparenz in Bezug auf potentielle Effekte und Absichten eines umweltfreundlichen Standardwertes dessen Effekt, noch wird dies durch Aspekte psychologischer Reaktanz verändert. (2) Im Vergleich zu Empfehlungen und verpflichtenden Mindestbeiträgen können Standardwerte nachteilige Effekte auf Klimaschutzbeiträge mit hoher intrinsischer Motivation haben. Die Interaktion mit Informationen zum Urheber der Interventionen erscheint vernachlässigbar zu sein. (3) Verkündetes Misstrauen in die Unabhängigkeit der Medien scheint weder einen negativen Einfluss auf das Vertrauen von Konsumenten in Nachrichtenmedien, noch auf das Vertrauen in wissenschaftliche Quellen, die zum Klimawandel berichten, zu haben. Die Ergebnisse tragen zu einem besseren wissenschaftlichen Verständnis der Wirkungsweise umweltfreundlicher

How decision makers respond to behavioral and traditional interventions might depend on their and the regulator's attributes. This online experiment investigates the effect of defaults, recommendations, and mandatory minimum contributions accompanied by regulator information on the private provision of climate protection, accounting for intrinsic motivation. Findings show that all interventions increase the propensity of individuals to choose the focal value. There is no evidence that recommendations and defaults change average contributions. We report a negative interaction of the default with intrinsic motivation. Expert or political regulator information decreases intervention effectiveness. The study improves our understanding of behavioral public policy instruments.

We explore the common attributes of political conflicts in which scientific findings have a central role, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, but also drawing on long-standing conflicts over climate change and vaccinations. We analyze situations in which the systematic spread of disinformation or conspiracy theories undermines public trust in the work of scientists and prevents policy from being informed by the best available evidence. We also examine instances in which public opposition to scientifically grounded policy arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experience. We argue for the public benefit of quick identification of politically motivated science denial, and inoculation of the public against its ill effects.

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.