Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:41:46.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communication and Collective Actions: A Survey Experiment on Motivating Energy Conservation in the U.S.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2014

Toby Bolsen ,
James N. Druckman  and
Fay Lomax Cook
Toby Bolsen
Affiliation:
Georgia State University, 38 Peachtree Center Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Scott Hall 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Fay Lomax Cook
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When do citizens take action to benefit the public good, even when individual benefits are scant or non-existent? We address this question with a focus on an area of critical importance when it comes to environmental sustainability—specifically, we examine citizens' actions in the domain of energy conservation. We do so by using a survey experiment to evaluate the impact of exposure to communications posited to shape collective action behavior. We find that communications shape behavior depending on two primary factors not previously studied in concert: to whom responsibility is attributed for collective outcomes; and, what effects, or consequences, are associated with one's actions. We find that communications emphasizing individual responsibility and collective environmental benefits can stimulate collective action.

Keywords

Energyframingbehaviorsattributionssurvey experimentconservation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 2014 , pp. 24 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allcott, H. 2011. Social Norms and Energy Conservation. Journal of Public Economics 95 (9–10): 1082–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, Icek, and Fishbein, Martin. 2005. The Influence of Attitudes on Behaviors. In The Handbook of Attitudes, eds. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., and Zanna, M. P.. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Croson, R. 2008. Partners Versus Strangers. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1, 776–83.Google Scholar
Ayres, I., Raseman, S. and Shih, A. 2009. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 15386.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finckenauer, C. and Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323–70.Google Scholar
Black, S. J., Stern, P. C. and Elworth, J. T. 1985. Personal and Contextual Influences on Household Energy Adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Blalock, H. M. Jr. 1979. Social Statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. S. 1995. Minimum Detectable Effects: A Simple Way to Report the Statistical Power of Experimental Designs. Evaluation Review 19 (5): 547–56.Google Scholar
Bullock, J. and Ha, S. E. 2011. Mediational Analysis Is Harder than It Looks. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, eds. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. and Petty, R. E. 1989. Effects of Message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 10 (1): 3–12.Google Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N. 2007. A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication 57 (1): 99–118.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. A. and Steed, B. 2009. Monitoring and Sanctioning on the Commons: An Application to Forestry. Ecological Economics 68 (7): 2106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, E. A. and Ostrom, E. 2011. Experimental Contributions to Collective-Action Theory. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. and Thaler, R.H. 1988. Anomalies: Cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2 (3): 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects. Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. 2011. What's It all About?: Framing in Political Science. In Perspectives on Framing, ed. Keren, G.. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis, 279–301.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. and Bolsen, T. 2011. Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication 61 (4): 659–88.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Fein, J. and Leeper, T. J. 2012. A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability. American Political Science Review 106 (2): 430–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. and Kam, C. D. 2011. Students as Experimental Participants: A defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–57.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. 2000. Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review 90 (4): 980–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S. 1988. Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion, American Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 416–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, S. E. and Muller, E. N. 1998. Rational Choice and the Dynamics of Collective Political Action. The American Political Science Review 92 (1): 37–49.Google Scholar
Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N. and Opp, K.-D. 1989. Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action. American Political Science Review 83 (3): 885–903.Google Scholar
Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, D., Jackowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D. and McFadden, D. 1998. Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (2): 85–116.Google Scholar
Hamman, J. R., Weber, R. A. and Woon, J. 2011. An Experimental Investigation of Electoral Delegation and the Provision of Public Goods. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4): 738–52.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lubell, M., Zahran, S. and Vedlitz, A. 2007. Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. Political Behavior 29 (3): 391–414.Google Scholar
Lubell, M. 2002. Environmental Activism as Collective Action. Environment and Behavior 34 (4): 431–54.Google Scholar
Malhotra, N. and Krosnick, J. A. 2007. The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences About Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples. Political Analysis 15 (3): 286–323.Google Scholar
Moons, W. G., Mackie, D. M. and Garcia-Marques, T. 2009. The Impact of Repetition-Induced Familiarity on Agreement with Weak and Strong Arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (1): 32–44.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, D. J. 2002. Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Walker, J. and Gardner, R. 1992. Covenants with and Without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible. American Political Science Review 86 (2): 404–17.Google Scholar
Polletta, F. and Ho, M. K. 2006. Frames and Their Consequences. In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, eds. Gooden, R. E. and Tilly, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. and Ordeshook, P. C. 1968. A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25–42.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O., Tyler, T. R., Citrin, J. and Kinder, D. R. 1978. Political System Support and Public Response to the Energy Crisis. American Journal of Political Science 22 (1): 56–82.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407–24.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211 (4481): 453–58.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bolsen Supplementary Material

Table A1-A4

Download Bolsen Supplementary Material(File)
File 43.3 KB