Bernadette Sütterlin

Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions

People are more concerned about the negative consequences of human hazards compared with natural hazards. Results of four experiments show that the same negative outcome (e.g., number of birds killed by an oil spill) was more negatively evaluated when caused by humans than when caused by nature. Results further show that when identical risk information was provided, participants evaluated nuclear power more negatively compared with solar power. The affect associated with the hazard per se influenced the interpretation of the new information. Furthermore, the affect experienced in the situation fully mediated the evaluation of the negative outcomes of a hazard. Peoples reliance on the affect heuristic is a challenge for acceptance of cost-benefit analyses because equally negative outcomes are differently evaluated depending on the cause. Symbolically significant information and the affect evoked by this information may result in biased and riskier decisions.

Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect

Different geoengineering strategies have been proposed to fight climate change, and they are increasingly attracting the interest of scholars and policy-makers. However, public perception and acceptance will be crucial for the implementation of these technological approaches, such as solar radiation management (SRM). In the present study, we used an experimental approach to examine factors influencing laypeople’s perception of SRM and how information about SRM shapes people’s evaluation of geoengineering technologies. Participants (N = 250) were randomly assigned to one of three information conditions. The control group did not receive any specific information about SRM but was only informed that technologies existed for fighting climate change. The participants in the experimental groups received a short explanation of SRM, either with or without mentioning possible risks associated with this technological approach. Results indicate that a mere description of the technology already reduces support for technological solutions to fight climate change. This finding poses a serious challenge to researchers interested in convincing the public to accept experiments related to SRM. Analyses of the factors influencing perception and evaluation of geoengineering technologies revealed that, in the control group, the affect associated with climate change exerted a significant impact on the affective–cognitive evaluation of geoengineering technologies. However, this was not the case in the experimental groups. This means, the participants who received information about SRM did not rely on affective responses regarding climate change. Finally, results of mediation analyses showed that providing information resulted in a different affective–cognitive evaluation of geoengineering technologies that, subsequently, influenced people’s assessment of the benefits and risks associated with geoengineering technologies.

Desired and Undesired Effects of Energy Labels—An Eye-Tracking Study

Saving energy is an important pillar for the mitigation of climate change. Electric devices (e.g., freezer and television) are an important player in the residential sector in the final demand for energy. Consumers’ purchase decisions are therefore crucial to successfully reach the energy-efficiency goals. Putting energy labels on products is often considered an adequate way of empowering consumers to make informed purchase decisions. Consequently, this approach should contribute to reducing overall energy consumption. The effectiveness of its measurement depends on consumers’ use and interpretation of the information provided. Despite advances in energy efficiency and a mandatory labeling policy, final energy consumption per capita is in many countries still increasing. This paper provides a systematic analysis of consumers’ reactions to one of the most widely used eco-labels, the European Union (EU) energy label, by using eye-tracking methodology as an objective measurement. The study’s results partially support the EU’s mandatory policy, showing that the energy label triggers attention toward energy information in general. However, the energy label’s effect on consumers’ actual product choices seems to be rather low. The study’s results show that the currently used presentation format on the label is insufficient. The findings suggest that it does not facilitate the integration of energy-related information. Furthermore, the current format can attract consumers to focus more on energy-efficiency information, leading them to disregard information about actual energy consumption. As a result, the final energy consumption may increase because excellent ratings on energy efficiency (e.g., A++) do not automatically imply little consumption. Finally, implications for policymakers and suggestions for further research are discussed.