Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
info(at)avldigital.remove-this.de
Deutsch English
Narrow Search
Search narrowed by
Last searches

Results for *

Displaying results 1 to 1 of 1.

  1. Differences in How and Why Social Comparison and Real-Time Feedback Impact Resource Use
    Evidence from a Field Experiment
    Author: Andor, Mark Andreas; Götte, Lorenz; Price, Michael Keith; Schulze Tilling, Anna; Tomberg, Lukas
    Published: November 2023
    Publisher:  National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass

    We compare the behavior and welfare effects of two popular interventions for resource conservation. The first intervention is social comparison reports (SC), which primarily provide consumers with information motivating behavioral change. The second... more

    Access:
    Verlag (lizenzpflichtig)
    Resolving-System (lizenzpflichtig)

    Location:
    Sächsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

    Location:
    Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

    Location:
    Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Universitätsbibliothek
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

    Location:
    Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

    Location:
    Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) / Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universitätsbibliothek
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

    Location:
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan

     

    We compare the behavior and welfare effects of two popular interventions for resource conservation. The first intervention is social comparison reports (SC), which primarily provide consumers with information motivating behavioral change. The second intervention is real-time feedback (RTF), which primarily provides consumers with information facilitating behavioral change. In a field experiment with around 1,000 participants, we directly observe the interventions' effects on participants' behavior. Further, we elicit participants' willingness to pay for receiving the interventions, both before and after having experienced them for one month. We find that SC leads to a reduction in water use per shower by 9.4%, RTF by 28.8%, and the combination (BOTH) by 35.0%. Our willingness to pay results show that all interventions are highly valued by participants and that willingness to pay for RTF and BOTH is significantly higher than for SC. Furthermore, we find that the valuation of the interventions do not change following one-month experience. Our results suggest that while both interventions improve welfare, providing consumers with information facilitating behavioral change achieves a higher impact and a slightly higher welfare increase than providing consumers with information motivating behavioral change

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: English
    Media type: Book
    Format: Online
    Series: NBER working paper series ; no. w31845
    Subjects: Konsumentenverhalten; Wasser; Ressourcennutzung; Zahlungsbereitschaftsanalyse; Wohlfahrtsanalyse; Experiment; Feldforschung; Field Experiments; Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis; Water; Technological Innovation
    Scope: 1 Online-Ressource, illustrations (black and white)
    Notes:

    Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers