The Impact of Information Provision on Revealed-Preference Support for Climate Policies
Motivated reasoning may exacerbate the divergence of opinions over global challenges, such as climate change. As a result, politicians may adopt less effective measures to combat these challenges either because they themselves have motivated beliefs or because they cater to constituencies with motivated beliefs. In an online experiment where a broad sample of the German population makes consequential decisions about abatement options, we analyze whether motivated reasoning among supporters of climate action favors less effective measures. We find that individuals prefer a concrete over an abstract abatement measure, but are responsive to information that the abstract measure is more effective. There is no evidence for motivated reasoning. The results imply that support for effective climate policies can be increased through information provision.
United States Association for Energy Economics (USAEE)
JEL-Klassifikation: C93, D02, D83, D91, Q54, Q58
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4798209