Table 1 - uploaded by Richard P. Larrick
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Consumers are often poorly informed about the energy consumed by different technologies and products. Traditionally, consumers have been provided with limited and flawed energy metrics, such as miles per gallon, to quantify energy use. We propose four principles for designing better energy metrics. Better measurements would describe the amount of e...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... Consumption metrics are more helpful than effi- ciency metrics because they not only convey what direction is better (lower) but also provide clear insights about the size of improvements. A consumption perspective (see Table 1) reveals that replacing a 10-MPG car with an 11-MPG car saves about as much gas as replacing a 34-MPG car with a 50-MPG car (1 gallon per 100 miles). A cash-for-clunkers program in the United States in 2009 was ridiculed for seeming to reward small ...
Similar publications
Consensus mechanism (CM) is the heart and soul of blockchain, for it allows nodes in a blockchain network to reach an agreement on the state of system execution. Among the CMs, the right for constructing the next new block is regarded as the most important one since it is required for the blockchain to grow so that transaction data can be recorded...
Citations
... Furthermore, there is reason to think that this too is the result of framing. People are notoriously bad at estimating the effects of emissions-reducing activities (Larrick et al., 2015), and thus likely to overestimate the emissions-reduction potential of carbon removal. But these misperceptions can be corrected. ...
Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is “unavoidable” if net zero emissions are to be achieved, and is fast rising up the climate policy agenda. Research, development, demonstration, and deployment of various methods has begun, but technical advances alone will not guarantee a role for them in tackling climate change. For those engrossed in carbon removal debates, it is easy to forget that most people have never heard of these strategies. Public perception of carbon removal is therefore particularly sensitive to framings – the ways in which scientists, entrepreneurs, activists, politicians, the media, and others choose to organize and communicate it. In this perspective, we highlight four aspects of carbon removal for which their framing will play a decisive role in whether – and how – different methods are taken forward. First, the use of analogies can be helpful in guiding mental models, but can also inadvertently imply processes or outcomes that do not apply in the new example. Second, a taxonomic split between ‘nature-based’ and ‘technological’ methods threatens to divert attention from the actual qualities of different methods and constrain our policy options. Third, people are likely to overestimate the emissions-reduction potential of carbon removal, but this misperception can be corrected. Fourth, communications overlook the social arrangements for carbon removal and the alternative trajectories that implementation may take. We end by offering key recommendations for how we can communicate carbon removal more responsibly.
... Visuals also help consumers understand energy saving behaviors (Allcott 2011), calorie information ( Van Epps et al. 2021) and credit card annual percentage rates (Chin and Bruine de Bruin 2019). Generalizing these findings, Larrick and colleagues (Larrick and Keeney 2015;Yoeli et al. 2017) argue that consumers make better decisions when visual aids link abstract information to objectives people value, use "expanded scales" that convey long-term costs, or provide meaningful comparisons. Here we examine the potential benefits of providing consumers with meaningful comparisons for a neglected decision characteristic when making investment decisions. ...
... Meaningful comparisons can be displayed in multiple ways. One common method is to use specific reference values (Larrick et al. 2015;Van Epps et al. 2021) such as "average value [of calories] for all cereal brands" on nutrition labels (Barone et al. 1996;Newman, Howlett, and Burton 2016). Additionally, aids can include information on a product's position within a distribution using grading such as A, B, C (Heinzle and Wustenhagen 2012), color (Vanclay et al. 2011), or continuous numeric scales (Camilleri et al. 2019;Chin and Bruine de Bruin 2019). ...
... The visuals also display fees in dollars compounded over 20 years to leverage the principle of "expanded scales," which argues that depicting choice consequences over a longer (vs. shorter) timeframe will have greater influence (Larrick and Keeney 2015). Finally, using a large representative sample, this study tests potential heterogeneous effects of visual aids across subgroups. ...
... For example, consider the attribute of fuel economy: If it is given in consumption -e.g., gallons per 100 miles (GPM) -then a certain upgrade would always yield the same amount of fuel saved, leading to a linearly increasing value function. But, if it is given in efficiency -e.g., MPG -then a certain upgrade would yield a marginally decreasing amount of fuel saved, leading to a concave and curvilinear value function (e.g., Larrick et al., 2015). In general, Figure 1 shows that the curve of preferences would be (approximately) linear under JE and concave (curvilinear) under SE. ...
... Thus, for efficiency upgrades presented in JE mode, people's preferences (WTP) are expected to show systematic over-evaluation of larger upgrades, and this bias is expected to increase as the upgrades increase. This pattern is consistent with the findings of the various studies that explored the MPG Illusion or the time-saving bias (e.g., Larrick et al., 2015;Svenson, 2008). ...
The MPG illusion and the time-saving bias both show that people misjudge the gains from increases in efficiency or speed, because people falsely believe that efficiency and speed are linearly related to consumption (e.g., gallons of fuel or journey time). This efficiency-consumption gap (ECG) has been demonstrated consistently in various situations. In parallel, people have also been found to show a diminished sensitivity to increases in magnitudes when judged under separate vs. joint evaluation modes (SE vs. JE). We show that these “two wrongs can make a right”: when people judge efficiency upgrades under SE mode, their subjective judgments follow a concave curve that closely resembles the curvilinear pattern of efficiency upgrades, making their preferences (artificially) less biased than they are under JE. In two studies we show that when asked for their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for upgrading products or services in two (a smaller vs. a larger) upgrade options, WTPs are less different in SE vs. JE modes. This means that people are exhibiting lower sensitivity to the upgrade size under SE which leads to a de-biasing effect. We show that because JE follow a linear trend, it yields biased preferences for efficiency measures, but not for consumption measures. In contrast, SE yield biased preferences for consumption, but not for efficiency measures.
... The recently revised fuel economy labels additionally report gallons per hundred miles, two measures of fuel cost, and information about greenhouse gas emissions. These additional measures not only make information about comparative fuel use easier to access, but the number of measures add weight to the fuel attribute in consumer choice, provide a signpost to consider environmental preferences, and provide a reference point against which to weigh attribute levels (Costa & Kahn, 2013;Larrick et al., 2015;Ungemach et al., 2017;Weber et al., 1988). These labels provide otherwise missing information about energy consumption and cost to consumers, and remove one barrier to consumers considering this attribute in their decisionmaking process (Newell & Siikamäki, 2014). ...
... Prior research has explored effects of temporal framing of energy costs in product evaluation, but there are gaps in the literature that prevent comprehensive understanding of these effects (Heinzle, 2012;Kaenzig & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Most of this literature has focused on long-term temporal frames (per year or longer) and suggest that consumers put more weight on attributes whose levels are framed on longer terms (Burson et al., 2009;Carroll et al., 2020;Hardisty et al., 2020;Kaenzig & Wüstenhagen, 2010;Larrick et al., 2015;Pandelaere et al., 2011). Increased purchase intentions for energy-efficient refrigerators are experienced when cost information over the life of the product was provided more so than when annual cost information was provided (Hutton & Wilkie, 1980). ...
... Prior literature has mainly focused on longer-term temporal framing of costs, ranging from 1 year to the life of the product in question (Hardisty et al., 2016;Hutton & Wilkie, 1980;Kaenzig & Wüstenhagen, 2010;Larrick et al., 2015). We found that intentions to engage in energy efficient behaviors were subject to status quo bias when the costs or savings of behavior change were framed as per day or per year. ...
One challenge of promoting energy‐efficient behavior change is status quo bias: consumers are reluctant to change away from their current level of energy usage, even if their energy usage is higher than they would actively choose. Using experimental data, this article examines what temporal frame minimizes status quo bias and encourages energy‐efficient behavioral intentions. The authors find that individuals make the most energy efficient decisions when presented with a monthly framing because they are more easily able to think about monthly costs than daily or yearly costs. The authors investigate whether cognitive fluency could be an underlying mechanism, and find evidence that individuals are most fluent when energy costs are framed on a monthly basis.
... Such feedback provides a simpler-tointerpret prescriptive guide regarding not just how many calories are in the selected meal, but how the meal compares to the number of calories people should order. The traffic light format is a translated format that provides a clear decision "signpost" (Larrick, Soll, and Keeney 2015;Ungemach et al. 2018) to help consumers to attend to their meal calorie content, an attribute of the choice that might otherwise be overlooked if merely presented in numeric format. ...
Numeric labeling of calories on restaurant menus has been implemented widely, but scientific studies have generally not found substantial effects on calories ordered. The present research tests the impact of a feedback format that is more targeted at how consumers select and revise their meals: real-time aggregation of calorie content to provide dynamic feedback about meal calories via a traffic light label. Because these labels intuitively signal when a meal shifts from healthy to unhealthy (via the change from green to a yellow or red light), they prompt decision makers to course correct in real time, before they finalize their choice. Results from five pre-registered experiments ( N = 11,900) show that providing real-time traffic light feedback about the total caloric content of a meal reduces calories in orders, even compared to similar aggregated feedback in numeric format. Patterns of ordering reveal this effect to be driven by people revising high-calorie orders more frequently, leading them to choose fewer and lower-calorie items. Consumers also like traffic light aggregation, indicating greater satisfaction with their order and greater intentions to return to restaurants that use them. The authors discuss how dynamic feedback using intuitive signals could yield benefits in contexts beyond food choice.
... Therefore, one efficient way of eliminating these biases is to transform the variables so that the difference or the additive rule gives correct values. To exemplify, Larrick, Soll and Keeney (2015) showed that better information about energy consumption would improve consumers' decisions including information about energy consumed by a device not its efficiency. Gallons per mile and travel time per km are examples of such transformations of the problems used in the present study. ...
The main purpose of this study was to identify different cognitive rules that lead to a particular judgment bias. To fulfill this purpose, a new method Spectral analysis was introduced and applied. Participants judged time saved by driving faster, fuel saved by replacing a car and braking capacity at different speeds. These problems invite the time saving bias (e.g., time saved from speed increases at higher speeds overestimated), the miles per gallon, MPG illusion (misjudgment of fuel saved by replacing a car) and the braking capacity bias (overestimation of braking capacity after speed increase). The average results replicated the biases. Spectral analysis of individual participants and problems showed that a speed difference rule explained about half of the time saving judgments and about three fourth of the MPG judgments. A difference between speeds rule described about one third of the biased braking judgments and a ratio/proportion rule about one fifth of the time saving and MPG judgments. All rules give biased judgments in all three domains. The paper ends with a discussion of hierarchies of cognitive rules, applications of the results, and how to mitigate or avoid the biases and the risks associated with the biases.
... Their design, their fit to a particular energy system and social context, is premised on legitimation, i.e., on social acceptance. But metrics in turn also create social acceptance and legitimationthey are society's basis for knowledge about its energy system, how this information is accessed, by whom, and with what implications for decision-making about that society's energy future (Larrick et al., 2015). Thus, the choice of metrics in relation to energy systems has enormous consequences for the very nature of these systems and how they come to be regarded within social contexts over time. ...
For recent techno-economic advances in solar energy to enable sustainable energy transformation, society must address institutional inertia and entrenched resistance by powerful stakeholders. Legitimation of power and specific metrics produces institutional authority to govern energy transitions, by reconfiguring accountability relations between situated actors. This article studies how metrics are legitimated and thus analyzes solar energy governance in Portugal. It identifies accountability relations by tracking four practices of legitimation – discursive, bureaucratic, technocratic and financial – in relation to metrics that help perform expertise and authority within changing topographies of power during sectoral transition. The approach unpacks both (i) how metrics modulate the dynamics of shifts and resistance, and (ii) how their insufficient specification privileges a reductive structural understanding of energy sectors. Drawing on expert interviews, desk-based and field observations, the study explicates how up to 2018, solar energy governance in Portugal limited disruptive change, validated incremental change, and left transformative potential untapped.
... Previous research in behavioural sciences has shown evidence of biased interpretation of energy metrics, such as the perceived linearity of MPG (miles per gallon) (Larrick & Soll, 2008;Larrick, Soll, & Keeney, 2015). Another example regards the energy label of the appliances, the 'energy efficiency fallacy', when consumers focus only on the energy efficiency (e.g. ...
The energy performance certificate (EPC) is mandatory in the EU, aiming to enable prospective buyers and renters to compare dwellings in terms of energy performance. Flanders intends to improve its current EPC, by adding a label to the existing coloured scale and EPC score. Our research aimed to inform the Flemish Energy Agency by testing before releasing the new version of the certificate, thus being an example of behaviourally informed policies. A literature review of experiments on information framing in similar contexts established the background to the research. Given the evidence of the importance of information framing, we tested 10 versions of the new label on 224 respondents (N = 224). We verified two main hypotheses – the ‘normal distribution illusion’ and the ‘energy efficiency fallacy’. The former tested whether respondents assess too optimistically the dwellings in the red spectrum of the scale. The latter verified whether respondents focused exclusively on energy efficiency, ignoring the dwelling size or total energy consumption. Nudges tested to overcome these biases included social norm, anchoring and rescaling. Based on these results the label was rescaled, from the initial G-A to F-A+. Rescaling corrects the overoptimistic assessment of the energy performance of label F.
... Lessons from nutrition and fuel economy labelling suggest that an effective carbon label should be simple to understand and include reference values that permit comparisons and put information in context 36,37 . One effective approach used with fuel economy labels has been to translate obscure attributes into more comprehensible attributes 38,39 . ...
Food production is a major cause of energy use and GHG emissions, and therefore diet change is an important behavioural strategy for reducing associated environmental impacts. However, a severe obstacle to diet change may be consumers’ underestimation of the environmental impacts of different types of food. Here we show that energy consumption and GHG emission estimates are significantly underestimated for foods, suggesting a possible blind spot suitable for intervention. In a second study, we find that providing consumers with information regarding the GHG emissions associated with the life cycle of food, presented in terms of a familiar reference unit (light-bulb minutes), shifts their actual purchase choices away from higher-emission options. Thus, although consumers’ poor understanding of the food system is a barrier to reducing energy use and GHG emissions, it also represents a promising area for simple interventions such as a well-designed carbon label.
... In Studies 1 and 2, participants found PV no more attractive whether the financial outcomes of solar were described in terms of losses or gains or whether the claimed savings (or losses) were described as e.g., $67 per month or $20,100 over 25 years. These findings stand in contrast to common wisdom that loss frames may be an effective way to increase interest in low-carbon technologies (Frederiks et al., 2015;Gonzales et al., 1988) and to advice that energy metrics should be provided on expanded scales that show the cumulative benefits of energy technologies over time (Larrick et al., 2016). In Study 3, we similarly found no differences in consumer interest when ads varied the claimed savings amount from 50% to 150% of average expected savings. ...
Household adoption of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from electricity generation. High upfront costs, however, are often a barrier to adoption, even when costs may be offset by future energy savings. Through a series of randomized experiments, we examine whether framing strategies grounded in behavioral economics and psychology can be used to increase the financial appeal of such products. Using mock ads for residential solar photovoltaics (PV), we test four frames: gain/loss framing, temporal framing, varied savings amounts, and simple vs. detailed savings calculations. Overall, we find that reframing the financial benefits of PV does not greatly influence the appeal of solar or the likelihood to respond to the mock ads. Instead, underlying consumer motivations and predispositions (i.e., perceived social support, consumer innovativeness, and personal pro-environmental norms) are the primary factors driving interest in adopting solar. Our findings suggest that tailoring messages to targeted consumer segments may be more effective than attempts to market the financial benefits of PV to broad audiences. The results also contribute to behavioral economics and psychology research by identifying contexts under which the gain/loss framing bias and the present/future framing bias may not apply.
