A Dirty Word Or

A Dirty World?

Attribute Framing, Politics, and Query Theory

David Hardisty, Eric Johnson & Elke WeberColumbia UniversityNSF SES-03455840 & SES-0352062 NIA 5R01AG027934-02

TAX

“Our party has been accused of fooling the public by calling tax increases ‘revenue enhancement’. Not so. No one was fooled.”

-- J. Danforth Quayle, V.P., 1989-1993

The Quayle Conjecture

A Paradox?

• Leading economists and climate scientists advocate a CO2 tax

• Few US politicians mention a CO2 tax

• Meanwhile, the carbon offset (and credit) industry allows people to voluntarily pay more

Attribute Framing

• Labels make a big difference• People pay more for 75% lean than 25%

fat (Levin & Gaeth, 1988)

• Doctors & patients prefer survival rate to mortality rate (Marteau, 1980; McNeil, Pauker, Sox & Tversky, 1982)

• Women, but not men, prefer an 80% fat-free chocolate bar (Braun, Gaeth & Levin, 1997)

Political Ideology

• Strong, reliable individual differences based on political conservatism (Jost, 2006)

• Conservatives sensitive to the labeling of financial options (Morris, Carranza & Fox, in press)

• Perhaps conservatives are uniquely sensitive to the “tax” label

Predictions

1. More support for the offset label than the tax label

2. More support among Democrats than Republicans across conditions

3. Republicans more strongly affected by the labeling

Study 1: Participants

• 275 US Residents

• Mean age = 41 (SD = 13)

• Recruited and run online

• 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, 37% none of the above

• No significant demographic differences among parties

Study 1: Methods

• Proposal to increase cost of certain products believed to contribute to global warming through energy use and resulting CO2 emissions

• Price increases would fund programs to decrease CO2 levels by funding alternative energies or carbon sequestration

• Proposal described as carbon tax or carbon offset (between subjects manipulation)

Study 1: Methods

Suppose you are purchasing a round trip flight from Los Angeles to New York city, and you are debating between two tickets, one of which includes a carbon tax [offset]. You are debating between the following two tickets, which are otherwise identical. Which would you choose?

Ticket A Ticket B

$392.70 round trip ticketincludes a carbon tax [offset]

$385.00 round trip ticket

• How strongly would you prefer Ticket A or Ticket B? (-2 = Strongly Prefer B to +2 = Strongly Prefer A)

• Do you think the carbon tax [offset] included in Ticket A should be made mandatory for all airline tickets sold in the US? (-3 = Definitely Not to 3 = Definitely)

Study 1: Methods

• Environmental attitudes questionnaire (NEPr, Dunlap et al., 2000)

• Demographic questions, including political affiliation

Study 1: Methods

Study 1: Flight Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Flight Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Flight Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Flight Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Gas Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Bra

nd

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Electricity Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Op

tio

n

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Computer Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Co

mp

ute

r

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Preferences

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n P

refe

ren

ce f

or

the

Mo

re C

ost

ly P

rod

uct

Offset

Tax

Study 1: Support for Regulation

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n S

up

po

rt f

or

Reg

ula

tio

n

Offset

Tax

What About Environmental Attitudes?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n N

EP

r

Study 1: Environmental Attitudes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

25 50 75 100

Environmental Attitudes (NEPr) Quartile

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Op

tio

n

Tax

Offset

Study 1: Education

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2-Year Degree or Less Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Op

tio

n

Tax

Offset

Study 1: Discussion

• Effect of labeling depended on political affiliation

• Little is known about the cognitive or affective processes driving attribute framing effects

• In Study 2, we explored the cognitive mechanisms underlying preference construction

Query Theory (Johnson et al., 2007)

• Preferences constructed from memory

• Series of mental queries for and against each option

• The resulting balance of evidence determines your preference

• Order matters: due to output interference, the second query generates less support

Query Theory: Empirical Support

• Endowment effect: ownership changes the order of queries (Johnson et al., 2007)

• Intertemporal choice: accelerate-delay effect (Weber et al., 2007)

• Reversing the natural order of queries eliminates these effects

Query Theory: Hypotheses

• Label will affect ordering of thoughts supporting or opposed to carbon fee

• Republicans will have immediate, negative thoughts in response to the tax label

• The ordering will affect the balance of support, in turn predicting choices

Study 2: Participants

• 373 US Residents

• 39% Democrats, 21% Republicans, 24% Independents, 16% none of the above

Study 2: Methods

• Participants practiced listing their thoughts

• Read description of tax/offset program

• Listed thoughts about the two airline tickets

• Indicated their choice, preference strength, and support for regulation

• Self-coded their thoughts

• Reported demographics

Study 2: Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 2: Choices

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Democrat Independent Republican

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Tic

ket

Offset

Tax

Study 2: Number of Thoughts

• Participants listed 2.7 thoughts (SD = 1.4)

• No effect of party or frame

Thought Examples

• good for the environment

• carbon offset is not that much more than regular ticket

• what does the extra money do to offset the carbon

Thought Examples

• we are taxed too much

• I don't want to pay additional tax

Thought Examples

• Why would I ever pay extra for this?• I really don't care about a 'carbon tax'• If it's the same thing, get rid of the tax• The government needs to stop taxing us

randomly• I will be old or dead by the time this world has an

energy crisis• And by that i mean a huge one where we are all

f***ed• This is a ridiculous thought to have

Thought Examples

• tree huggers

• how do I really know which one has carbon emissions?

• save the world

Order of Thoughts

• Order calculated as the Standardized Median Rank Difference (SMRD)

• SMRD scores vary from +1 (supportive thoughts first) to -1 (opposed thoughts first)

Study 2: Order of Thoughts

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n S

MR

D S

core

Offset

Tax

Study 2: Content of Thoughts

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n S

up

po

rtin

g M

inu

s O

pp

ose

d T

ho

ug

hts

Offset

Tax

Study 2: Thought Order and Content

• Order & content highly correlated, r = .68, p < .001.

Study 2: Mediation

Frame x Party

Choiceβ =0.82, p < .0001

Study 2: Mediation

Frame x Party

Choice

Order &Balance ofThoughts

β =0.23, p < .05β =0.87, p < .0001

β =0.84, p < .0001β =1.43, p < .0001

Study 2: Mediation

Frame x Party

Choice

Order &Balance ofThoughts

β =0.82, p < .0001

(β = 0.59, p = .054)

Sobel Test, Order: z = 2.3, p < .05Sobel Test, Content: z = 3.0, p < .001

β =0.23, p < .05β =0.87, p < .0001

β =1.43, p < .0001β =0.84, p < .0001

Study 2: Education

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2-Year Degree or Less Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

Pro

po

rtio

n C

ho

osi

ng

th

e C

ost

lier

Pro

du

ct

Tax

Offset

Study 2: Discussion

• Replicates Study 1

• As predicted by Query Theory, differential framing effect driven by a cognitive difference in the order & balance of thoughts supporting each option

Future Directions

• Consequential choices

• Hot-button word for Democrats?

Thanks to...

• My co-authors, Elke & Eric

• The National Science Foundation, SES-03455840 and SES-0352062

• The National Institute on Aging, 5R01AG027934-02

• The CRED and PAM labs

Thank You!!!

A Dirty Word Or

A Dirty World?

Attribute Framing, Politics, and Query Theory

David Hardisty, Eric Johnson & Elke WeberColumbia UniversityNSF SES-03455840 & SES-0352062 NIA 5R01AG027934-02

ReferencesBraun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J. & Levin, I. P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: The role of

attribute salience. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 405-411. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the

new ecological paradigm: A revised nep scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.Levin, I. P. & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the

product. . Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378. Marteau, T. M. (1980). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89-94.McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C. & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for

alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.Morris, M. W., Carranza, E. & Fox, C. R. (In Press). Activating conservative political identities induces

"Conservative" Financial decisions. Psychological Science. Johnson, E. J., Haubl, G. & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461-474. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670. Watson, D., Clark, A. L. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K. F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J. C. & Goldstein, D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice. Psychological Science, 18, 516-523.

Study 2: Positive Affect

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n P

osi

tive

Aff

ect

Offset

Tax

Study 2: Negative Affect

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Democrat Independent Republican

Mea

n N

egat

ive

Aff

ect

Offset

Tax

Study 1 Fee DescriptionThe following questions will ask you to choose between two products, one of which includes paying for carbon emissions.

As you may know, carbon dioxide emissions are produced by many human activities, such as driving, flying, or using electricity. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international panel of credible scientists who study the issue, these carbon emissions contribute to global warming.

The carbon you produce can be balanced out through measures such as planting trees, which absorb carbon, or funding alternative energy sources, which reduces reliance on polluting energy sources such as coal. The goal of a carbon tax, which may or may not be mandatory, is therefore to fund these efforts and ensure that the price of an activity reflects the true cost to society. [The goal of a carbon offset, which may or may not be mandatory, is therefore to make an activity carbon neutral -- meaning that there is no net contribution to global warming.]

We would like you to tell us your preference for products in which one may address the issue, removing the amount of carbon that you would contribute by using the product. We are interested in your opinions, that is your best guess of what you would do if you really faced these choices. Note that all prices and costs in the following questions are actual, real world prices and costs.

Study 2 Fee DescriptionThe following questions will ask you to choose between two products, both of which cause some carbon emissions, but only one of which includes payment for compensating those emissions.

As you may know, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are produced by many human activities, such as driving, flying, or using electricity. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international panel of credible scientists who study the issue, these carbon emissions contribute to global warming.

The carbon you produce can be balanced out through measures such as funding alternative energy sources (which reduces reliance on polluting energy sources such as coal), or carbon sequestration (which traps greenhouse gases so they do not enter the atmosphere). The goal of a carbon tax [offset] is therefore to fund these activities and ensure that the cost of an activity reflects its true cost to society. Policymakers are considering a mandatory carbon tax [offset] program which would raise the cost of certain products and services but make these activities carbon neutral through reputable measures such as those described above.

We would like you to tell us your preferences for products which do or do not include a carbon tax [offset]. We are interested in your opinions, that is your best guess of what you would do if you really faced these choices. Note that all prices and costs in the following questions are actual, real world prices and costs.

Computing Order of Thoughts

• Order calculated as the Standardized Median Rank Difference (SMRD)

• SMRD = 2(MRo–MRs)/n • MRo = median rank of aspects opposed to the

more expensive option in the list of aspects • MRs = median rank of aspects supporting the

less expensive option in the list of aspects• n = total number of aspects listed • SMRD scores vary from +1 (supportive thoughts

first) to -1 (opposed thoughts first)