Evaluating behavioural strategies for environmental cooperation: Evidence from a public goods game

IF 1.5 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Valeria Faralla , Alessandro Innocenti
{"title":"Evaluating behavioural strategies for environmental cooperation: Evidence from a public goods game","authors":"Valeria Faralla ,&nbsp;Alessandro Innocenti","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In a laboratory experiment, this study investigates the effectiveness of different behavioural interventions designed to promote climate-friendly behaviours within the framework of a public good game. The results show that educative nudging, which involves providing information-based cues to encourage contribution levels, significantly increased participant cooperation levels. In contrast, non-educative nudges, a classical default option, and boosting techniques proved less effective in fostering collaborative behaviour. While participants generally perceived educational interventions favourably, their acceptability declined when considering real-life applications, and the acceptability of nudging/boosting instruments in experimental and real-life contexts was not significant in terms of contributions to the game. The study also finds that individuals with stronger environmental values were more inclined to contribute to the public good. These results underscore the importance of effectiveness and ethical concerns regarding the acceptability of behavioural interventions in decision-making, suggesting the need for further research to refine these approaches and enhance their long-term impact in real-world settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 102464"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325001284","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a laboratory experiment, this study investigates the effectiveness of different behavioural interventions designed to promote climate-friendly behaviours within the framework of a public good game. The results show that educative nudging, which involves providing information-based cues to encourage contribution levels, significantly increased participant cooperation levels. In contrast, non-educative nudges, a classical default option, and boosting techniques proved less effective in fostering collaborative behaviour. While participants generally perceived educational interventions favourably, their acceptability declined when considering real-life applications, and the acceptability of nudging/boosting instruments in experimental and real-life contexts was not significant in terms of contributions to the game. The study also finds that individuals with stronger environmental values were more inclined to contribute to the public good. These results underscore the importance of effectiveness and ethical concerns regarding the acceptability of behavioural interventions in decision-making, suggesting the need for further research to refine these approaches and enhance their long-term impact in real-world settings.
评估环境合作的行为策略:来自公共产品博弈的证据
在一项实验室实验中,本研究调查了旨在促进公共利益博弈框架内气候友好行为的不同行为干预措施的有效性。结果表明,通过提供基于信息的提示来鼓励贡献水平的教育性推动显著提高了参与者的合作水平。相比之下,非教育性的推动(一种经典的默认选择)和促进技术在培养合作行为方面被证明效果较差。虽然参与者普遍认为教育干预是有利的,但当考虑到现实生活中的应用时,他们的可接受性就会下降,而在实验和现实环境中,轻推/促进工具的可接受性在对游戏的贡献方面并不显著。研究还发现,具有更强环境价值观的个人更倾向于为公共利益做出贡献。这些结果强调了决策中行为干预的有效性和可接受性的伦理问题的重要性,表明需要进一步研究以完善这些方法并增强其在现实环境中的长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书