We investigate why farmers actively avoid climate change information and how it affects the effectiveness of information campaigns. We administered a preregistered experiment on a sample of European farmers and foresters from Italy, Belgium, Lithuania, and Finland. We collected two samples: one where respondents could skip climate change information and another composed of a control group and a treatment group where respondents are shown climate change information. Around 34% of farmers and forest owners actively avoid the information in the first sample. Distrust in scientists and low pro-environmental attitudes correlate positively with information avoidance. The information nudge increases respondents' willingness to implement environmentally sustainable practices in the second sample. Using machine learning, we find that those with a similar profile to the information seekers of the first sample drive the effect of the nudge. Our results suggest that the null effects of information nudges found in the literature might be explained by information avoidance, creating hidden heterogeneity.
Why do people avoid climate change information, and how does it affect the effectiveness of information campaigns? We use economic theory to explain why some people voluntarily ignore such information. Then, focusing on the impact of meat-based diets on the environment, we design an experiment to identify the different "types" predicted by the model. Finally, we use predictive machine learning algorithms to identify these types in another experimental sample to understand how these different profiles react to an information nudge.
Research shows that subsidising donations increases support for charitable causes but crowds out donations from those who would have given anyway. We investigate whether pro-social motives drive these effects. We consider two types of pro-social motives: deontological (“I support the cause for itself”) and consequential (“I support the cause for the benefits it provides to society”). We design a within-between-subject experiment in which respondents give to biodiversity conservation charities. In the within dimension, we vary the subsidy to estimate the elasticity of respondents’ donations with the subsidy. In the between dimension, we prompt respondents to think about the risk of biodiversity depletion with different framing. Namely, we either emphasise the right to live of species (deontological framing), their usefulness for humans (consequential framing), or stays neutral (control). We investigate whether the elasticity varies with the framing.