Search

Can moral appeals motivate individuals to choose less carbon-intensive diets? In a survey-embedded forced-choice conjoint experiment involving 1520 US respondents, we asked participants to compare two menus across six dimensions: (1) burger/sandwich patty type and its corresponding carbon footprint value, (2) calories, (3) protein, (4) price, (5) ingredient origin, and (6) farming method. Within each menu, the values for these dimensions varied randomly. Further, respondents were randomly assigned to three frames: a reference frame that highlighted the scientific rationale for pro-climate action, and treatment frames with a moral-secular and a moral-religious framing of pro-climate action. We found that moral appeals did not influence individuals to make low-carbon food choices. Across the entire sample, respondents tended to favor non-vegetarian options with higher carbon footprints. Those who prioritized taste were less inclined to choose the vegetarian menu. However, some subgroups did show a preference for the vegetarian menu, including women, those with pro-climate attitudes and prior exposure to a vegetarian diet, and those who considered the health impact of their food choices. In conclusion, it appears that moral appeals are unlikely to drive significant changes in individual food choices toward a more climate-friendly food system. Instead, dietary preferences are primarily shaped by individuals’ pre-existing climate attitudes and demographics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study how moral suasion that appeals to two major ethical theories, Consequentialism and Deontology, affects individual intentions to contribute to a public good. We use the COVID-19 pandemic as an exemplary case where there is a large gap between private and social costs and where moral suasion has been widely used as a policy instrument. Based on a survey experiment with a representative sample of around 3500 Germans at the beginning of the pandemic, we study how moral appeals affect contributions with low and high opportunity costs, hand washing and social distancing, to reduce the infection externality as well as the support for governmental regulation. We find that Deontological moral suasion, appealing to individual moral duty, is effective in increasing planned social distancing and hand-washing, while a Consequentialist appeal only increases planned hand-washing. Both appeals increase support for governmental regulation. Exploring heterogeneous treatment effects reveals that younger respondents are more susceptible to Deontological appeals. Our results highlight the potential of moral appeals to induce intended private contributions to a public good or the reduction of externalities, which can help to overcome collective action problems for a range of environmental issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]