Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. AbstractThis paper empirically and jointly analyses the relations between risk aversion, standard time discounting, present bias, and loss aversion and household stated adoption of low to high stake energy efficiency technologies (EETs) (light emitting diodes (LEDs), energy efficient appliances, and retrofit measures). The analysis relies on a large representative sample drawn from eight European Union countries. Preferences over time, risk and losses were elicited and jointly estimated from participant choices in incentivized, context-free multiple price list experiments. The findings from econometrically estimating EET adoption equations suggest that present-biased individuals are less likely to adopt EETs. They also provide (weak) evidence that individuals which are more risk-averse, or more loss-averse, or which exhibit a lower discount factor are less likely to adopt EETs. Finally, omitting one or several of the time and risk or loss-aversion parameters when estimating the EET adoption equations did not appear to cause omitted variable bias.

Although previous research indicates that nominal groups generally outperform interactive groups at brainstorming tasks, companies still favor group interaction because of its presumed benefits beyond the brainstorming task. This study assesses the effectiveness of both types of groups in two domains that follow idea generation: selection of ideas and satisfaction with the process. Results indicate no superiority of interactive over nominal groups in these two domains. In addition, this study compares group effectiveness for groups selecting from their own sets of ideas and groups selecting ideas generated by another group.

No abstract

International audienceImplicit discount rates (IDRs) are employed in energy models to capture household investment decisions, yet the factors behind the IDR and their respective implications for policy-making usually remain blurred and fractional. The proposed comprehensive framework distinguishes three broad categories of factors underlying the IDR for household adoption of energy-efficient technologies (EETs): preferences (notably over time, risk, loss, debt, and the environment), predictable (ir)rational behavior (bounded rationality, rational inattention, behavioral biases), and external barriers to energy efficiency. Existing empirical findings suggest that the factors underlying the IDRs that differ across household characteristics and technologies should be accounted for in energy models. Furthermore, the framework allows for a fresh look at the interplay of IDRs and policies. We argue that a simple observation of high IDRs (or observing correlations between IDRs and socio-economic characteristics) does not provide guidance for policy-making since the underlying sources cannot be identified. Instead, we propose that some of the factors underlying the IDR - notably external barriers - can be changed (through directed policy interventions) whereas other factors - notably preferences and predictable (ir)rational behavior - are innate and can only be taken into account (through reactive policy interventions)