Table 1 Respondent choice models

From: The prospects for Paris: behavioral insights into unconditional cooperation on climate change

 

Willingness to act

Collective action

Willingness to act

 

Alone

Conditionally

Understanding

Alone

Conditionally

Constant

−9.301 (0.000)

−4.335 (0.056)

3.745 (0.000)

−6.537 (0.002)

−5.279 (0.013)

Information treatment

—

—

0.894 (0.002)

−0.039 (0.966)

0.282 (0.751)

Collective action understanding

0.731 (0.029)

0.145 (0.666)

—

—

—

Concerned about climate change

3.923 (0.000)

3.021 (0.003)

0.027 (0.830)

4.133 (0.000)

3.415 (0.003)

Age

0.714 (0.167)

0.191 (0.694)

0.114 (0.447)

0.854 (0.085)

0.528 (0.292)

Male

0.512 (0.606)

−0.336 (0.732)

0.050 (0.870)

0.520 (0.537)

−0.228 (0.794)

Minority

0.252 (0.784)

0.386 (0.677)

−0.698 (0.121)

−0.315 (0.714)

0.297 (0.747)

Bachelor degree

0.077 (0.934)

0.777 (0.385)

0.356 (0.190)

0.029 (0.976)

0.546 (0.560)

F

4.39

3.68

2.35

(p-value)

(0.000)

(0.002)

(0.007)

N

343

343

343

  1. Notes: willingness to act models use a multinomial logit specification with three response categories—willing to act alone, conditional action and the baseline (omitted) no action; LR tests indicate a preference for a constrained model that combines the two conditional responses (χ2=7.72, p<0.461); the respondent test score is the dependent variable in the collective action understanding model; don’t know responses are limited and dropped from the analysis—findings are unaffected; p-values are reported in parentheses
Back to article page