CO2 valence framing: Is it really any different from just giving the amounts?

Previous experiments have shown that negative valence framing in comparison to positive framing augments the perceived differences between CO2 emission amounts. This means that, in order to increase the chance that an individual will perceive a difference between two CO2 amounts, it is better to highlight the amount by which the other choice is larger. However, a number of questions remain with respect to such findings. First, those experiments did not test whether such framing results in differences as compared to just presenting the amounts. Choice experiments and travel behavior change programs often simply use the attribute values (e.g. 300 g/km versus 250 g/km), thus it is important to know whether valence framing would result in differences as compared to this valence-free or “neutral” framing. Second, some research suggests that loss-framing may be less effective in Asian as opposed to Western contexts. Further, as CO2 emissions information is relatively new, and an individual will not always be presented with a second value (i.e. no context), how might that affect responses? Thus, in this research we describe the results of an experiment with four treatments and four key measures. The four treatments being: “no context”, “neutral”, “positive-framing”, and “negative-framing”. Lastly, when attempting to motivate support or change from the general population, aggregate information rather than individual information is often used. Is it possible that such general information would influence an individual?