ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Ключові слова: behavioural economics, responsible consumer behaviour, sustainable development, social preferences, experimental economics

Анотація

Addressing the global imperative of sustainable development requires a comprehensive, data- driven understanding of how individuals make consumption decisions when personal economic incentives conflict with broader collective ecological interests. This study investigates the behavioural mechanisms underpinning responsible consumer choices by integrating social preference theory with decision- framing effects. The research employs the Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) framework, accommodating bounded rationality and probabilistic strategic behaviour, to model the dynamic interaction between private utility and environmental responsibility. A behavioural experiment involving 215 participants was conducted using the oTree experimental platform. The study incorporated the Social Value Orientation (SVO) Slider Measure to elicit individual prosocial preferences and a ten- round interactive “Green Consumer Game,” in which participants chose among strategies differing in personal payoff levels and ecological consequences, under either gain (reward) or loss (penalty) framing conditions. QRE- based choice probabilities were calibrated using maximum likelihood estimation of the rationality parameter within logit models implemented in Python. The empirical findings demonstrate that individuals with stronger social preferences are significantly more likely to choose environmentally responsible strategies. Framing has a robust effect: reward- based framing was considerably more effective in promoting pro- social decision- making than penalty- based framing. The QRE model achieved superior predictive accuracy compared to the classical Nash Equilibrium (RMSE 0. 069 vs. 0. 079), validating its empirical utility in ethically constrained decision contexts. This study' s novelty and theoretical value lie in applying QRE to ecologically motivated dilemmas, offering a quantitative assessment of how moral preferences and framing jointly shape consumer choice under uncertainty. Its practical contribution provides policymakers and sustainability practitioners with actionable insights for designing behavioural interventions, incentive schemes, and strategic messaging to encourage sustainable consumption across diverse socioeconomic environments.

Посилання

Camerer, C. (2004). Behavioural Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction . Princeton University Press. 568 p.

Capraro, V., and Rand, D. G. (2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13 (1), pp. 99-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008858

Cason, T. and Mui, V. (2005). Uncertainty and resistance to reform in laboratory participation games. European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 21(3), pp. 708-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.12.001

Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oTree - an open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, vol. 9, pp. 88-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.12.001

Edlin, A., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality & Society, vol. 19 (3), pp. 293-314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w13562

Fariña, A., Rojek-Giffin, M., Gross, J., & Dreu, C. (2021). Social preferences correlate with the cortical thickness of the orbitofrontal cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 16(11), pp. 1191-1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab074

Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (2000). Theories of fairness and reciprocity - evidence and economic applications. SSRN Electronic Journal. CESifo Working Paper, no. 403. 56 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.255223

Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., & Palfrey, T. R. (2005). Regular quantal response equilibrium. Experimental Economics, vol. 8 (4), pp. 347-367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-005-5374-7

Gong, X., Sanfey, A., Zhou, X., & Luo, Y. (2020). Distinct behavioral effects and neural mechanisms of reciprocal reputation on cooperative decision-making in gain and loss context. Preprint from PsyArXiv. 42 р. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/b37vx

Haile, P., Hortaçsu, A., & Kosenok, G. (2008). On the empirical content of quantal response equilibrium. American Economic Review, vol. 98(1), pp. 180-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.1.180

Kurzban, R., McCabe, K., Smith, V., & Wilson, B. (2001). Incremental commitment and reciprocity in a real-time public goods game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 27(12), pp. 1662-1673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012712009

Maiti, A. and Dey, P. (2020). On the parameterized complexity of binary networked public goods game. arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators [arXiv:2012.01880]. 26 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2012.01880

McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 10(1), pp. 6-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1023

Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pp. 771-781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004204

Savani, K., Morris, M., & Naidu, N. (2012). Deference in Indians decision making: introjected goals or injunctive norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 102(4), pp. 685-699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026415

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, vol. 211(4481), pp. 453-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Yu, S., Kempe, D., & Vorobeychik, Y. (2021). Altruism design in networked public goods games., Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21). pp. 493-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/69

Переглядів статті: 27
Завантажень PDF: 19
Опубліковано
2025-05-04
Як цитувати
Liashenko, O., & Demianiuk, O. (2025). ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Економіка розвитку систем, 7(1), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.32782/2707-8019/2025-1-10