Abstract

Purpose: Subsidized gasoline consumption in Iran is not merely an economic or pricing issue; it is also shaped by consumers’ cognitive patterns, perceived entitlements, habitual behavior, and psychological responses to policy change. Many energy reform policies, despite their economic rationale, have faced social resistance and limited effectiveness because they have overlooked the behavioral mechanisms underlying consumer decision-making. Accordingly, this study aims to identify and model the cognitive biases influencing subsidized gasoline consumption and to explain how these biases contribute to the persistence of inefficient consumption patterns. By integrating behavioral economics, consumer behavior, and energy demand management, the study provides a context-sensitive framework for understanding consumption behavior under subsidized pricing conditions.

Methodology: This research adopts a qualitative approach and uses thematic analysis as its main methodological strategy. Data were collected through 68 semi-structured interviews with private car drivers in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling with maximum variation in terms of gender, age, education, occupation, monthly gasoline consumption, and vehicle-use patterns. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved, and additional interviews were conducted to strengthen the stability of the extracted themes. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using MAXQDA software. The analysis followed the main stages of thematic analysis, including familiarization with the data, initial coding, theme development, theme review, and final theme definition.

Findings: The findings reveal that subsidized gasoline consumption is influenced by eight dominant cognitive biases, which can be classified into three major categories. The first category includes decision-making errors under uncertainty, namely anchoring, confirmation bias, status quo bias, and framing effect. At this level, the low subsidized price of gasoline functions as a strong mental anchor, causing consumers to perceive any price increase or quota reduction as an excessive loss. The second category consists of biases related to loss aversion, including loss aversion itself and the sunk cost fallacy. In this category, consumers interpret changes in gasoline pricing or quotas as the loss of an established right, while previous investments in high-consumption vehicles reinforce continued inefficient behavior. The third category includes time-related and future-oriented biases, namely temporal discounting and optimism bias. At this level, consumers prioritize the immediate benefits of cheap gasoline over long-term economic, environmental, and social consequences. Overall, the findings indicate that these biases do not operate independently; rather, they interact as a cognitive network that reproduces a stable cycle of inefficient consumption.

Conclusion: The study concludes that price-based policies alone are insufficient for reforming subsidized gasoline consumption. Without considering the cognitive logic of consumers, such policies may generate behavioral resistance and social opposition. The main contribution of this research is the development of a context-specific model explaining the interaction of cognitive biases in subsidized gasoline consumer behavior. This model can inform the design of behavioral interventions, demand management strategies, and choice architecture-based policies. The findings suggest that policymakers should complement economic reforms with behavioral tools such as positive framing, comparative consumption feedback, targeted communication, behavioral incentives, and reward systems for efficient consumption. Such an approach can improve public acceptance of reform policies and support a transition from habitual consumption toward more conscious and responsible energy use.