Judging the environmental impact of green consumption: Evidence of quantity insensitivity

• Published in: Journal of environmental psychology Vol. 60; pp. 122 - 127
• Main Authors: Kim, Byungdoo, Schuldt, Jonathon P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2018
• Subjects: automobiles; Averaging bias; ecolabeling; environmental impact; environmental sustainability; Halo effect; Negative footprint illusion; psychology; Quantity insensitivity; Halo effect; Quantity insensitivity; Averaging bias; Negative footprint illusion
• ISSN: 0272-4944; 1522-9610
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.005

As consumers strive to reduce their environmental impact, it is important to understand how people perceive the environmental impact of consumption choices. Prior research reveals that “green” (eco-friendly) labels can bias judgments, as when a conventional plus a green product is perceived as less environmentally impactful than the conventional product alone (the “negative footprint illusion”). We ask a related question: are people less sensitive to quantity when judging the environmental impact of green versus conventional consumption? In a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, 370 participants rated the environmental impact of a family that was depicted as owning either one or two automobiles, that were described as either “hybrid” or conventional. Results show evidence of quantity insensitivity in the hybrid condition: whereas an additional conventional automobile increased judgments of the family's environmental impact, an additional hybrid automobile did not. Discussion focuses on possible underlying mechanisms and implications for everyday consumption behaviors. •We examine how consumption quantity affects judgments of environmental impact.•An experiment varied quantity and type of goods consumed (green vs. conventional).•Impact judgments increased with quantity for conventional but not green consumption.•Ecological values did not moderate this quantity insensitivity effect.