Assuming the Best: Individual Differences in Compensatory “Green” Beliefs Predict Susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion

Abstract

Recent years have seen a marked increase in carbon emissions despite pledges made by the international community at the Paris Accord in 2015 to reduce fossil fuel production and consumption. Rebound effects could contribute to this phenomenon as, in which attempts to curb carbon emissions might have inadvertently led to an upswing in fossil fuel usage. The present study hypothesizes that rebound effects are driven by a misapplication of compensatory balancing heuristics, with the unintended outcome of producing inaccurate estimates of the environmental impact of "green" or environmentally friendly labelled products or behaviors. The present study therefore aims to investigate the relationship between participants' degree of compensatory thinking (e.g., "Recycling compensates for driving a car") and their susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion, a widely replicated phenomenon demonstrating that the presence of "green" products biases carbon footprint estimations. One hundred and twelve participants were asked to complete a 15-item Compensatory Green Beliefs scale and to estimate the total carbon footprint of a set of 15 conventional houses, followed by a set that included 15 "green" houses in addition to 15 conventional houses. Results indicated that participants, on average, believed that the "green" houses were carbon neutral, and that susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion was predicted by performance on the Compensatory Green Beliefs scale. This is the first study confirming that individual differences in cognitive processes (i.e., Compensatory Green Beliefs) are indeed related to inaccurate estimates of "green" products, providing a foundation for further investigation of the influence of "green" and compensatory beliefs on carbon footprint estimates.

Biased Estimates of Environmental Impact in the Negative Footprint Illusion: The Nature of Individual Variation

“…With respect to environment-specific thinking dispositions, the findings failed to reveal any effect of environmental concern ( Schultz, 2001 ) or the endorsement of compensatory green beliefs ( Kaklamanou et al, 2015 ) in explaining susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. This lack of evidence is at odds with previous findings reported by MacCutcheon et al (2020) , which demonstrate a link between compensatory green beliefs and susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. We note, however, that MacCutcheon et al (2020) demonstrated this significant association using a 9-point scale, rather than the 5-point scale adopted in the present study, which suggests that our replication failure might be attributable to a lack of sensitivity arising from a reduced range of scale.…”

“…This lack of evidence is at odds with previous findings reported by MacCutcheon et al (2020) , which demonstrate a link between compensatory green beliefs and susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. We note, however, that MacCutcheon et al (2020) demonstrated this significant association using a 9-point scale, rather than the 5-point scale adopted in the present study, which suggests that our replication failure might be attributable to a lack of sensitivity arising from a reduced range of scale.…”

“…However, in a deviation from Study 1, the response scale for the Compensatory Green Beliefs Questionnaire was extended from a 5-point to a 9-point Likert scale. The purpose of this was twofold: (i) to increase the sensitivity to the scale; and (ii) to maintain consistency with previous research ( MacCutcheon et al, 2020 ), which revealed a significant relationship between endorsement of compensatory green beliefs and the negative footprint illusion.…”

“…Furthermore, greater endorsement of compensatory green beliefs was found to be negatively associated with pro-ecological behavior, as measured in terms of General Ecological Behaviour (GEB), a willingness to engage in pro-ecological behavior ( Kaiser et al, 2003 ) and green identity (e.g., Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010 ). MacCutcheon et al (2020) have recently shown that people who were more likely to endorse compensatory green beliefs are more susceptible to the negative footprint illusion compared to individuals with lower endorsement scores, and therefore this forms a potentially important element of individual variation in susceptibility to the illusion.…”

Can the negative footprint illusion be eliminated by summative priming?

“…In terms of explanations for the negative footprint illusion, one study has proposed that compensatory green beliefs (e.g. "I recycle, therefore I can drive my car to work") are a key predictor of the illusion (MacCutcheon et al, 2020), and evidence gleaned from two other studies suggest that it is underpinned by an averaging bias (Holmgren et al, 2018a;Holmgren et al, 2019). More specifically, instead of considering each item's individual environmental impact and making an estimate based on the aggregated sum, people seem to make a vice/virtue categorisation of each item (e.g.…”