

Exposed: green consumers' dirty little secrets  - araneae
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18686-exposed-green-consumers-dirty-little-secrets.html

======
vishaldpatel
I think it comes down to motive and the degree of selfishness behind actions.

For example, when someone buys green, or votes Obama (or Ron Paul or George
Bush), whether they do it for themselves or for others. If they feel that
they've made some sacrifice in taking the action - then they're likely to feel
that something is owed to them. This could be social recognition, the license
to get away with something questionable .. whatever it is.

If on the other hand they do it for themselves - "I vote Obama cuz I want
healthcare" or "I bought this green bag cuz it serves me better / lets me dump
it anywhere knowing that it'll just disintegrate after a few weeks... "
whatever it may be - then they're less likely want something more to make up
for the "sacrifice".

If I'm right, then we should try to make our customers feel as if they've won
whenever they buy / interact with us ;-). "You clicked on THAT button!
AWESOM!!!!E!" =)

~~~
BrandonM
While your conclusion was a bit silly, I still thought your comment was pretty
insightful.

~~~
vishaldpatel
Thanks =). It was meant as a trailing joke. Can you imagine actually getting
that every time you press a button? =)

------
araneae
I posted this because of our discussion on this post yesterday:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1207136>

It seems that "self-control fatigue," as they tested it, is indistinguishable
from the "moral self-licensing" discussed here.

~~~
keyist
There's an essay on lesswrong that also addresses the implications of Mazar
and Zhong's experiments:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/1d9/doing_your_good_deed_for_the_day...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/1d9/doing_your_good_deed_for_the_day/)

"This meshes nicely with a self-signalling conception of morality. If part of
the point of behaving morally is to convince yourself that you're a good
person, then once you're convinced, behaving morally loses a lot of its
value."

Another example of moral self-licensing the essay brings up is how people
having lunch after attending church tend to be more abusive with waitstaff and
tip poorly.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The source for your last sentence:
[http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/08/bait-and-
sw...](http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/08/bait-and-switch-of-
contemporary.html)

> _"The single most damaging phenomenon to the witness of Christianity in
> America today is the collective behavior of the Sunday morning lunch crowd.
> Never has a more well-dressed, entitled, dismissive, haughty or cheap
> collection of Christians been seen on the face of the earth.

I exaggerate of course. [...]"_

I find this quite interesting as whenever I've been out with Christians
they've always seemed well behaved, inhibited from complaining even about bad
service and terrible food and overgenerous in their tips; my wife for example.
But we're in the UK.

Observer bias is highly likely.

------
padmanabhan01
So, the logic is that green consumers would think they have already done
something good and so they can afford to be a bit loose in other things?

This logic looks like BS to me.

And why is this about green consumers in particular. This logic applies to
anyone who does anything good in general. And what exactly is the 'dirty
little' secret here?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_And why is this about green consumers in particular._

Because that's what they tested. It doesn't look to me like they're
necessarily saying anything about people interested in the environment. It
seems more to me like they think that doing _some_ morally-good thing makes
people think like they've got a freebie coming.

~~~
padmanabhan01
"Because that's what they tested" is bad/fallacious reasoning.

That is like saying males in NYC have ears because they only saw them, when
all humans and most animals have ears too

Is the statement 'NYC males have ears' incorrect? No. Misleading ? Definitely.

This might apply to green consumers, but talking about green consumers is
misleading when this applies to anyone that did anything good.

------
pbhjpbhj
"such as the recent finding that people in the UK who have made their homes
more energy-efficient are more likely to turn up their heating or keep it on
for longer"

As far as this goes it's likely that people assume that with thermostats and
modern heating systems, once the insulation is in, the house can be maintained
at a higher temperature or heated longer for a lower cost in fuel/money.

After all why insulate your home if you can't make it warmer?

That's like people buying jumpers, they wear them, they don't put them away so
that they never need to buy a new one.

Generally speaking consumers have no direct information as to how much heating
fuel is being used and what the cost is. Heating costs fluctuate so much and
have risen rapidly, any increase after insulation installation would be
assumed to be increasing fuel costs.

In short, I don't think this fits the general model.

------
aquark
Is there some scientific methodology for this kind of trial?

If I knew I was participating in an experiment and I get presented with this
kind of artificial test then I know they are looking for some kind of
response, and my actions are highly liked to be influenced by the fact that I
know I am under observation.

According to the paper
(<http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf>) the sample
sizes seem pretty small. I'm no statistician, but is it really valid to draw
conclusion of people's behaviour from a sample size of < 100 people??

------
DenisM
It probably works in reverse too - if you've done a bad deed it will be easier
to trick you into doing something "good".

------
ilkhd2
Who sponsored/paid for the research - that is also important. Indeed, it is
liker saying that more green, let's say Europe, is full of cheats compared to
USA, where people are "more conventional". There was by the way report that
many studies are fraudulent nowadays. Perhaps this is the case.

~~~
araneae
The title of the article is a little misleading, I think. It's really not
about how being green makes you a cheater any more than being about how voting
for Obama makes you a racist. I don't think the research is implying anything
in particular about people who buy green, other than the fact that they
believe they are doing something moral. Other self-perceived moral acts will
presumably also result in an increased likelihood of cheating later as well.

~~~
potatolicious
Well, slightly OT but my work is actually in the green field (employer shall
remain unnamed for this one).

What we've found is that there's a _huge_ difference between opinion polls on
consumers' desire for green stuff, and their actions. Everyone _says_ , for
example, that they'd be willing to pay X% extra to buy a similar product that
is environmentally responsible - but in reality that number is actually very,
very close to 0%.

This is very frustrating to me - consumers talk a lot of shit about companies
needing to be environmentally responsible, but from the metrics I've seen
first-hand, even making them pay a single penny extra for it is too much.

~~~
solutionyogi
I am surprised that you would expect anything else. As Milton Friedman
famously said, 'Never listen to what people say. Look at how they vote with
their feet.'

<http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm>

~~~
potatolicious
Well, it was pretty obvious the polls weren't going to be on the dot, but I
was expecting consumers to claim to be willing to pay Y, but in reality only
pay X, where X < Y.

I never expected X = 0.

~~~
sliverstorm
X != 0

lim($price -> 0) [ c * $price ] = X

(Consider values less than $0.01 to be legal)

You're essentially right, but not _quite_.

P.S. make sure if you make your product more 'green' people are aware of this.
If it's not clear, people may not understand why the price is higher, and when
presented with two goods you believe are completely equal you will naturally
choose the cheaper one.

