![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/environmentalist-climate-change-activists-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology suggests that a person’s political leaning shapes how they view the environmental benefits of their own sustainable choices. The research provides evidence that conservatives tend to view actions like recycling or eating a plant based diet as having less of a positive impact than liberals do, which predicts lower engagement in these behaviors. These differences appear to stem from how common these behaviors are perceived to be within an individual’s own social circle.
The authors behind the new study wanted to understand why conservatives generally engage in fewer eco-friendly behaviors compared to liberals. Past explanations often pointed to differences in personal values or an outright skepticism about climate change. The scientists proposed that people also rely heavily on external social cues to figure out if their actions actually make a difference.
Estimating the exact carbon reduction of a specific action is difficult for the average person. Because consumers often lack the exact knowledge needed to calculate environmental impact, they look around to see what others are doing. This concept is known as perceived prevalence, which refers to how common or widespread a behavior appears to be within a specific group.
If an individual sees very few people in their social group doing something, they tend to assume the action is not very effective. Since conservatives interact with other conservatives who generally perform fewer sustainable actions, they might easily conclude that these behaviors are rare. The scientists predicted this perceived rarity leads conservatives to assume these behaviors lack meaningful environmental impact.
“Recent research suggests that consumers often misjudge the environmental impact of sustainable behaviors. For example, many people overestimate the impact of recycling while underestimating the environmental benefits of adopting a vegetarian diet. Building on this work, we wanted to understand whether these perceptions are colored by political ideology,” explained study author Aylin Cakanlar, an assistant professor of marketing at the Stockholm School of Economics.
To test this idea, the researchers conducted seven detailed studies. In the first study, they recruited 402 online participants from the United States to imagine switching to a vegetarian diet. The researchers found that conservative participants perceived the dietary change as having less of a positive impact on the environment and were less likely to choose vegetarian recipes compared to liberals, even when controlling for personal climate change beliefs.
The second study moved to a real world setting with 107 shoppers at a North American shopping mall. Participants were offered a choice between a standard performance pen and an environmentally friendly pen made from reclaimed wood and recycled materials. Similar to the first study, conservative shoppers were less likely to choose the eco-friendly pen and rated its environmental impact lower than liberal shoppers did.
In another study, the researchers wanted to see how these perceptions matched up with objective reality. They asked 401 online participants to estimate the carbon reduction of seven different behaviors, such as avoiding a transatlantic flight, driving an electric vehicle, or reducing shower times. They asked participants to estimate these impacts using the number of trees required to absorb the saved carbon dioxide.
The findings indicate that conservatives tended to underestimate the actual environmental impact of these behaviors. Liberals provided estimates that were much closer to the real environmental impact, especially for highly effective actions like flying less. Both groups struggled slightly with accuracy, but the ideological gap in perceived impact remained significant across nearly all tested behaviors.
The scientists then explored the underlying reasons for this gap. They gave 396 online participants a small monetary bonus and asked how much they wanted to donate to a specific carbon offset organization. The scientists also measured how common participants thought sustainable behaviors were among their own political peers.
The results suggest that conservatives perceived sustainable actions as less common in their group. This perception led them to view the donations as less impactful and ultimately resulted in lower donation amounts. The researchers tested alternative explanations, like a desire to justify existing social systems, but found that perceived impact was the strongest predictor of behavior.
The researchers then tested ways to close this behavioral gap. In one study, 797 online participants imagined commuting to work by bike. Half the participants read about the health benefits of biking, while the other half read about the environmental benefits.
When biking was framed as an environmental choice, conservatives reported lower perceived impact and a lower willingness to ride a bike. When biking was framed as a health choice, an area where conservatives and liberals show similar levels of engagement, the ideological differences in perceived impact and willingness to bike completely disappeared.
In a subsequent study, the scientists manipulated the perceived prevalence of sustainable actions. They recruited 1003 participants and had them read a specific article over two phases separated by a week to avoid demand effects. Half read an article highlighting that members of their own political party were actively reducing food waste, while the other half read a neutral restaurant review.
Reading that their political peers were actively reducing food waste shifted opinions. This information increased conservatives’ perceptions of the behavior’s impact. It also increased their overall willingness to engage in the same food waste reduction habits.
Finally, the researchers tested what happens when the exact environmental impact is clearly stated. They showed 599 online participants a video about purchasing a bracelet made from reclaimed ocean plastic. Half the participants received explicit information stating that buying the bracelet removes exactly five pounds of trash from the ocean.
When the impact was left vague, conservatives expressed a lower willingness to pay for the bracelet. When the impact was clearly defined, conservative participants expressed a similar willingness to pay for the bracelet as liberal participants did. This suggests that clear impact information can override social cues.
While this research provides clear insights, the scientists note a few potential limitations. The studies focus heavily on behaviors where the environmental impact is inherently difficult to estimate. In situations where an action’s result is highly visible, social cues might play a smaller role in guiding choices.
The scientists suggest that future research could explore how prevalence messaging works in other highly polarized areas, such as public health or political expression. They note that messages emphasizing how common a behavior is could potentially backfire if the behavior directly conflicts with a person’s deeply held internal values. Exploring these boundaries will help clarify when social cues are most effective.
Future studies might also investigate the best ways to combine value based appeals with clear information about positive impacts. The findings indicate that highlighting non environmental benefits or clearly stating the exact positive outcome can effectively encourage sustainable choices across the entire political spectrum.
“Our findings show that the same sustainable behavior can be perceived differently depending on an individual’s political orientation,” Cakanlar told PsyPost. “Importantly, these ideological differences persist even after controlling for belief in climate change, environmental concern, and related constructs. So the effect was robust, conservatives tend to perceive their sustainable actions as having less positive environmental impact than liberals do. This difference in perceived impact, in turn, predicts lower engagement in sustainable behaviors among conservatives.”
“Perceived environmental impact is particularly important because even individuals who believe in climate change may refrain from engaging in sustainable actions if they feel their efforts will not meaningfully affect the environment. This underscores the importance for marketers and policymakers of clearly communicating the concrete impact of sustainable behaviors.”
The study, “The politics of impact: How political ideology shapes perceptions of the environmental impact of individual actions,” was authored by Aylin Cakanlar, Katherine White, and Remi Trudel.
