The negative footprint illusion is exacerbated by the numerosity of environment-friendly additions: unveiling the underpinning mechanisms
Hanna Andersson,Mattias Holmgren,Patrik Sörqvist,Emma Threadgold,C. Philip Beaman,Linden J. Ball,John E. Marsh,Hanna AnderssonMattias HolmgrenPatrik SörqvistEmma ThreadgoldC. Philip BeamanLinden J. BallJohn E. Marsha Department of Computer and Geospatial Sciences,University of Gävle,Gävle,Swedenb Department of Building Engineering,Energy Systems,and Sustainability Science,University of Gävle,Gävle,Swedenc Department of Health,Learning and Technology,Luleå University of Technology,Luleå,Swedend Human Factors Group,School of Psychology and Humanities,University of Central Lancashire,Preston,UKe School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences,University of Reading,Reading,UK
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2024.2313568
2024-02-23
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Abstract:The addition of environmentally friendly items to conventional items sometimes leads people to believe that the carbon footprint of the entire set decreases rather than increases. This negative footprint illusion is supposedly underpinned by an averaging bias : people base environmental impact estimates not on the total impact of items but on their average. Here, we found that the illusion's magnitude increased with the addition of a greater number of "green" items when the number of conventional items remained constant (Studies 1 and 2), supporting the averaging-bias account. We challenged this account by testing what happens when the number of items in the conventional and "green" categories vary while holding the ratio between the two categories constant (Study 3). At odds with the averaging-bias account, the magnitude of the illusion increased as the category size increased, revealing a category-size bias , and raising questions about the interplay between these biases in the illusion.
psychology, experimental