488
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
objective environmental friendliness of packaging overall. For example, one could think that plastic þ paper packag- ing is objectively more environmentally friendly because it preserves the packaged products better and, thus, reduces possible waste. To probe this account, we ran a follow-up study where three groups of participants rated granola bar packaging from study 1a (study E, web appendix L). One group rated plastic packaging, and one group rated plastic þ paper packaging. Critically, a third group rated both the plastic and plastic þ paper packaging, with the two pack- aging types presented on the same screen in a random order. We replicated the PEF bias in the between-subjects evaluation. In the within-subjects evaluation, where people saw and evaluated plastic and plastic þ paper packaging side by side on the same screen, the PEF of the two pack- aging types was not significantly different. Had the effect of product type been driven by preservation-related con- cerns or by other beliefs about objectively greater environ- mental friendliness of packaging with additional layers of paper, we would expect the effect of packaging type to emerge in within-subjects evaluations. This, however, was not the case. Counterfactual Thinking. Finally, one could argue that the PEF bias emerges because plastic and plastic þ paper packaging types evoke different counterfactual thoughts. When seeing plastic packaging, people may think that the alternative to packaging a product in a layer of plastic is packaging it in a layer of paper. By contrast, when seeing plastic þ paper packaging, people may be more prone to consider the alternative where the product is packaged in two layers of plastic. This means that in our studies, in the “plastic” condition, the participants may have been com- paring the focal packaging to a subjectively environmen- tally friendly “paper” alternative. In the “plastic þ paper” condition, the participants may have been comparing the focal packaging to a subjectively environmentally harmful “plastic þ plastic” alternative. As a result of this difference in the evoked comparison standards, plastic packaging would be perceived as less environmentally friendly than plastic þ paper packaging. While counterfactual thinking could have affected the results in studies 1a–3, where participants evaluated a given packaging in isolation, we think it is less likely to have affected our results in studies 4a and 4b. For example, in study 4a, the participants were making choices between chocolate bars packaged in paper or plastic in the “plastic” condition and between bars packaged in paper or plastic þ paper in the “plastic þ paper” condition. After that, the participants rated the environmental friendliness of plastic or of plastic þ paper packaging. We think that participants in both the “plastic” and “plastic þ paper” conditions were likely to use paper packaging as a comparison standard for their PEF evaluation, because this was the packaging they saw alongside the focal plastic (plastic þ paper) packaging
et al. 2019). While consumer inaction is one of the barriers to sustainable behavior, we show that consumers’ system- atically biased perceptions of environmental friendliness can also mitigate pro-environmental outcomes. We find that environmental friendliness judgments of packaging are based on “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs. We further demonstrate that these beliefs can bias environmental friendliness judgments and influence con- sumers’ willingness to pay and choice. As such, in addition to shedding light onto processing of environmental infor- mation in the marketplace, our research underscores the importance of studying differences between consumer per- ceptions of environmental friendliness and objective reality.
Alternative Accounts of the Perceived Environmental Friendliness Bias
While our studies provide evidence of the underlying mechanism of the PEF bias and probe several alternative explanations, there are at least three additional plausible alternative accounts of our results. Packaging Quality Inferences. One may argue that the addition of paper packaging to plastic packaging prompts inferences about the quality of plastic used in the “plastic þ paper” condition. For example, one may assume that products in plastic þ paper packaging are wrapped in thin- ner layers of plastic compared to products packaged in plastic alone. Alternatively, people may infer that the prod- uct manufacturer is generally more committed to use eco- friendly packaging materials in the “plastic þ paper” con- dition. As a result, they may assume that the plastic used in the “plastic þ paper” condition is more environmentally friendly than that used in the “plastic” condition. To probe this additional alternative account, we ran a follow-up study (study D, web appendix J). In this study, we meas- ured the perceived environmental friendliness of product packaging (plastic vs. plastic þ paper). Then, on a separate screen, we reminded the participants that the product in the preceding task used plastic packaging and asked them to estimate the number of months it would take that plastic packaging to disintegrate in a landfill. The analysis did not reveal significant differences across the “plastic” and “plastic þ paper” conditions in terms of disintegration time for the plastic. As such, even though it is possible that addi- tional paper packaging sometimes makes plastic packaging seem more environmentally friendly, we do not think that this process can account for the PEF bias. Changes in (Inferred) Objective Environmental Friendliness. One may also argue that additional paper packaging increases perceived environmental friendliness not because consumers fail to factor in the increased amount of packaging in their PEF evaluations, but because they think that the additional packaging increases the
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker