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

Threadgold, Emma orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-9073-0669, Marsh, John Everett orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-9494-1287, Holmgren, Mattias, Andersson, Hanna, Nelson, Megan and Ball, Linden orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-5099-0124 (2022) Biased Estimates of Environmental Impact in the Negative Footprint Illusion: The Nature of Individual Variation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 . p. 648328.

[thumbnail of Version of Record]
Preview
PDF (Version of Record) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

400kB

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648328

Abstract

People consistently act in ways that harm the environment, even when believing their actions are environmentally friendly. A case in point is a biased judgment termed the negative footprint illusion, which arises when people believe that the addition of “eco-friendly” items (e.g., environmentally certified houses) to conventional items (e.g., standard houses), reduces the total carbon footprint of the whole item-set, whereas the carbon footprint is, in fact, increased because eco-friendly items still contribute to the overall carbon footprint. Previous research suggests this illusion is the manifestation of an “averaging-bias.” We present two studies that explore whether people’s susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion is associated with individual differences in: (i) environment-specific reasoning dispositions measured in terms of compensatory green beliefs and environmental concerns; or (ii) general analytic reasoning dispositions measured in terms of actively open-minded thinking, avoidance of impulsivity and reflective reasoning (indexed using the Cognitive Reflection Test; CRT). A negative footprint illusion was demonstrated when participants rated the carbon footprint of conventional buildings combined with eco-friendly buildings (Study 1 and 2) and conventional cars combined with eco-friendly cars (Study 2). However, the illusion was not identified in participants’ ratings of the carbon footprint of apples (Study 1 and 2). In Studies 1 and 2, environment-specific dispositions were found to be unrelated to the negative footprint illusion. Regarding reflective thinking dispositions, reduced susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion was only associated with actively open-minded thinking measured on a 7-item scale (Study 1) and 17-item scale (Study 2). Our findings provide partial support for the existence of a negative footprint illusion and reveal a role of individual variation in reflective reasoning dispositions in accounting for a limited element of differential susceptibility to this illusion.


Repository Staff Only: item control page