Political ideology - tracking
from liberal to conservative from left to right - can influence the
purchase of a bulb with (green) and without (gray) an environmental
label (Image: Gromet et al. PNAS, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218453110)
Energy efficiency sounds like a good idea on multiple fronts;
mitigating global warming, reducing dependence on foreign oil and saving
money. Conservatives and liberals may disagree about the first reason,
but you would expect both of them to enthusiastically embrace energy
efficiency based on the other two reasons. Yet we find attitudes toward
energy efficiency split along politically ideological lines in this
country. Why? A new study suggests one simple potential reason: the
liberal environmental messaging associated with energy efficiency may
discourage conservatives from using such technologies.
That is the conclusion of
a study
done by researchers from Duke University and the University of
Pennsylvania which was published last week in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. The United States with its two-party
system and the traditional split among liberals and conservatives in
matters of environmentalism is a good test case for this kind of
project. The researchers’ goal was two-fold; firstly, to investigate how
people’s political inclination tracks with their attitudes about energy
efficiency, and secondly how that attitude is influenced by the
individual reasons typically enunciated by proponents of energy
efficiency.
To examine these factors the researchers carried out two studies,
Study 1 and Study 2. Study 1 looked at a sample of about 700 individuals
aged 19-81. They were provided information about the benefits of energy
efficiency and then asked what psychological value they placed on
energy efficiency itself and on the three benefits of energy efficiency:
reducing carbon emissions, dependence on foreign oil and cost. The
study found out that political leaning tracks well not just with general
attitudes about energy efficiency but also with the individual
benefits. Not surprisingly, conservatives placed the least value on
reducing carbon emissions; what was surprising was that reducing cost
and foreign oil dependence didn’t rank high on their priorities either.
There was also a split along gender lines. The paper summarizes the
findings of Study 1:
As expected, the more conservative participants were, the
less they favored investing in energy-efficient technology. With regard
to individuals’ psychological valuation of the environment, energy
independence, and energy costs, all three judgments were associated with
participants’ political ideology: The more conservative participants
were, the less psychological value they placed on all these concerns.
However, the ideological divide was greatest for reduction of carbon
emissions, indicating the polarizing nature of environmental concerns
(and the relatively broader appeal of energy independence and cost
concerns across ideological lines). In additional analyses, we also
included a sex × ideology interaction term, because conservative males
tend to express the greatest denial of climate change. This interaction
was a significant predictor for the valuation of carbon emission
reductions but did not predict investment in energy efficiency or
ratings for the other values.
This is an intriguing result but I have two thoughts about it.
Firstly, the differences in attitude did not differ dramatically between
conservatives and liberals although they reached statistical
significance. Secondly, I think it would have been quite interesting to
run a few more experiments in which participants were blinded to one or
more of the three benefits of energy efficiency. For instance, what
would conservatives say if they were told that the primary goal of
energy efficiency is to reduce long-term cost? Psychological research
has demonstrated the influence of prior information on consequent
decision making and it would have been valuable to examine this
influence in the present study.
Study 2 was smaller but much more interesting. In it participants
were given $2 to buy either a standard incandescent light bulb or a
fluorescent CFL light bulb. The CFL cost $1.50 and was more expensive
than the standard $0.50 bulb. They could keep the change. Both liberals
and conservatives were then provided information about the advantages of
the CFL bulb, including its longer life and the significant long-term
savings from it. Now comes the interesting part. The study was split
into two sub-studies. In one case there was an environmental label (for
instance one saying “Protect the Environment”) on the CFL bulb. In the
other case there was no label.
What the researchers found out was that there was a marked difference
between the choices of conservatives in the two cases. In the first
case the label put them off in spite of the cost savings; seeing a
connection with the environment closed their mind to the other benefits.
In the second case without the label, the benefits of the CFL swayed
their minds. The trends also held for moderate conservatives. The
implications are clear;
environmental messaging can actually discourage conservatives even from trying out technology that promises other clear benefits.
Here are some other interesting observations. When the prices of the
bulbs were the same, then the label did not matter; all participants
picked the CFL bulb, reflecting the dominance of both short-term and
long-term economic concerns over others. In addition liberals always
picked the CFL bulb, irrespective of its price.
Summarizing the results of Study 2, the researchers say that:
These findings indicate that connecting energy-efficient
products to environmental concerns can negatively affect the demand for
these products, specifically among persons in the United States who are
more politically conservative. Although the majority of participants,
regardless of ideology, selected the more expensive energy-efficient
light bulb when it was unlabeled, the more moderate and conservative
participants were less likely to purchase this option when an
environmental label was attached to it.
The study (with all the usual caveats including sample size and
nature) says something that both liberals and conservatives need to
understand. Firstly, it’s clear that economic benefits often trump
environmental ones for conservatives; at the same time, the fact that
the environmental message blinded conservatives to the long-term saving
says that
ideology can also trump self-interest. From a
practical standpoint though, this means that environmentally friendly
technologies advocated by liberals are likely to be embraced by
conservatives if they become cheap enough, irrespective of their
attitudes toward liberal environmentalism.
More importantly, the study shows that the message matters. It tells
us that liberals should perhaps tone down their big environmental
message if they want to convince conservatives to adopt their products.
This would be somewhat counterintuitive to the belief that a greater
emphasis on environmentalism is the right way to win conservatives over
to your cause. To conservatives the message is also clear; if the
economics makes sense, try to ignore the political message.
And the most
important conclusion of this study cannot be ignored: if you really
want to work together, leave ideology aside and focus on what you have
in common. That’s the way to move forward.
3
Share
Email
Print
No comments:
Post a Comment