Image: Courtesy Flickr
So you decided to buy a nontoxic cleaning product? Good for you. Just don’t get too self-congratulatory. Purchasing a green product could make you more likely to behave more selfishly down the road, a new study reveals.
Researchers at the University of Toronto asked college students to shop for products online from either an eco-friendly or a conventional store. Then, in a classic experiment known as the dictator game, subjects were asked to divide a small sum of money between themselves and a stranger. Those who shopped at the green store shared, on average, less of their money.
The investigators believe that a “licensing effect” might be at work. “When we engage in a good deed, that gives us a kind of satisfaction,” says Nina Mazar, professor of marketing and a co-author of the paper. With that self-satisfied feeling can come tacit permission to behave more selfishly next time we have the opportunity, Mazar says. Previous research has documented this licensing effect in other contexts; a study published last year revealed that asking people to ruminate on their humanitarian qualities actually reduced their charitable giving.
Next, Mazar is particularly interested in exploring the policy implications of this licensing effect; for instance, one study suggested that people who make their homes more energy-efficient start cranking up their heat. She hopes to determine whether simply making people aware of these kinds of tendencies could help combat them.
This article was originally published with the title Green and Mean.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentJust because I care about the future of the planet, does not mean that I am Mother Theresa. Another study claims that Prius drivers are selfish. I drive a Prius because I want to reduce my CO2 footprint. No one should assume that my car means that I am more likely to, say, give to the United Way. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy other thought on this is that most "green" items cost more than the non green product.....so your making a choice to have less money when selecting green and so your following choices take that in to account....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find true green things cost less, not more. And one is likely if one needs more driving, buy a car that gets better mileage so they can afford it.
Like the light usage commonly uses this argument, it doesn't include productivity or the fact one needed more light to get more done.
For instance I'm now building a long distance EV so I can do things I can't now with my short range EV. This longer/unlimited range EV I will go farther but is it fair to say because I build it, I'll use it for more miles?
It's really the opposite, I need longer range to get things done I need. But the facts are it will get about 600mpg equivalent on grid power and 200mpg on a small generator.
Am I less green because I use it? Facts are it's less costly than even trains and goes where I want when I need to go, saving/making me much time, money.
Facts are future energy will come from RE to most homes as it's the low cost source even now with PV , under $2/wt retail, sunelec.com and once a real competitive market develops in home wind, CSP, biomass CHP, they too will cost less than utility power for both home and transport.
I built my home with insulation so I can be comfortable using less energy. I need it for health reasons. Does that make me bad?
What is bad is all the wasted energy. Most powerplants should be 65-70% eff. There is no technical or economic reason not to be just they haven't ever done it that way. No reason an SUV can't get 50mpg. It would take an open mind by car makers to do it though.
While some will just waste more eff energy by using more, that's not going to be the majority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the third part of the study, aimed at determining if purchasing green products would cause participants to be more likely to steal nine participants took NO money. As a result "They were excluded from analyses." ((http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Mazar_PS_Green_LatestVersion.pdf))
I wonder if those participants purchased green or "regular" products.
If there is such an entitlement issue to be had, why would purchasing so called "green products" be more likely than more altruistic ventures to cause bad behavior later? Does the person who volunteers at the soup kitchen step on the homeless in the street as they go home? Does holding a door open for an old lady entering behind you at the supermarket make you more likely to swipe a pack of gum at the checkout line?
Conversely, does purchasing clothes made by malnourished, illiterate children overseas at extra-cheap prices from Wal-Mart make a person more likely to throw extra money into the donation box on Sunday?
Vermont Mom, I think you bring up a valid argument about the basis of this article. However, I believe the article is making this argument for those of us who consciously use green products in thinking that the use is our contribution to society, instead of volunteering or donating money. Though the article did not make this distinction, I believe that the article is correct in making the correlation between using green products and not donating as much, as long as that detail is in the back of people’s minds. I know that I am a person who buys green products as a way to give back, and subconsciously probably end up giving less as a result, even though I strongly believe in volunteering and helping to improve the community. In fact, I had not even considered this possible correlation until reading this article, but I believe that’s the fundamental point of the research being discussed. Perhaps it is not to speak to people who go green for the environment, but rather as a way to give back to society in substitution of other “good deeds.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people are asked to share money, a series of individual characteristics as well as a personal thought process usually form the decision making, such as generosity, who and why they’re donating money to, and how much money there is to share. This has no link whatsoever to whether or not the person chooses to buy green products. While the two might be considered types charities, they have completely different purposes: sharing wealth with others deals with helping other people while buying green is helping the environment. It is completely valid for a person to choose to do one and not the other, both, or neither. If someone donates food to the poor but purchases styrofoam cups rather than recyclable plastic cups, it’s not because the person felt good about donating and now feels entitled to get away with being uncharitable to the environment, it’s because there is no specific connection between the two types of humanitarian acts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this