On this green St. Paddy’s day, finally, something that explains some of the operators of, and commenters on, some other blogs. Now, if I can just find some fair trade carbon credits to offset my corned beef and cabbage…
From the Guardian:
How going green may make you mean
Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to steal, study finds
When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to “green” type.
According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.
Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write.
The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.
Mazar and Zhong said their study showed that just as exposure to pictures of exclusive restaurants can improve table manners but may not lead to an overall improvement in behaviour, “green products do not necessarily make for better people”. They added that one motivation for carrying out the study was that, despite the “stream of research focusing on identifying the ‘green consumer'”, there was a lack of understanding into “how green consumption fits into people’s global sense of responsibility and morality and [how it] affects behaviours outside the consumption domain”.
…
Complete article at the Guardian
…
Here is the original press release from the University of Toronto and link to the study:
Buying green can be license for bad behavior, study finds
Those lyin’, cheatin’ green consumers.
Just being around green products can make us behave more altruistically, a new study to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found.
But buying those same products can have the opposite effect. Researchers found that buying green can lead people into less altruistic behaviour, and even make them more likely to steal and lie than after buying conventional products. Buying products that claim to be made with low environmental impact can set up “moral credentials” in people’s minds that give license to selfish or questionable behavior.
“This was not done to point the finger at consumers who buy green products. The message is bigger,” says Nina Mazar, a marketing professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and a self-admitted green consumer. “At the end of the day, if we do one moral thing, IT doesn’t necessarily mean we will be morally better in other things as well.”
Mazar, along with her co-author Chen-Bo Zhong, an assistant professor of organizational behaviour at the Rotman School, conducted three experiments. The first found that people perceived green consumers to be more cooperative, altruistic and ethical than those who purchased conventional products. The second experiment showed that participants merely exposed to products from a green store shared more money in a subsequent experimental game, but those who actually made purchases in that store shared less. The final experiment revealed that participants who bought items in the green store showed evidence of lying and stealing money in a subsequent lab game.
But are people conscious of this moral green washing going on when they buy green products and, more importantly, the license they might feel to break ethical standards? Professors Mazar and Zhong don’t know – and look forward to exploring that in further research.
The complete study is available at: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf .
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ahah! And what is the biggest green consumer item being bought?
Ideas.
[snip] Ya’ll can quote me on that.
Reply: Or not ~ ctm
The road to hell is paved with good intentions… I always felt that greenism is all about subconsious fears and human agression but it is impossible to escape the human condition. Repent and we will NOT live for ever. The aggression bit is self evident. Green activists including some climate scientists (think Gavin S) are actually hyper aggressive.
It’s called hypocrisy you’ll find it in any religion.
Organic food costs so much, so they have to even it out!
Starlings are intelligent birds. Seagulls, too, though too noisy.
But pigeons… with all my respect for Tesla, pigeons are stupid, bloodthirsty, fratricidal and stupid pests.
The French eat them. Let them eat all pigeons. Our parks and boulevards will be cleaner and greener.
Good thing cows don’t fly.
The culprit looks like she has a fine sense of humour:
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/viewFac.asp?facultyID=nina.mazar
If you read the paper, you will see that the assumption oft made in the comments that the participants chose green products is wrong. The participants where randomly assigned either a green or a conventional store.
So the conclusion is that actually buying products described as green makes people behave more dishonestly subsequently. This is , as the assignment was random, regardless of their actual desires to buy green products.
The product causes it (or the act of buying it), not the moral choice in doing so. That’s the way I read it, anyway. As far as I can see, even though each store was not exclusive in it stock, but only heavily weighted toward one type, the result that was achieved (and desired) is that they were effectively forced to buy the goods, either conventional or green. That bit may have been explained badly, however.
Conclusions:
Well big news. Every greenie i ever knew in real life was in favour of higher energy prizes and higher taxes because that would force us to reduce our consumption. In other words, they all admitted that i needed to be robbed even more. This is no joke, i always ask them directly what they think of energy prizes and taxes and that’s the answer i get. Robbing the money of everybody else is 100% in line with the green ideology and has always been. Also they’re fuming when they see a big Audi overtaking them with 250 km/h. They’re envious little leprechauns. I’m only talking about people i know personally.
Heh heh heh…
What makes the subjects dishonest is not their “green” status but the halo-wearing, and public display posing. There are folk who have always been organic gardners, not because they are publicly green, but because the food they grow tastes better to them than the pallid produce in the supermarkets, and they take pleasure in the birdlife in their gardens. They are conservationists who take pleasure in their environment, not religious adherents espousing a “noble cause”. I am one such, and at the same time am a cordial opponent of the AGW religion.
And speaking of religion – those who publicly proclaim their virtue and use “Praise the Lord” as freely as Australians use obsecenities, are usually basically low-lifes. Think about Jim Bakker.
Think, for that matter, about politicians like Bush and Blair, who launched a crusade in Iraq because God told them to, while lying through their teeth about WMDs – which are about as real as AGW. Halo-wearers all.
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/are-humans-the-climate-weapons-of-mass-destruction/
Reply: I’m allowing this comment for its use of comparison, but will not accept any subsequent debates on the Iraq conflict. ~ ctm
The wandering albatross in flight would have to be one of the most beautiful and graceful birds around. Followed by their close cousin the mollymork. Quite a sight watching them from a steaming fishing boat as they effortlessly and endlessly soar the uplifts generated by sea swells and waves.
The purity of the scene is a timely reminder that we humans are but poor players strutting our stuff on lifes stage.
With apologies to Will Shakespeare.
I wonder if a study has been done to determine the relationship between “green enthusiasm” and economic “well being”. It appears to me that people who have little economic hardship will be much more inclined to participate and become passionate about “causes” whether rational or not, especially one’s that appear to have a moral high ground and are socially vogue. The folks on the other end are largely governed by what they can afford even though they might share some of the same ideals. Human behavior is too complex to simply generalize, but I always chuckle when I notice a “green” shopper packing their morals into their V8 SUV.
Noelene (20:49:16) :
Maybe the people who buy green have that sort of personality in the first place?
I think Noelene’s got it.
The people I’ve known who were most apt to jump on the latest eco-bandwagon were also the ones who snagged other folks’ soft drinks from the community fridge.
eo (23:45:49) :
Most greenies dont understand nature and the environment at all. When a person denies his position in the food chain and he actually is grabbing food from the animals lower in food chain. Pauchari’s lecture on his being a vegetarian is actually a selfish act of using brute force to deprive food and life of the animals lower in the food chain.
Someone once said that a vegetarian is just another predator — except he picks prey that can’t run away.
Interesting but not a surprise – I have often observed a mindset that assumes that by making a particular “virtuous” decision – working in the charitable sector or so-called environmentally friendly industries, or being a lay preacher, people have discharged their burden to society and are free to behave as badly as they like. By and large, I have seen more ethical and considerate behaviour in red-blooded capitalist businesses (Lehman Bros excepted!) than in achingly nice charitable operations (with honourable exceptions).
One real-world way to confirm this lab test would be to obtain statistics on which book topics show the greatest “shrinkage” (i.e., are shoplifted the most).
I suspect books on green topics would be near the top.
It may be a coincidence but the use of the term Mean Green and its associated behaviour ties in very closely with some psychological models that have been around for years and one in particular that uses exactly that term for exactly that behaviour:
http://www.integralworld.net/mgm2.html
I have won $405,353,000.00 At slots on my computer and gave away $100,000,000. 00 each to my daughter and mother in law. I called it cyber dollars with the net worth of $0.00
Anyone else out there a little hard up and could use some cyber dollars?
I have lots and willing to share.
Jeff Alberts (21:43:36) :
Be environmental, but not environMENTAL.
Why the surprise in peoples behaviour? Self-righteousness is always the badge of the hypocrite! Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Looks like the faithful from the Church of AGW are having a gathering at the University of Victoria:
Climate Change and the Media: Scientists, Scribes and Spinmeisters
Thursday, April 8, 7:30 – 9:30 p.m. | Bob Wright Centre, Room B150, University of Victoria
For more information, please visit: http://www.pics.uvic.ca or call 250-853-3626
You are invited to this free panel discussion designed to inform the community about the facts on climate change and the challenges facing media in reporting them.
Join our panelists as they debate how to determine the facts behind the headlines:
· Peter Calamai, Science Writer, Toronto Star
· Lucinda Chodan, Editor-in-Chief, Times Colonist
· Jim Hoggan, Co-author of the bestseller Climate Cover-Up
· Tom Pedersen, Director, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions
Please arrive early as seating is limited.
Travel Green: UVic is accessible by many modes of sustainable transportation including regional transit, cycling, walking and taxi. Should you choose to drive, pay parking is in effect for a $2 evening
rate. The closest parking is across from the building in Lot #1.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you on April 8th.
Cheers,
Ivan
Ivan Watson
Communications Officer
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions
Sedgewick C132 |University of Victoria
PO Box 1700 STN CSC |Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2
Phone (250) 853-3626 | Fax (250) 853-3597
Website http://www.pics.uvic.ca
ctm, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You are correct, my comment was for the purpose of comparison.
Bu I owe you an apology, because I did not consider the risk that it could possibly derail the thread by starting a seriously OT debate. That was inconsiderate (literally I did not consider it). Should you choose to snip it, I shall understand.
I value this forum for the information it provides and the opportunity to participate in and learn from the debate on the topics presented. I shall be more careful in my responses..
One can see similar behavior in personal efforts to be patriotic, preferring to but goods made in ones country. I used to think that this was good, until a wise Economics Prof said, “So you buy local goods all year, save some money then what? Go on an expensive overseas holiday or buy a Merc?” (We were not in Germany).
Same with a carbon tax on fossil fuel electricity & gas companies. The Government takes the tax, then hands it out to the needy and worthy ( = swinging voter). First thing the newly rich does is to consume more electricity and gas. Try to imagine a way to spend windfall income without increasing GHG. Let me know if you find one apart from investing in nuclear.
It’s a circular churn, with the planners taking a cut every time a $ floats by.
James Allison (01:29:11) : “The wandering albatross in flight would have to be one of the most beautiful and graceful birds around”
Agreed. As an Aussie, I also note that Nature crafted them so that they could not cross the Equator and so make land among the sinful.
Going “Green” was the new marketing ploy to try and induce new products for gullable people. Let’s push the electric cars or carbon capturers. Is it really a good idea to store gases in the ground? At some point they may wnt to escape or be part of our ground water. How deep is viable to the expense? They need some sort of pocket to put any volume down?
Reasonable ideas BUT only to a point.
Where is the technology that isn’t outrageously expensive?
When did the technology develop and test and modify to make a good product?
We live in the “new” fast paced society that product development is not in the cards as anything really good would be very expensive at first until a knock off is produced in China.
Albatrosses cannot cross the equator? Tell us more…..
Polar bear ban defeated at UN conservation meeting
“The Americans argued at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that the sale of polar bears skins was compounding the loss of the animals’ sea ice due to climate change.”
Oh dear, perhaps they’ve heard that polar numbers are exploding!