New research published in Journal of Consumer Psychology suggests that a person’s political leanings influence how they view the environmental benefits of their own sustainable choices. This study provides evidence that conservatives tend to view behaviors such as recycling and eating a plant-based diet as having less positive impact than liberals, predicting lower engagement in these behaviors. These differences appear to be due to how common these behaviors are perceived to be within an individual’s social circle.
The authors of the new study wanted to understand why conservatives generally engage in less environmentally friendly behavior than liberals. Previous explanations have often pointed to differences in personal values and outright skepticism about climate change. Scientists proposed that people also rely heavily on external social cues to determine whether their actions will actually make a difference.
It is difficult for the average person to accurately estimate the carbon savings of a particular action. Consumers often lack the precise knowledge needed to calculate their environmental impact, so they look around to see what others are doing. This concept is known as perceived prevalence and refers to how common or widespread a behavior is within a particular group.
If we see very few people in our social group doing something, we tend to think that action is less effective. Because conservatives generally interact with other conservatives who engage in fewer sustainable behaviors, it could be easy to conclude that these behaviors are rare. The scientists predicted that this perceived rarity would lead conservatives to believe that these actions have no meaningful environmental impact.
“Recent research suggests that consumers often misjudge the environmental impact of sustainable behaviors. For example, many people overestimate the impact of recycling and underestimate the environmental benefits of adopting a vegetarian diet. Building on this research, we wanted to understand whether these perceptions are colored by political ideology,” explained study author Airin Kakanler, assistant professor at the Department of Marketing at the Stockholm School of Economics.
To test this idea, researchers conducted seven detailed studies. The first study recruited 402 online participants from the United States and asked them to imagine switching to a vegetarian diet. The researchers found that conservative participants perceived dietary changes to have less of a positive impact on the environment and were less likely to choose vegetarian recipes than liberals, even when controlling for personal climate change beliefs.
The second study moved to a real-world setting with 107 shoppers at a shopping mall in North America. Participants were presented with a choice between a standard performance pen and an eco-friendly pen made from reclaimed wood or recycled materials. Similar to the first study, conservative shoppers were less likely to choose eco-friendly pens and rated their environmental impact lower than liberal shoppers.
In another study, researchers wanted to see how these perceptions matched up with objective reality. They asked 401 online participants to estimate the carbon savings of seven different actions, including avoiding transatlantic flights, driving electric cars, and taking shorter showers. They asked participants to estimate these impacts using the number of trees needed to absorb the carbon dioxide saved.
The findings show that conservatives tend to underestimate the actual environmental impact of these actions. Liberals offered estimates that were much closer to the actual environmental impacts, especially for highly effective actions such as cutting back on air travel. Although both groups struggled a bit with accuracy, the ideological gap in perceived influence remained significant for nearly every behavior tested.
The scientists then investigated the underlying reasons for this gap. They gave 396 online participants a small monetary bonus and asked them how much they would like to donate to a specific carbon offset organization. The scientists also measured how common participants thought sustainable behavior was among their political allies.
This result suggests that conservatives perceive sustainable behavior to be less common within their group. This perception led them to view their donations as having less impact, which ultimately led them to donate less. The researchers tested alternative explanations, such as a desire to legitimize existing social systems, but found that perceived influence was the strongest predictor of behavior.
The researchers then tested ways to close this behavioral gap. In one study, 797 online participants imagined commuting by bike. Half of the participants read about the health benefits of cycling, and the other half read about the environmental benefits.
When cycling was positioned as an environmental choice, conservatives reported lower awareness of environmental impact and lower motivation to ride. When cycling was framed as a health choice, an area in which conservatives and liberals showed similar levels of involvement, ideological differences in perceived impact and willingness to cycle completely disappeared.
In subsequent studies, scientists manipulated the prevalence of sustainable behaviors. They recruited 1,003 participants and had them read specific articles over two phases separated by one week to avoid demand effects. Half read an article highlighting a member of their party’s active efforts to reduce food waste, while the other half read a neutral restaurant review.
My opinion changed when I read that their political colleagues are actively reducing food waste. This information increased awareness of the impact of conservatives’ actions. It also increased their overall willingness to engage in the same food waste reduction habits.
Finally, the researchers tested what would happen if the exact environmental impacts were clearly stated. They showed 599 online participants a video about purchasing bracelets made from recycled ocean plastic. Half of the participants received clear information that purchasing the bracelet would remove exactly 5 pounds of trash from the ocean.
Conservatives said they were less willing to buy the bracelets as the impact remained ambiguous. Once the impact was clearly defined, conservative participants expressed a similar willingness to pay for the bracelet as liberal participants. This suggests that clear affect information can override social cues.
Although the study provides clear insights, scientists note some potential limitations. Research focuses on behaviors whose environmental impacts are inherently difficult to estimate. In situations where the consequences of actions are visible, social cues may play a smaller role in guiding choices.
The scientists suggest that future research could examine how dissemination messages work in other highly polarized areas, such as public health or political expression. They point out that messages that emphasize how common a behavior is can potentially backfire if that behavior directly contradicts a person’s deeply held internal values. Exploring these boundaries can help reveal when social cues are most effective.
Future research could also investigate how best to combine value-based appeals with explicit information about positive affect. Our findings demonstrate that highlighting non-environmental benefits and articulating precisely positive outcomes can effectively promote sustainable choices across the political spectrum.
“Our findings show that the same sustainable behavior can be perceived differently depending on an individual’s political orientation,” Kakanrah told Cypost. “Importantly, these ideological differences persist even after controlling for beliefs in climate change, environmental concerns, and related concepts. Therefore, the effect is strong, and conservatives tend to perceive that their sustainable behaviors have a less positive impact on the environment than liberals. This difference in perceived impact, in turn, predicts lower engagement in sustainable behaviors among conservatives.”
“Awareness of environmental impact is particularly important because even individuals who believe in climate change may refrain from engaging in sustainable behavior if they feel that their efforts do not have a meaningful impact on the environment. This highlights the importance for marketers and policy makers to clearly communicate the specific impacts of sustainable behavior.”
The study, “The Politics of Impact: How Political Ideology Shapes Perceptions of the Environmental Impact of Individual Actions,” was authored by Aylin Kakanler, Catherine White, and Remi Trudel.
