Politics even affects light bulb choice.

[fskimospy]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

While most of the outcomes of this study are in the 'no duh' category, one really sticks out. Basically consumers were given a choice between CFL light bulbs and regular ones at various price points. When price, etc was equal, everyone chose basically the same light bulb. (no duh, right?)

The interesting part came from when a 'save the environment' sticker was put on some of the light bulb packaging. In this case conservatives were less likely to purchase it even when all other things were equal. Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology. In a light bulb that nobody will use but them. That nobody else will even notice they were using. To their financial detriment.

That is mighty irrational.

 

[michal1980]

sounds to me like some people dont buy things that carry political messages.

 

[Genx87]

Not sure why this is surprising. People do irrational things every day based on stupid things.
I think there was a study about posting calorie intake at fast food joints in NYC that had zero effect on consumption a couple years back.

Personally I buy the new light bulbs regardless of stickers or price. But I am also a conservationalist at heart. I try to use as little water and energy as possible.

My complaint about these CFLs is the lifespan is not as long as they claim. These things die faster than the old light bulbs imo. For the price they are not cost effective to replace because of this. Also in cold weather climates they take a couple minutes to come to full brightness. Goign into my garage I may as well bring a flashlight when lookign through the outside freezer for food. Because when it is 10 degrees out there the light takes about 3-4 mins before it is bright enough to see anything.

 

[Matt1970]

So Liberals fall for bullshit on packaging?

 

[waggy]

Not sure why this is surprising. People do irrational things every day based on stupid things.
I think there was a study about posting calorie intake at fast food joints in NYC that had zero effect on consumption a couple years back.

Personally I buy the new light bulbs regardless of stickers or price. But I am also a conservationalist at heart. I try to use as little water and energy as possible.

My complaint about these CFLs is the lifespan is not as long as they claim. These things die faster than the old light bulbs imo. For the price they are not cost effective to replace because of this. Also in cold weather climates they take a couple minutes to come to full brightness. Goign into my garage I may as well bring a flashlight when lookign through the outside freezer for food. Because when it is 10 degrees out there the light takes about 3-4 mins before it is bright enough to see anything.

/this

I try to buy green. But these CFL's are a joke! i think they are doing more harm then the old ones. they last a shorter time and cost 3x as much.

I baught a bunch of the old bulbs. i think i'm good for a year or two.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure why this is surprising. People do irrational things every day based on stupid things.
I think there was a study about posting calorie intake at fast food joints in NYC that had zero effect on consumption a couple years back.

Well that isn't necessarily irrational, though. People might just not care about how fat they are or would prefer taste over calories. It might be a dumb choice, but it's not necessarily irrational.

I guess in this case you could say that some conservatives prefer 'sticking it' to environmentalists more than they want to save money, but considering the fact that the environmentalists won't ever know that seems like a stretch.

Personally I buy the new light bulbs regardless of stickers or price. But I am also a conservationalist at heart. I try to use as little water and energy as possible.

My complaint about these CFLs is the lifespan is not as long as they claim. These things die faster than the old light bulbs imo. For the price they are not cost effective to replace because of this. Also in cold weather climates they take a couple minutes to come to full brightness. Goign into my garage I may as well bring a flashlight when lookign through the outside freezer for food. Because when it is 10 degrees out there the light takes about 3-4 mins before it is bright enough to see anything.

I had a similar problem in my old apartment but my old place had electrical problems that were basically death to all light bulbs, old or new. (I would say the average light bulb survived about a month) I'm unaware of the effect of weather conditions on them as I've only used them inside though.

 

[fskimospy]

So Liberals fall for bullshit on packaging?

No. The finding was not that an environmental sticker made liberals more likely to buy it, it was that it made conservatives less likely to buy it despite the fact that nothing else was different.

 

[Leymenaide]

Not sure why this is surprising. People do irrational things every day based on stupid things.
I think there was a study about posting calorie intake at fast food joints in NYC that had zero effect on consumption a couple years back.

Personally I buy the new light bulbs regardless of stickers or price. But I am also a conservationalist at heart. I try to use as little water and energy as possible.

My complaint about these CFLs is the lifespan is not as long as they claim. These things die faster than the old light bulbs imo. For the price they are not cost effective to replace because of this. Also in cold weather climates they take a couple minutes to come to full brightness. Goign into my garage I may as well bring a flashlight when lookign through the outside freezer for food. Because when it is 10 degrees out there the light takes about 3-4 mins before it is bright enough to see anything.

Two years ago I bought over twenty led's . Put them in a spot I did not want to go back to and hardly used them. 2 have failed.

I was about to buy 8 led floods recently and at $30 each and the failure rate that I have experienced I left them on the shelf and put the 17 foot step ladder away.

 

[Matt1970]

No. The finding was not that an environmental sticker made liberals more likely to buy it, it was that it made conservatives less likely to buy it despite the fact that nothing else was different.

Right, there was nothing different about the items. BTW, where is the data from this study?

 

[fskimospy]

Right, there was nothing different about the items. BTW, where is the data from this study?

In the article I linked; you may need journal access to read the data however. Are the conservatives on this board planning to engage in another round of amateur research design?

 

[shortylickens]

Libertarian: LED


suck it "progressives".

 

[glenn1]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

While most of the outcomes of this study are in the 'no duh' category, one really sticks out. Basically consumers were given a choice between CFL light bulbs and regular ones at various price points. When price, etc was equal, everyone chose basically the same light bulb. (no duh, right?)

The interesting part came from when a 'save the environment' sticker was put on some of the light bulb packaging. In this case conservatives were less likely to purchase it even when all other things were equal. Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology. In a light bulb that nobody will use but them. That nobody else will even notice they were using. To their financial detriment.

That is mighty irrational.

Why do you care? In fact, you should be cheering this since you're the one who hates austerity and wants government to spend trillions of dollars because consumers aren't spending enough. At least slapping a "save the environment" sticker on stuff sounds like an easier way to enjoy your Keynesian fetish than the other stupid ideas your side peddles.

 

[PokerGuy]

As a consumer, I'm less likely to buy a product if I think it comes from a company that pushes a political agenda. If the sticker on the product is viewed as indicative of a agenda, then it's perfectly rational for the consumer to not buy that product.

 

[Matt1970]

And remember, it is illegal to just throw away your environmentally friendly CFL bulbs.

 

[CPA]

Well that isn't necessarily irrational, though. People might just not care about how fat they are or would prefer taste over calories. It might be a dumb choice, but it's not necessarily irrational.

How is that any different than your "irrational" claim on the lightbulbs? One harms the planet (supposedly), one harms the body. If one group of folks chooses against environmentalism, you call them irrational, yet if one group chooses against healthy eating, it's just a preference.

 

[fskimospy]

How is that any different than your "irrational" claim on the lightbulbs? One harms the planet (supposedly), one harms the body. If one group of folks chooses against environmentalism, you call them irrational, yet if one group chooses against healthy eating, it's just a preference.

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

My argument was not that conservatives were choosing to harm the planet and that was irrational, I'm saying that they exhibited a preference for a certain type of lightbulb until it had a sticker on it that said something about environmentalism. They are buying the light bulb, not the sticker. To alter their choice based on a sticker is irrational.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Not sure why this is surprising. People do irrational things every day based on stupid things.
I think there was a study about posting calorie intake at fast food joints in NYC that had zero effect on consumption a couple years back.

Personally I buy the new light bulbs regardless of stickers or price. But I am also a conservationalist at heart. I try to use as little water and energy as possible.

My complaint about these CFLs is the lifespan is not as long as they claim. These things die faster than the old light bulbs imo. For the price they are not cost effective to replace because of this. Also in cold weather climates they take a couple minutes to come to full brightness. Goign into my garage I may as well bring a flashlight when lookign through the outside freezer for food. Because when it is 10 degrees out there the light takes about 3-4 mins before it is bright enough to see anything.

This is the real reason why conservatives don't buy them. It shows that they are actually rational, thinking people, not swayed by political bs.

The OP is descending to the level of ausm, techs, and mcowned very rapidly.

 

[thraashman]

As a consumer, I'm less likely to buy a product if I think it comes from a company that pushes a political agenda. If the sticker on the product is viewed as indicative of a agenda, then it's perfectly rational for the consumer to not buy that product.

You mean except when a company pushes a political agenda you agree with.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33769312&postcount=403

 

[woolfe9998]

How is that any different than your "irrational" claim on the lightbulbs? One harms the planet (supposedly), one harms the body. If one group of folks chooses against environmentalism, you call them irrational, yet if one group chooses against healthy eating, it's just a preference.

Food choices are a trade-off between enjoying your food and eating healthy. These are significant counter-veiling considerations.

What this study shows about light bulb choice is that the conservative will happily buy a given light bulb but when there is an environmentally friendly sticker on it they don't want to buy it any more. I don't see the tradeoff unless it is, as Eskimospy suggests, the pleasure of "sticking it" to environmentalists.

I don't get the hostility toward conservation or any notion of protecting the environment. I see conservatives arguing against solar power based on biased information about its efficiency, for example. It's as if you guys *want* these technologies to fail just because liberals like them. Even if you don't believe in AGW, there is value is energy conservation.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the real reason why conservatives don't buy them. It shows that they are actually rational, thinking people, not swayed by political bs.

The OP is descending to the level of ausm, techs, and mcowned very rapidly.

/facepalm

The finding of interest wasn't that conservatives bought CFLs at a lower rate than other people. It was that the presence of an environmental sticker made them buy them at a lower level. If the aspects of the bulb were the motivation behind purchase, the sticker should have had no effect.

Why can't people read.

 

[FerrelGeek]

And remember, it is illegal to just throw away your environmentally friendly CFL bulbs.

And hope they're the newer bulbs that are more break-resistant if you drop them.

 

[PokerGuy]

You mean except when a company pushes a political agenda you agree with.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33769312&postcount=403

Obviously, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're an eco-kook, then you're going to be more likely to buy something if it has some sticker on it showing the company is eco-kook "friendly". Nothing irrational about it, that's exactly how consumers should act, vote with your wallet. If you don't like how a company acts, don't buy their products.

In this example, if the consumer perceives the sticker to be an indication of how the company behind the product acts, then it's perfectly rational to avoid that product based on the sticker.

 

[PokerGuy]

If the aspects of the bulb were the motivation behind purchase, the sticker should have had no effect.

Why is it impossible for the consumer to connect the sticker with a possible political affiliation or agenda and thus reject the product for those reasons?

 

[Jaskalas]

Dem & Bush's light bulb ban pissed people off. There's going to be partisan activism on this issue.

 

[woolfe9998]

As a consumer, I'm less likely to buy a product if I think it comes from a company that pushes a political agenda. If the sticker on the product is viewed as indicative of a agenda, then it's perfectly rational for the consumer to not buy that product.

What the heck does a private corporation designing a product for energy efficiency have to do with a "political agenda" per se? Either they're genuinely trying to protect the environment, or they're trying to appeal to consumers who are interested in protecting the environment (i.e. pure capitalistic marketing), or both. Either way, it's being done through private sector (i.e. not government action). Not buying it because it says environmentally friendly goes way beyond opposing a liberal initiative for something like cap and trade. It suggests irrational hostility to any form of conservation or environmental protection, no matter how it's done.

Are you actually against a private corporation making energy efficient products on its own initiative, then marketing said protects to consumers who are are interested in conservation?