Politics even affects light bulb choice.

[woolfe9998]

Yes, I think a more accurate description would be as one becomes more conservative the likelihood decreases.

Yeah, that is accurate up to the middle of the political spectrum. After that point being more conservative produces no additional diminished likelihood of buying the bulb with the save the environment sticker. This is relevant to understanding the outcome. It is also perplexing. If the hypothesis is that people are less likely to purchase "save the environment bulbs" to "stick it to liberals" it suggests that a number of liberals want to "stick it" to fellow liberals. Indeed, you only need to be in the category of "slightly less liberal than the most liberal test subject" before you see a drop off. It isn't even just the moderate liberals who as a group are less likely, but even mainstream liberals. While I can see moderate and mainstream liberals being less environmentally conscious than those on the far left, I don't see these people having a cultural dislike of fellow liberals. At the very least, I think another hypothesis to explain the results is needed here. I'm just not sure what that would be.

Quite honestly, I find the results of the study perplexing.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, that is accurate up to the middle of the political spectrum. After that point being more conservative produces no additional diminished likelihood of buying the bulb with the save the environment sticker. This is relevant to understanding the outcome. It is also perplexing. If the hypothesis is that people are less likely to purchase "save the environment bulbs" to "stick it to liberals" it suggests that a number of liberals want to "stick it" to fellow liberals. Indeed, you only need to be in the category of "slightly less liberal than the most liberal test subject" before you see a drop off. It isn't even just the moderate liberals who as a group are less likely, but even mainstream liberals. While I can see moderate and mainstream liberals being less environmentally conscious than those on the far left, I don't see these people having a cultural dislike of fellow liberals. At the very least, I think another hypothesis to explain the results is needed here. I'm just not sure what that would be.

Quite honestly, I find the results of the study perplexing.

This article seems to offer one possibility in its premise that consumers don't prioritize environmental benefits over convenience and other factors. A second possibility is that consumers see "good for the environment" is being mostly meaningless puffery along the lines of "new and improved" and discount the product's perceived value accordingly.

One could test these hypotheses via different stickers that point out other benefits of one type of bulb over the other (e.g. CFL bulbs labeled "last 10x longer, change bulbs less often" rather than "good for the environment") and seeing if there's a sales delta between packages marked thusly. Controls could be either a blank sticker or no sticker at all.

 

[woolfe9998]

This article seems to offer one possibility in its premise that consumers don't prioritize environmental benefits over convenience and other factors. A second possibility is that consumers see "good for the environment" is being mostly meaningless puffery along the lines of "new and improved" and discount the product's perceived value accordingly.

One could test these hypotheses via different stickers that point out other benefits of one type of bulb over the other (e.g. CFL bulbs labeled "last 10x longer, change bulbs less often" rather than "good for the environment") and seeing if there's a sales delta between packages marked thusly. Controls could be either a blank sticker or no sticker at all.

Yes, the article offers a reasonable hypothesis for why the "save the environment" label has little or no marketing benefit, but doesn't necessarily explain the detriment which increases from far left to center, then remains stable across the right.

Since not buying the product with the label but buying the exact product without it isn't rational, I favor a variation of Eskimospy's hypothesis whereby it is an issue-specific hostility rather than a hostility toward liberals in general. It doesn't make sense that a portion of liberals hate fellow liberals. It does make sense that a portion of liberals may have hostility toward environmentalism, even if their views in other areas are otherwise liberal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, that is accurate up to the middle of the political spectrum. After that point being more conservative produces no additional diminished likelihood of buying the bulb with the save the environment sticker. This is relevant to understanding the outcome. It is also perplexing. If the hypothesis is that people are less likely to purchase "save the environment bulbs" to "stick it to liberals" it suggests that a number of liberals want to "stick it" to fellow liberals. Indeed, you only need to be in the category of "slightly less liberal than the most liberal test subject" before you see a drop off. It isn't even just the moderate liberals who as a group are less likely, but even mainstream liberals. While I can see moderate and mainstream liberals being less environmentally conscious than those on the far left, I don't see these people having a cultural dislike of fellow liberals. At the very least, I think another hypothesis to explain the results is needed here. I'm just not sure what that would be.

Quite honestly, I find the results of the study perplexing.

The graph we saw in the other thread shows the trend beginning to show at moderate left. "More conservative" technically, but the change begins immediately right of extreme left. The words chosen in this seem to indicate a bias to a given end. Like I said elsewhere this would not survive grad school scrutiny. An interesting thing is how people are so devoted to a given ideology that they cannot examine the evidence.

 

[woolfe9998]

The graph we saw in the other thread shows the trend beginning to show at moderate left. "More conservative" technically, but the change begins immediately right of extreme left. The words chosen in this seem to indicate a bias to a given end. Like I said elsewhere this would not survive grad school scrutiny. An interesting thing is how people are so devoted to a given ideology that they cannot examine the evidence.

Yes, that is the very problem I am discussing here. And as I said in the other thread, we need more information about the study's methodology, including how they define each subject's ideological orientation. Is it done by self-report or by asking questions about issues and scoring the results?

For now, based on limited information, I am suggesting that we modify Eskimospy's "stick it to liberals" hypothesis because I don't see mainstream and moderate liberals wanting to stick it to a class of people to which they belong. The better hypothesis is that it is indeed an irrational hostility, but it is issue specific.

Surveys seem to indicate that a small percentage of liberals, IIRC like 10-20%, are skeptics/deniers of AGW. Now this is of course my own opinion, but I consider a rejection of scientific consensus to be an extremely irrational position, which suggests a relatively strong emotional bias. I posit that you'll find a lot of AGW skeptic/deniers among those liberals who didn't buy the product simply because it carried the label.

I think in any ideological spectrum, there are many people who dissent on particular issues, while others not only dissent but strongly dislike the position of their fellow ideologues on the particular issue. This can be seen with some conservatives on agenda items of the religious right, or in some cases with neo-conservative hawkishness. I'm sure there are some on every issue.

It seems likely that on average, the typical moderate liberal is less an environmentalist than the typical far left liberal. Though only a portion have active hostility toward it. That is the group I think is not buying because of the label.

It's my best take on it for now, until we have better information.

 

[OutHouse]

So Liberals fall for bullshit on packaging?

This

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Except the study says they preferred them before the "green" sticker was put on them.....

 

[Darwin333]

^

Its similar to my article. And lol @ 50% confidence. They produce more energy than it took to produce them but still haven't offset the initial investment. We'll see in 2020 :awe: Things can go wrong is my belief, panels can get damaged,

Its absurdly rare for a bunch of panels to get damaged. I have only seen 3 out of many thousands of panels get damaged after installation. The glass is generally more hail resistant than your actual roof.

their efficiency drops over time, they ignore that.

No one in the industry ignores the efficiency drop, it is factored into just about every equation there is. That is one of the big reasons that manufacturers guarantee certain efficiency over long periods (80% at 20 or 25 years is the norm)