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.
Here's the entirety of what we can read:
This research demonstrates how promoting the environment can negatively affect adoption of energy efficiency in the United States because of the political polarization surrounding environmental issues. Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal. This finding was driven primarily by the lessened psychological value that more conservative individuals placed on reducing carbon emissions. Study 2 showed that this difference has consequences: In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled. These results highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond.
You claimed
In this case conservatives were less likely to purchase it even when all other things were equal.
Your bolded portion is not in the article, you added it. You are implying, at the very least, that the purchasers knew the products were otherwise identical. There is no basis for your assumption/assertion in the article.
OTOH, you may mean that the price was the same. If so, that is not supported by the article either.
Reread this part of the article:
Study 2 showed that this difference has consequences: In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
The article lacks any mention of same-priced bulbs. It says the
more expensive bulb.
And here is
your interpretation of the study's findings:
Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology.
This is what the article says:
Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal.
These results highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond.
They are attributing economics considerations to the behavior. You are attributing emotion ("dislike") and politics.
What's interesting, but goes unmentioned, is that liberals were less likely to buy a bulb labeled with an environmental message too. (Note the article's wording "
more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase". It doesn't say "only", but rather uses the comparative term "more". Unless it's poorly written that means liberals were less likely to purchase also.)
Stripping away the partisan hackery, the point here seems to be the current marketing uselessness, if not detriment, of environmental labels on products.
Fern
