Ulf J.J. Hahnel

The power of putting a label on it: green labels weigh heavier than contradicting product information for consumers' purchase decisions and post-purchase behavior.

Green products are appealing. Thus, labeling products as environmentally friendly is an effective strategy to increase sales. However, the labels often promise more than the products can actually deliver. In the present research, we examined the expectation that consumers with high ecological motivation have strong preferences for green-labeled products – even when presented product information contradicts the label’s image. This unsettling hypothesis is grounded in the labels’ potential to create a cognitive match between the labeled product and consumers’ motives. For labels indicating environmental friendliness (green product labels), this link should be strongest when consumers’ ecological motivation is high. Findings in a series of three experiments support our assumption, showing that consumers with high ecological motivation had strong preferences (i.e., product evaluations, purchase intentions, and simulated purchase decisions) for green-labeled products as compared to consumers with low ecological motivation (Studies 1–3). Crucially, these preferences were robust, despite contradicting environmental product information (Studies 1 and 2). We extended our findings by additionally examining the impact of product labels and motivation on moral self-regulation processes. This was established by assessing participants’ pro-social behavior after the purchase task: participants with high ecological motivation acted, consistent with their motives, more pro-socially in post-decision occasions. In accordance with moral cleansing effects, pro-social behavior was intensified after purchasing conventional products (Studies 2 and 3). Green labels protected participants with high ecological motivation from moral threats due to the purchase, thus making pro-social behavior less likely. Findings suggest that highly ecologically motivated consumers are most susceptible to green labels, which may override detailed product information.

Seeing Green: A Perceptual Model of Identity-Based Climate Change Judgments

Are they talking about the same planet? These statements of two leading U.S. politicians about the reality of climate change and what we should do about it are so different from each other that one might assume they are not. However, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are referring to the exact same planet, time period, and issue, thus providing a drastic illustration of how our perception may be influenced by individual interpretations. The scientific evidence for climate change is robust: It is highly likely that climate change is happening, is caused by humans, and will impact our everyday lives (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014). However, individuals fundamentally diverge in the extent to which they believe that climate change is real and has an impact on mankind, leading to substantial societal polarization (Hoffman, 2011, McCright & Dunlap, 2011a, 2011b). In the United States, for instance, citizens’ views on climate change are highly divergent, resulting in two extreme poles of climate change beliefs: One agrees with the existence of climate change, whereas the other disagrees that climate change is happening at all. Similarly, the first one is more likely to believe that climate change is man-made, whereas the latter one believes that climate change is a natural process, independent of human activity (Leiserowitz, 2006; Weber & Stern, 2011). The two epigraphs furthermore illustrate the link between political group identity and climate change perception. Barack Obama, member of the U.S. Democratic Party (encouraging liberal ideology) emphasizes the existence of climate change and the urgent need to act. Donald Trump, member of the U.S. Republican Party (encouraging conservative ideology), denies any existence of climate change and the need to act at all. These positions are consistent with the beliefs and concerns of other politicians and citizens supporting these parties: Liberal citizens and politicians are more likely to believe that climate change is existent and caused by humans. They are more concerned that climate change will affect their quality of life. Conservatives are more likely to deny the existence of climate change and anthropogenic influences. They are less concerned about potential impacts of climate change on their lives (McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, 2014). How can we explain this powerful link between political identity and the perception of climate change? Do people flock to one specific party depending on their existing perception of climate change? Or does the membership in a specific political group influence one’s perception of such a critical issue? The perceptual model of intergroup relations (Xiao, Coppin, & Van Bavel, this issue) provides a theoretical explanation for the impact of social group identity on one’s perceptions and judgments of other people. In their framework, basic situational perception takes on a mediating role between social group identity and intergroup judgments and decisions. Accordingly, social group identity influences how group members perceive and interpret certain objects and situations, having the potential to polarize the perception of in-group versus out-group members. These altered perceptions, in turn, may influence intergroup judgments and decisions. In the contribution presented here, we evaluate to what extent a similar approach may be applied to the climate change domain. We characterize potential psychological mechanisms behind the influence of political group identity on climate change judgments and actions. Inspired by the perceptual model of intergroup relations (Xiao et al., this issue), we attach particular importance to the factor of basic situational perception, which acts as a mediator between political identity and climate change judgments and actions. A core assumption of our model is that political group identity influences whether events associated with climate change (such as temperature anomalies and their consequences) are perceived as invasive, intense, aggravating, unnatural, and eventually a reason to act. Perception is thus expected to be one of several psychological processes that tie group identity to climate change judgments and actions. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed pathways by which political group identity may act on information selection and perception as well as judgment and decision making in the climate change domain. As illustrated by the first pathway, political group identity may affect which situations and information sources group members are selectively exposed to (Path A; Krosnick Holbrook, & Visser, 2000; McCright, 2010). The second pathway reflects the premise that political group identification influences group members’ situational perception of climate change–associated events and information (Path B). That is,