3 ms·

The "green" behaviors in this study are oddly specific. At least four of the six experiments appear to be heavily biased towards grocery shopping, and one invol

The "green" behaviors in this study are oddly specific. At least four of the six experiments appear to be heavily biased towards grocery shopping, and one involves contributing to a nonprofit (WTF). You have to feel a little sorry for the four male authors. They spent countless hours scouring twenty-plus-year-old research to cite sources and claim these articles say that men don't care about the environment. One seventeen-year-old paper is cited as saying that men "leave a smaller carbon footprint," but all it actually suggests is that out of four specific European countries, single-man households in Greece and Sweden use more energy (in statistically significant amounts) than single-women households in those two countries. In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs. In Study 5, note that the female cohort in declined in "green"-ness for the manly packaging. This suggests to me that the control was probably somewhat feminine, and people are more likely to prefer products that correspond to their gender norms -- whether or not those products have an underlying pro-environmental utility. > Although only mem [sic] had been recruited to participate in [Study 4], 14 participants reported their gender as female and were therefore excluded. WTF kind of methodology is that? Finally, I note that the archetype of a manly conservationist is strong in the USA. Teddy Roosevelt. John Muir. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ansel Adams. These people did more than carrying a disposable shopping bag to Whole Foods, and selecting the "green" backpack.

tzs 9y ago
> In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs. If one lamp uses a high wattage halogen bulb, for example, and another uses LEDs with equivalent lumens, then it is pretty easy to associate "green" with the later. Similar for a one-use battery vs. a rechargeable battery. Similar for a backpack made out of non-sustainable or non-recyclable materials vs. one made from sustainable and recyclable materials. It sounds like you might be thinking they were asked to choose between a lamp, battery, or backpack, but as described in the article they were asked to choose a lamp, battery AND backpack, with both green and non-green versions of each of these items available: article> In one study, we threatened the masculinity of male participants by showing them a pink gift card with a floral design and asking them to imagine using the card to purchase three products (lamp, backpack, and batteries). Compared to men shown a standard gift card, threatened men were more likely to choose the non-green rather than green version of each item
- totalZero 9y ago
  Nah. I actually read that part twice because I was so mystified by the absurdity of it. Light bulbs are not obvious. CFLs are efficient but produced with toxic mercury; LED bulbs are efficient but produced with plastics, semiconductors, and sometimes phosphor; and incandescent bulbs are inefficient but simpler to make, with fewer harmful materials. If the choice is between a CFL and an incandescent, it's unclear whether the mercury in the CFL is justified by its higher efficiency. LEDs are the most efficient of the three by far, but production and disposal may ultimately be worse for the environment than is the case with incandescents. I fail to see how any backpack can be a "green" choice. I have an Ortlieb waterproof bag made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. It has lasted more than 10 years. I could have bought one wax-impregnated hemp canvas bag per year instead. However, this bag has through-hiked the Appalachian Trail on a friend's back, ridden through several countries atop my motorcycle, and made its way through many other outdoor situations that would have proven too trying for a "green" bag. Ultimately those outdoor experiences have helped to solidify multiple people's appreciation for nature, probably resulting in a greater net contribution to conservation than a bag made by some hippie somewhere. For batteries, you would have to consider lifespan, production, disposal, energy density, power density, propensity to leak, etc. See where I'm coming from? For the reasons I mentioned above, it seems to me that they just took a subjective stance on largely arbitrary shopping choices. Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
  - tzs 9y ago
    I think you may be overlooking that in general when a consumer is considering whether or not to go for the "green" product, that consumer is probably not considering things like battery power density, or whether or not the mercury in a CFL is worse for the environment than the energy savings benefit the environment. Most consumers decide if a product is green or not based on whether or not it is marketed as such, plus some common sense. Whether or not that actually works for identifying the greener product is not really relevant to the research in the article. All that matters is that test subjects (presumably average consumers) believe that the choice presented as greener was greener. > Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering. Or maybe that is in the peer reviewed journal article that the research was published in? The submitted article is in a popular science magazine for the general public, where such details are in general omitted. The journal article is not in a free journal, but here's a copy Googling turned up: https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2016_FINAL_-_Oxford_Press.pdf https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2...

tzs 9y ago

> In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs. If one lamp uses a high wattage halogen bulb, for example, and another uses LEDs with equivalent lumens, then it is pretty easy to associate "green" with the later. Similar for a one-use battery vs. a rechargeable battery. Similar for a backpack made out of non-sustainable or non-recyclable materials vs. one made from sustainable and recyclable materials. It sounds like you might be thinking they were asked to choose between a lamp, battery, or backpack, but as described in the article they were asked to choose a lamp, battery AND backpack, with both green and non-green versions of each of these items available: article> In one study, we threatened the masculinity of male participants by showing them a pink gift card with a floral design and asking them to imagine using the card to purchase three products (lamp, backpack, and batteries). Compared to men shown a standard gift card, threatened men were more likely to choose the non-green rather than green version of each item

totalZero 9y ago
Nah. I actually read that part twice because I was so mystified by the absurdity of it. Light bulbs are not obvious. CFLs are efficient but produced with toxic mercury; LED bulbs are efficient but produced with plastics, semiconductors, and sometimes phosphor; and incandescent bulbs are inefficient but simpler to make, with fewer harmful materials. If the choice is between a CFL and an incandescent, it's unclear whether the mercury in the CFL is justified by its higher efficiency. LEDs are the most efficient of the three by far, but production and disposal may ultimately be worse for the environment than is the case with incandescents. I fail to see how any backpack can be a "green" choice. I have an Ortlieb waterproof bag made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. It has lasted more than 10 years. I could have bought one wax-impregnated hemp canvas bag per year instead. However, this bag has through-hiked the Appalachian Trail on a friend's back, ridden through several countries atop my motorcycle, and made its way through many other outdoor situations that would have proven too trying for a "green" bag. Ultimately those outdoor experiences have helped to solidify multiple people's appreciation for nature, probably resulting in a greater net contribution to conservation than a bag made by some hippie somewhere. For batteries, you would have to consider lifespan, production, disposal, energy density, power density, propensity to leak, etc. See where I'm coming from? For the reasons I mentioned above, it seems to me that they just took a subjective stance on largely arbitrary shopping choices. Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
- tzs 9y ago
  I think you may be overlooking that in general when a consumer is considering whether or not to go for the "green" product, that consumer is probably not considering things like battery power density, or whether or not the mercury in a CFL is worse for the environment than the energy savings benefit the environment. Most consumers decide if a product is green or not based on whether or not it is marketed as such, plus some common sense. Whether or not that actually works for identifying the greener product is not really relevant to the research in the article. All that matters is that test subjects (presumably average consumers) believe that the choice presented as greener was greener. > Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering. Or maybe that is in the peer reviewed journal article that the research was published in? The submitted article is in a popular science magazine for the general public, where such details are in general omitted. The journal article is not in a free journal, but here's a copy Googling turned up: https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2016_FINAL_-_Oxford_Press.pdf https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2...