by JOSH LOPOSER (Subscribe to Josh Loposer's posts)
Is a person like this more likely to cut in front of you at the checkout line? Credit: Kathy Doucett, Flickr
While I'd like to say that earth-conscious shoppers are always honest, conscientious and charitable, a new study conducted by University of Toronto researchers Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong seems to suggest that just because you buy "fair trade," it doesn't mean you're likely to play fair or seek a fair deal.
In fact, the research appears to indicate that those who practice seemingly righteous shopping habits may be hiding a wickedly self-righteous streak. Say it ain't so!
The study (which has set off a chorus of 'I told you so's from those who've had their fill of smug Prius bumper stickers) was largely based on a series of online shopping experiments that showed green shoppers to be stingy, selfish and more likely to steal than their conventional counterparts.
According to the journal "Psychological Science," these experiments centered around two fictitious and extremely similar online stores, one with nine green products and three conventional ones, the other with nine conventional products and three green ones.
In one experiment, subjects were first assigned to shop either the green online store or the conventional one. Then, they were asked to participate in an "unrelated" money-sharing exercise (no real money was exchanged in the experiments, btw) with a random and unidentified individual in another room.
Now, which group was the least likely to anonymously share with an anonymous stranger? The answer: The group of subjects who'd just purchased green products shared significantly less than the ones who'd shopped at the conventional store.
In another even more surprising experiment, subjects were sent to one of the online stores, just like before. Then, they were asked to participate in an exercise where they could earn $2.07 by identifying which side of their computer screen contained more dots. In each exercise, it was plainly obvious which side had more dots (15 vs. 5, 14 vs. 6, etc.).
Though the experiment advised them that accuracy was important for future research, participants quickly learned that they're earnings would go up whether they chose correctly or not. At the end, they were instructed to take money from an envelope based on their corresponding score, giving them not only the opportunity to make money for incorrect answers, but also to take a little extra on top of that.
Guess what? The subjects who first shopped at the green store were more likely to be inaccurate in the dot game AND steal more money ($0.46) than they were instructed to by the computer. For shame!
Why the difference in behavior? The leading theories have to do with what is called "moral licensing." In a nutshell, it's the idea that making pro-social and ethical choices often allows people to feel justified in other self-indulgent and unethical behaviors ... because of their "moral credentials." For example, consider Al Gore's mega-mansion.
It all kinda reminds me a little of those fake "At Least He Drive a Prius" ads from a few years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment