Can the negative footprint illusion be eliminated by summative priming?

References

• Andersson, H., Holmgren, M., Sörqvist, P., Threadgold, E., Beaman, P., Ball, L. J., & Marsh, J. E. (submitted). Too much of a good thing? The negative footprint illusion is exacerbated by the quantity of environmentally friendly additions.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J. C., & Brier, J. M. (1981). Perceptual awareness of energy requirements of familiar objects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.1.90
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, G., Marselle, M., McGuire, L., & Litchfield, D. (2017). Staying over-optimistic about the future: Uncovering attentional biases to climate change messages. Semiotica, 2017(218), 21–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0074
   Google Scholar
• Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics, 36(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00214-7
   Google Scholar
• Chan, E. Y. (2018). Climate change is the world’s greatest threat – in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Chernev, A., & Gal, D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 738–747. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.738
   Google Scholar
• Chisik, Y. (2011, September). An image of electricity: Towards an understanding of how people perceive electricity. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-computer interaction – INTERACT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 6949). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23768-3_9
   Google Scholar
• Cowen, L., & Gatersleben, B. (2017). Testing for the size heuristic in householders’ perceptions of energy consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.002
   Google Scholar
• Cox, B., Bauer, C., Beltran, A. M., van Vuuren, D. P., & Mutel, C. L. (2020). Life cycle environmental and cost comparison of current and future passenger cars under different energy scenarios. Applied Energy, 269, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115021
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (Ed.). (2017). Dual process theory 2.0. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engler, J. O., Abson, D. J., & von Wehrden, H. (2019). Navigating cognition biases in the search of sustainability. Ambio, 48(6), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1100-5
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Dual-process theories. In L. J. Ball, & V. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 151–166). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013a). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013b). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D. T. (1999). What the mind’s not. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 3–11). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gorissen, K., & Weijters, B. (2016). The negative footprint illusion: Perceptual bias in sustainable food consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009
   Google Scholar
• Halady, I. R., & Rao, P. H. (2010). Does awareness to climate change lead to behavioral change? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691011020229
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., & Sörqvist, P. (2018a). Averaging bias in environmental impact estimates: Evidence from the negative footprint illusion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Kabanshi, A., Langeborg, L., Barthel, S., Colding, J., Eriksson, O., & Sörqvist, P. (2019). Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people’s judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.005
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Kabanshi, A., Marsh, J. E., & Sörqvist, P. (2018b). When A+B<A: Cognitive bias in experts’ judgment of environmental impact. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(823), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00823
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2015). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (R. K. Pachauri & L. Maeyer, Eds). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joireman, J., Truelove, H. B., & Duell, B. (2010). Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Kabanshi, A. (2020). Are we overestimating the benefits of emission reduction measures? Sustainability, 12(808), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030808
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaklamanou, D., Jones, C. R., Webb, T. L., & Walker, S. R. (2015). Using public transport can make up for flying abroad on holiday: Compensatory green beliefs and environmentally significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513488784
   Google Scholar
• Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.259
   Google Scholar
• Kim, B., & Schuldt, J. P. (2018). Judging the environmental impact of green consumption: Evidence of quantity insensitivity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Klöckner, C. A., Nayum, A., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2013). Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport & Environment, 21, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.007
   Google Scholar
• Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, W. J. (2012). When less is more: Evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLOS ONE, 7(10), e46240, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046240
   Google Scholar
• Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018349
   Google Scholar
• Kunz, A. H., Messner, C., & Wallmeier, M. (2017). Investors’ risk perceptions of structured financial products with worst-of payout characteristics. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 15, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.07.005
   Google Scholar
• Kusch, S., & Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103731, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731
   Google Scholar
• Linder, N., Lindahl, T., & Borgström, S. (2018). Using behavioural insights to promote food waste recycling in urban households: Evidence from a longitudinal field experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 352, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00352
   Google Scholar
• MacCutcheon, D., Holmgren, M., & Haga, A. (2020). Assuming the best: Individual differences in compensatory “green” beliefs predict susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. Sustainability, 12(8), 3414, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083414
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., Bink, M. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1999). Conceptual priming in a generative problem-solving task. Memory & Cognition, 27(2), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211419
   Google Scholar
• Matiaske, W., Menges, R., & Spiess, M. (2012). Modifying the rebound: It depends! Explaining mobility behavior on the basis of the German socio-economic panel. Energy Policy, 41, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.044
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). Prentice Hall International.
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
   Google Scholar
• Pattison, K. F., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Suboptimal choice by dogs: When less is better than more. Animal Cognition, 17(4), 1019–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0735-2
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, S., & Linder, N. (2021). Effects of bin proximity and informational prompts on recycling and contamination. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105430
   Google Scholar
• Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x
   Google Scholar
• Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq073
   Google Scholar
• Schunn, C. D., & Dunbar, K. (1996). Priming, analogy, and awareness in complex reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213292
   Google Scholar
• Seta, J. J., & Seta, C. E. (2020). Sensitivity to the average and summative impact of multiple events: When “more is more” and when “more is less”. Review of General Psychology, 24(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019887716
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
   Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P. (2016). Grand challenges in environmental psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(583), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00583
   Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P., Colding, J., & Marsh, J. E. (2020). Psychological obstacles to the efficacy of environmental footprint tools. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 091001, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9968
   Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P., Hedblom, D., Holmgren, M., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Nöstl, A., & Kågström, J. (2013). Who needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to pay for “eco-friendly” coffee. PLOS ONE, 8(12), e80719, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080719
   Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P., & Langeborg, L. (2019). Why people harm the environment although they try to treat it well: An evolutionary-cognitive perspective on climate compensation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 348, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00348
   Google Scholar
• Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.021
   Google Scholar
• Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
   Google Scholar
• van den Broek, K. L., & Walker, I. (2019). Heuristics in energy judgement tasks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.008
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, K., Hock, S. J., & Garcia, S. M. (2016). “Top 10” reasons: When adding persuasive arguments reduces persuasion. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9286-1
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E. U. (1997). Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and technological adaptation. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp. 314–341). The New Lexington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wertheimer, M. (1945/1959). Productive thinking. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Zaval, L., Keenan, E. A., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2014). How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Climate Change, 4(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2093
   Google Scholar