The negative footprint illusion is exacerbated by the numerosity of environment-friendly additions: unveiling the underpinning mechanisms

References

• Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 394. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022280
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonner, C., & Newell, B. R. (2008). How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, X. (2011). Why do people misunderstand climate change? Heuristics, mental models and ontological assumptions. Climatic Change, 108(1–2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0013-5
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21727
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge Academic.
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. D. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engler, J. O., Abso, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013a). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives in Psychological Sciences, 8, 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013b). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: reply to comments. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 8, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, F., Landström, M., & Sörqvist, P. (2022). Averaging bias in firm acquisition processes. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 96, 101809, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., Ball, L. J., & Marsh, J. E. (2021). Can the negative footprint illusion be eliminated by summative priming? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1903012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., & Sörqvist, P. (2018). 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
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmgren, M., Kabanshi, A., Marsh, J. E., & Sörqvist, P. (2018). 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). The physical science basis.
   Google Scholar
• Isaac, M. S., & Brough, A. R. (2014). Judging a part by the size of its whole: The category size bias in probability judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/676126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
   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
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046240
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®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, 103731, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, T. A., & Peytcheva, M. (2019). When is the averaging effect present in auditor judgments? Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(1), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge university press.
   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, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, B. R., Kary, A., Moore, C., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Managing the budget: Stock-flow reasoning and the CO2 accumulation problem. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfecto, H., Nelson, L. D., & Moore, D. A. (2018). The category size bias: A mere misunderstanding. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouder, J.N., Speckman, P.L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D. & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P., & Holmgren, M. (2022). The negative footprint illusion in environmental impact estimates: Methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 990056, 1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörqvist, P., Volna, I., Zhao, J., & Marsh, J. E. (2022). Irregular stimulus distribution increases the negative footprint illusion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 63(5), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterman, J. D., & Sweeney, L. B. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3-4), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterner, E. O., Adawi, T., Persson, U. M., & Lundqvist, U. (2019). Knowing how and knowing when: Unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation. Climatic Change, 154(1-2), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02423-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., Nelson, M., & Ball, L. J. (2021). Biased estimates of environmental impact in the negative footprint illusion: The nature of individual variation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 648328, 1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., Nelson, M., & Ball, L. J. (2022). Biased estimates of environmental impact in the negative footprint illusion: The nature of individual variation. Frontier in Psychology, 12, 648328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The presenter’s paradox. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/664497
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Baumgartner, H. (2013). The effect of familiarity with the response category labels on item response to Likert scales. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/670394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyatt, R. C., & Meyers, L. S. (1987). Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert type response scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164487471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar