The negative footprint illusion in environmental impact estimates: Methodological considerations

Abstract

Past research has consistently shown that carbon footprint estimates of a set of conventional and more environmentally friendly items in combination tend to be lower than estimates of the conventional items alone. This ‘negative footprint illusion’ is a benchmark for the study of how cognitive heuristics and biases underpin environmentally significant behavior. However, for this to be a useful paradigm, the findings must also be reliable and valid, and an understanding of how methodological details such as response time pressure influence the illusion is necessary. Past research has cast some doubt as to whether the illusion is obtained when responses are made on a ratio/quantitative scale and when a within-participants design is used. Moreover, in past research on the negative footprint illusion, participants have had essentially as much time as they liked to make the estimates. It is yet unknown how time pressure influences the effect. This paper reports an experiment that found the effect when participants were asked to estimate the items’ emissions in kilograms CO2 (a ratio scale) under high and under low time pressure, using a within-participants design. Thus, the negative footprint illusion seems to be a reliable and valid phenomenon that generalizes across methodological considerations and is not an artifact of specific details in the experimental setup.

Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated? A critical review

“…Encouraging such individuals to consume insects might inadvertently diminish their willingness to engage in other environmentally beneficial actions. Similarly, labelling insect-based products as "sustainable" might trigger the "negative footprint illusion" (Gorissen & Weijters, 2016;Holmgren, Andersson & Sörqvist, 2018;Threadgold et al, 2021;Sörqvist & Holmgren, 2022). This illusion may lead consumers to believe that purchasing these "green" products does not add to their environmental footprint, potentially causing an increase in their overall consumption of these products.…”

Green versus Grey Framing: Exploring the Mechanism behind the Negative Footprint Illusion in Environmental Sustainability Assessments

“…Research has shown that consumers, when faced with a combination of green and non-green products, wrongly estimate the total environmental footprint of this combination to be lower than the footprint of the same non-green product alone, a bias referred to as 'the Negative Footprint Illusion' [8]; for a review, see [9]. For example, when consumers are asked to estimate the environmental impact of a burger (non-green) and an eco-labeled salad (green), they will erroneously combine the footprint of both products into an average instead of adding up the environmental impact of both the burger and the salad.…”