IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i2p2158244018766977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eco-Label Effects in the Built Environment: Does Labeling a Light Source Environmentally Friendly Influence Performance and Judgment?

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Haga

Abstract

Built environments with objects that are labeled “environmentally friendly†appear to change people’s behavior. For example, one study has shown that labeling a desktop lamp “environmentally friendly†can enhance color discrimination, in comparison with when the lamp is labeled “conventional,†even though there is no physical difference between the two lamps. This article explored the generalizability and replicability of this label effect by asking participants to conduct a proofreading task on a desk lit up by a desktop lamp that was either labeled “environmentally friendly†or “conventional†; in reality, the two lamps were identical. Participants high in environmental concern performed better when the lamp was labeled “environmentally friendly.†Moreover, the light from the lamp labeled “environmentally friendly†was rated as more comfortable. Taken together, the results seem to suggest that people’s beliefs about the source (an environmentally friendly or a conventional lamp) from which the light originates change both rating of comfort and performance. Theoretical explanations and applied implications of these effects are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Haga, 2018. "Eco-Label Effects in the Built Environment: Does Labeling a Light Source Environmentally Friendly Influence Performance and Judgment?," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:2158244018766977
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244018766977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018766977
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244018766977?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clee, Mona A & Wicklund, Robert A, 1980. "Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(4), pages 389-405, March.
    2. Hansla, Andre & Gamble, Amelie & Juliusson, Asgeir & Garling, Tommy, 2008. "Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 768-774, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yao Song & Zhenzhen Qin & Zihao Qin, 2020. "Green Marketing to Gen Z Consumers in China: Examining the Mediating Factors of an Eco-Label–Informed Purchase," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    2. Douglas MacCutcheon & Mattias Holmgren & Andreas Haga, 2020. "Assuming the Best: Individual Differences in Compensatory “Green” Beliefs Predict Susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Ulva Arsyistawa & Arif Hartono, 2022. "The effect of eco-label and perceived consumer effectiveness toward green purchase," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(9), pages 57-66, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gavan J. Fitzsimons & Donald R. Lehmann, 2004. "Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 82-94, September.
    2. Narwal, Preeti & Rai, Shivam, 2022. "Individual differences and moral disengagement in Pay-What-You-Want pricing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 528-547.
    3. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    4. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    6. Fang, Xingming & Wang, Lu & Sun, Chuanwang & Zheng, Xuemei & Wei, Jing, 2021. "Gap between words and actions: Empirical study on consistency of residents supporting renewable energy development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    7. Joshua Henkel & Georg Schwesinger, 2020. "Establishing Sustainable Consumption - How Future Policies Can Channel Consumer Preferences," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2007, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    8. József Kádár & Martina Pilloni & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2023. "A Survey of Renewable Energy, Climate Change, and Policy Awareness in Israel: The Long Path for Citizen Participation in the National Renewable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Bartke, Simon & Friedl, Andreas & Gelhaar, Felix & Reh, Laura, 2017. "Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 73-75.
    10. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Philip R. Walsh & Rachel Dodds & Julianna Priskin & Jonathon Day & Oxana Belozerova, 2021. "The Corporate Responsibility Paradox: A Multi-National Investigation of Business Traveller Attitudes and Their Sustainable Travel Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Zorić, Jelena & Hrovatin, Nevenka, 2012. "Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-187.
    13. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Obuobi, Bright & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Adjei, Mavis & Cudjoe, Dan, 2022. "Citizens' willingness to pay for local anaerobic digestion energy: The influence of altruistic value and knowledge," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    14. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Imran Ali & Mohammad Naushad, 2023. "Determinants of Green Energy Technology Purchase Intention: An Analytical Study," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(4), pages 375-382, July.
    16. Qingsong Wang & Ping Liu & Xueliang Yuan & Xingxing Cheng & Rujian Ma & Ruimin Mu & Jian Zuo, 2015. "Structural Evolution of Household Energy Consumption: A China Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    18. Andriosopoulos, Kostas & Bigerna, Simona & Bollino, Carlo Andrea & Micheli, Silvia, 2018. "The impact of age on Italian consumers' attitude toward alternative fuel vehicles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 299-308.
    19. Bhanot, Syon P., 2017. "Rank and response: A field experiment on peer information and water use behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 155-172.
    20. Sven Heidenreich & Katrin Talke, 2020. "Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 279-298, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:2158244018766977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.