Printer Friendly

Environmental Hypocrisy.

Summary: There have probably been environmental hypocrites ever since the first caveman professed his love of wildlife right before going out and slaughtering giant herds of mega-fauna, but itAEs never been clear exactly what underlies the hypocrisy.

Sure, it's easier to say than to do (to laud walking and carpooling but drive an SUV), and we're all good at exceptionalism (everyone else should cut back on jet travel, but it's really important that I take my private jet to the meeting on climate change). Still, hypocrisy is so rife, there surely has to be more to it. In the case of environmental hypocrisy, that "more" may be the virtuous glow we get from doing one little green thing: it casts an outsize moral halo.

That is, we feel so righteous when we buy organic food or a compact fluorescent bulb or a Prius that our internal moral cup runneth over. According to this model, which is called compensatory ethics, people have an inner sense of how morally virtuous they need to feel to support their self-image. If a few actions (including espousing actions for other people) are enough to justify how we like to think of ourselves, then we do not need to perform any additional virtuous actions. It's as if we accumulate moral points for ethical actions, and having accumulated "enough" we are free to act amorally, or even immorally. That's why reminding people of what wonderful humanitarians they are causes them to give less to charity.

"Virtuous acts can licence subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," writes Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto in a paper scheduled for publication in the coming months in Psychological Science.

Two new experiments suggest there is something to this. Mazar and Zhong had 156 volunteers (University of Toronto students) visit online stores that carried mostly green products, or only a few. After browsing for a while, some of the volunteers played the dictator game: they were given $6, and told they could propose to divide the money with a partner any way they liked. The caveat: the partner could accept or reject the proposed division, and if he rejected it, then no one would get any money.

Volunteers who saw lots of green products proposed more generous splits than those who saw conventional ones, by $2.12 to $1.59--one third more. That reflects the well-established priming effect, in which subtle cues shape our behaviour. Simply seeing green products, which symbolise high ethical standards and selflessness, causes people to unconsciously adjust their behaviour to be more ethical and generous, in this case by sharing more money.

For the green buyers, altruism in the dictator game decreased. More alarming, when the green buyers were then given a chance to cheat on a computer game, and lie about it to the scientists in order to win more money -- basically, to steal -- they did. Buyers of conventional products did not.

"In line with the halo associated with green consumerismC*people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green products," Mazar and Zhong write in their upcoming paper.

It was especially striking that the moral balancing occurred in an area of life--being generous with money, cheating on a computer game -- that has nothing to do with green behaviour. "This suggests that if we want to change people's behaviour for the better, we have to be sure it doesn't backfire," says Mazar -- starting, perhaps, by eliminating the halo of self-congratulatory, smug virtuousness that surrounds green behaviour.

The usual caveats for this kind of experiment apply. One hundred fifty-six university students may not be representative of society as a whole. The situation was artificial: playing the dictator game and the computer game, not helping a blind man across the street or volunteering at a soup kitchen. The amount of money at stake in the computer game where cheating and stealing were possible was small -- less than $1. Still, as Mazar points out, the money was completely real to the volunteers, and she believes the findings do apply in the real world.

There is no telling how powerful the boomerang effect of compensatory ethics might be. If someone has just bought free trade, shade-grown coffee, is he more likely to shove you out of his way? If she's just lugged her e-waste to the recycling centre, is she more likely to cut in line at the bank? Just to be safe, I'm not letting my husband anywhere near our tax return after he weather-strips our doors this weekend.

Sharon Begley is Newsweek's Science Editor

Copyright 2009 Khaleej Times. All Rights Reserved.

Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company
COPYRIGHT 2010 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Khaleej Times (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)
Date:Mar 14, 2010
Words:773
Previous Article:Zionism and Jewish Nationalism.
Next Article:US Retail Sales Rise 0.3pc in February.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters