Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Study Shows Conservatives Not Swayed by Environmental Concerns
May 1, 2013 18:09:23 #
I am offering no comment on this one. The link leads to the short article that I copied below just case someone what to read it here.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/04/30/environmental.labels.may.discourage.conservatives.buying.energy.efficient.products
Environmental labels may discourage conservatives from buying energy-efficient products
Published: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 21:03 in Mathematics & Economics
When it comes to deciding which light bulb to buy, a label touting the product's environmental benefit may actually discourage politically conservative shoppers. Dena Gromet and Howard Kunreuther at The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and Rick Larrick at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business conducted two studies to determine how political ideology affected a person's choice to buy energy-efficient products in the United States.
The authors suggest that financial incentives or emphasizing energy independence may be better ways to get people to buy energy-efficient products than appealing to environmental concerns because these represent unifying concerns that cross political boundaries.
Their paper, "Political Ideology Affects Energy-Efficient Attitudes and Choices," is published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"A popular strategy for marketing energy efficiency is to focus on its environmental benefits," said Gromet, the lead author on the studies. "But not everyone values protecting the environment. We were interested in whether promoting the environment could in fact deter some individuals from purchasing energy efficient options that they would have otherwise selected."
The first study surveyed 657 U.S. adults, 49 percent men, ranging in age from 19-81. Participants were given a short description of energy efficiency and answered questions about the psychological value they placed on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to protect the environment, reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing the financial cost of energy use. They also indicated how much they favored investing in energy-efficient technology. Participants were asked about their political ideology, and how much they identified with different political parties.
The more conservative the participant, the less likely that person was to support investing in energy-efficient technology. The study found that this divide was primarily driven by the lower value that conservatives placed on reducing carbon emissions. The values of energy independence and reducing energy costs had more universal appeal.
The second study involved 210 participants, 61 percent female, who ranged in age from 18 to 66. Again, all participants gave information about their political ideologies. Participants were given $2 to spend on a light bulb and could keep whatever they did not spend.
They were then educated about the benefits of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs over incandescent bulbs. (CFL bulbs last 9,000 more hours and reduce energy costs by 75 percent). Some of the CFL bulbs came with a sticker that said "Protect The Environment" while the others had a blank sticker.
In some cases, the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, while the incandescent bulb was 50 cents. When the more expensive CFL came with no environmental label, liberals and conservatives selected it at roughly the same high frequency. However, when the more expensive CFL bulb also was accompanied by a "protect the environment" sticker, participants who identified as more politically moderate or conservative were less likely to buy it.
For other participants, both incandescent and CFL bulbs were priced at 50 cents. All but one of these participants bought the CFL bulb regardless of the sticker, indicating that everyone was attracted to a good economic deal regardless of their political leanings.
"The environmental aspect of energy efficiency has an ideologically polarizing impact that can undermine demand for energy-efficient technology, specifically among more politically conservative individuals," Kunreuther said. "On a more positive note, the results of the second study indicate that focusing on the nature of the message coupled with economic incentives should promote investment in energy-efficient products."
"These findings demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful for making energy-efficient products appealing to consumers," Larrick said. "People have different energy-related values which can influence their choices, including leading them to reject options that they recognize as having long-term economic benefits. In many cases, a tailored message may be needed to reach different market segments."
Source: Duke University
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/04/30/environmental.labels.may.discourage.conservatives.buying.energy.efficient.products
Environmental labels may discourage conservatives from buying energy-efficient products
Published: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 21:03 in Mathematics & Economics
When it comes to deciding which light bulb to buy, a label touting the product's environmental benefit may actually discourage politically conservative shoppers. Dena Gromet and Howard Kunreuther at The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and Rick Larrick at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business conducted two studies to determine how political ideology affected a person's choice to buy energy-efficient products in the United States.
The authors suggest that financial incentives or emphasizing energy independence may be better ways to get people to buy energy-efficient products than appealing to environmental concerns because these represent unifying concerns that cross political boundaries.
Their paper, "Political Ideology Affects Energy-Efficient Attitudes and Choices," is published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"A popular strategy for marketing energy efficiency is to focus on its environmental benefits," said Gromet, the lead author on the studies. "But not everyone values protecting the environment. We were interested in whether promoting the environment could in fact deter some individuals from purchasing energy efficient options that they would have otherwise selected."
The first study surveyed 657 U.S. adults, 49 percent men, ranging in age from 19-81. Participants were given a short description of energy efficiency and answered questions about the psychological value they placed on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to protect the environment, reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing the financial cost of energy use. They also indicated how much they favored investing in energy-efficient technology. Participants were asked about their political ideology, and how much they identified with different political parties.
The more conservative the participant, the less likely that person was to support investing in energy-efficient technology. The study found that this divide was primarily driven by the lower value that conservatives placed on reducing carbon emissions. The values of energy independence and reducing energy costs had more universal appeal.
The second study involved 210 participants, 61 percent female, who ranged in age from 18 to 66. Again, all participants gave information about their political ideologies. Participants were given $2 to spend on a light bulb and could keep whatever they did not spend.
They were then educated about the benefits of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs over incandescent bulbs. (CFL bulbs last 9,000 more hours and reduce energy costs by 75 percent). Some of the CFL bulbs came with a sticker that said "Protect The Environment" while the others had a blank sticker.
In some cases, the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, while the incandescent bulb was 50 cents. When the more expensive CFL came with no environmental label, liberals and conservatives selected it at roughly the same high frequency. However, when the more expensive CFL bulb also was accompanied by a "protect the environment" sticker, participants who identified as more politically moderate or conservative were less likely to buy it.
For other participants, both incandescent and CFL bulbs were priced at 50 cents. All but one of these participants bought the CFL bulb regardless of the sticker, indicating that everyone was attracted to a good economic deal regardless of their political leanings.
"The environmental aspect of energy efficiency has an ideologically polarizing impact that can undermine demand for energy-efficient technology, specifically among more politically conservative individuals," Kunreuther said. "On a more positive note, the results of the second study indicate that focusing on the nature of the message coupled with economic incentives should promote investment in energy-efficient products."
"These findings demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful for making energy-efficient products appealing to consumers," Larrick said. "People have different energy-related values which can influence their choices, including leading them to reject options that they recognize as having long-term economic benefits. In many cases, a tailored message may be needed to reach different market segments."
Source: Duke University
May 1, 2013 22:30:23 #
I remember the Y2K scare?
I could have made a lot of money if I wasn't honest.
It was all a lie and I knew it before 2000.
So I don't trust those people.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. :hunf:
I could have made a lot of money if I wasn't honest.
It was all a lie and I knew it before 2000.
So I don't trust those people.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. :hunf:
May 2, 2013 00:37:17 #
May 2, 2013 00:41:42 #
SteveR wrote:
Rix...You're totally wrong. I'll buy any energy efficient 300+ h.p. car.
I don't care I merely posted this study i make no comment on either the contents of the study. I simply posted it as many folks here don't peruse scientific publications. I still have no comment the study speaks for itself.
May 2, 2013 09:06:13 #
May 2, 2013 09:11:47 #
I think it's a good lesson in marketing but I'm sure it will become some kind of rant about climate change or gun control.
May 2, 2013 10:11:10 #
Not a direct reply to the subject, but brings up a pet peeve of mine. I refuse to buy CF bulbs until forced to, because every one I have seen so far has been made in China. Government trying to force us to buy products made outside the US.
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
May 2, 2013 11:00:21 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
These are consumer behavior studies and show that price is a greater determinant than ideology.
May 2, 2013 11:03:15 #
CFLs are ugly, cast ugly light and can't work with a dimmer. They are usually dimmer than advertised and cannot replace a 100-watt incandescent. The government should not be telling us how to light our homes. I don't buy CFLs but have a box full of freebies in my garage.
May 2, 2013 11:06:20 #
GHS58 wrote:
Not a direct reply to the subject, but brings up a pet peeve of mine. I refuse to buy CF bulbs until forced to, because every one I have seen so far has been made in China. Government trying to force us to buy products made outside the US.
We have gone completely to LED in our condo. We converted our track lighting and all other lamps to LED and our electric bill dropped $23 a month. At roughly $10 per bulb depending on the fixture, we figure that by the end of the year we will have paid for the conversion. Unlike CFL bulbs LED last for years and years. The added plus is that the bulbs generate very little heat which is always a good thing in a southern climate.
May 2, 2013 11:13:01 #
Rook
Loc: PA
Polls, not very accurate by any means. You can make a poll say what you want it too. True, government loves China made stuff, Big oil now gets ethanol from South America made from sugar cane. So, what does this tell you, big businesses and corporate America own and run this country. Again follow the money. They use the EPA to scare people into believing their bull. America was better off when it had pollution and jobs than welfare and drugs.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
May 2, 2013 11:18:33 #
Not all CFL bulbs are the same. Some take 2 seconds to come on, some are not as bright to start, if you use them outside in a cold climate they take forever to work.
So buy the good ones and not the "cheap" ones.
We have replaced them as the old ones burn out because they are more efficient. (Saves more gas for my 500 HP 5 MPG car) :-D ;)
So buy the good ones and not the "cheap" ones.
We have replaced them as the old ones burn out because they are more efficient. (Saves more gas for my 500 HP 5 MPG car) :-D ;)
May 2, 2013 12:05:07 #
GHS58 wrote:
Not a direct reply to the subject, but brings up a pet peeve of mine. I refuse to buy CF bulbs until forced to, because every one I have seen so far has been made in China. Government trying to force us to buy products made outside the US.
The reason they're from China is that Obama's job czar Jeff Immelt is having them made there. I wonder if that was part of Obama's "will not rest" until there are more jobs program.
May 2, 2013 12:57:39 #
PrairieSeasons wrote:
The reason they're from China is that Obama's job czar Jeff Immelt is having them made there. I wonder if that was part of Obama's "will not rest" until there are more jobs program.
The number one producer of light bulbs worldwide is not General Electric it is Phillips. They bought the business from Westinghouse decades ago.
May 2, 2013 16:40:14 #
Rbode wrote:
Remember the lacrosse team. Trust Duke? Not with a ton of salt.
I don't know where that came from, but you may recall that the lacrosse team was vindicated. The accuser was later charged with murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/crystal-mangum-duke-lacrosse-accuser_n_2728853.html
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.