Study finds environmentalists meaner and more likely to cheat and steal from others - what about this science?

Question

.
I know how enthusiastic the environmentalists on YA and the web generally are about peer-reviewed scientific studies, so I wondered what they would make of this finding: [QUOTE]

----------------------------------
""Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal

The pair said their findings surprised them, having thought that just as "exposure to the Apple logo increased creativity", according to a recent study, "given that green products are manifestations of high ethical standards and humanitarian considerations, mere exposure" to them would "activate norms of social responsibility and ethical conduct".

Dieter Frey, a social psychologist at the University of Munich, said the findings fitted patterns of human behaviour. "At the moment in which you have proven your credentials in a particular area, you tend to allow yourself to stray elsewhere," he said"
----------------------------------------------

So what's your opinion of this peer-reviewed scientific study? Are you going with the scientists on this one, or your own "gut feeling"?

Source: "How going green may make you mean: Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to steal, study finds" Guardian 15th March 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

Answer 1

An interesting study, but I don't think you should get too excited about it. Certainly hypocrites come in all types and colors. In the US liberals have had the reputation of being "caring" (supporting health care reform, welfare programs, etc.), while conservatives have had the reputation of being against such things, and therefore "less caring," but those stereotypes only go as far as dealing with the masses. When Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter the thought was that if you needed a friend that would give you the shirt off their back or their last dollar, Gerald Ford was the man, while Jimmy Carter was a mean S.O.B., but if they were dealing with societal groups, rather than individuals, then Carter was your friend and Ford your adversary. There is no question that people act differently when dealing with other people in a one-on-one basis than they do philosophically or politically.

Answer 2

"Research' gives people the ability to 'prove' some stupid generalisations" - ain't that the truth? Maybe we should study the findings of scientific research, and run them past our own common sense before we accept their results. The first thing we should do is try to understand the causality (Why should this be so?), then look for supporting evidence from other sources, including our own experience (Have I found instances where this is true?).

That is why Global Warming fails - the causality might be there (CO2 is a greenhouse gas) but the evidence is not (it was just as hot when I was a kid, and the sea level is just where its always been). My bullshit alarm went off about 2008, by which time it was clear that none of the dire predictions had come to pass.

Now let's apply the same process to the "Greenies are assholes" theory:

Causality - it has been established for decades that criminality is inversely proportional to intellect, and this is obvious to the average person: Stupid people have less self-control and resort to crime more readily, also have less empathy so are more able to be mean to other people. Now is it too hard to make the connection that stupid people may also continue to believe in AGW after the evidence has failed to appear? Therefore Greenies being demonstrably less intelligent may be expected to be more anti-social than the average human.

Supporting evidence: Have you noticed their use of hate words like "Denier" for people who disagree with them? I think we have prima facie evidence right here to support the theory.

In any case, because it has been published in a scientific journal, they have no choice but to believe they are "less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal!"

Answer 3

Funny. Because you consider yourself an environmentalist. You often claim you are friendlier to the environment, and more environmentally responsible them most alarmists.



Do you think that gives you a moral halo, allowing you to confuse people, and lie for the benefit of corporations in oil and coal? Does this little article help you to justify what you do to yourself? Do you feel better now?



Good, good.



Seriously? That study she references is valid scientific work, but it is hardly conclusive, the sample size is small, it's all from a single college, single age group.... Check out some of the actual peer reviews.

Answer 4

i'm a Gemini and that i've got in no way cheated on a much better half. Like maximum issues interior the media they're rubbish and designed to get peoples interest and get them talking.... i'm a sucker for those sorts of information too. even with the undeniable fact that from the commonplace descriptions of the Gemini's character i would be sure how that they had draw that end, do no longer forget approximately all are persons even under the comparable astrologial sign, in keeping with the place/as quickly as we've been born what planets have been in each and each residences and so on... thrilling communicate nonetheless.

Answer 5

First, I wouldn't paint all environmentalists with the same brush. It's obviously not wrong to be an environmentalist, it's just that some may have different approaches and motivations.



I've always felt that some have a sense of moral superiority. They feel they are doing "right" and others who do not follow the same path are doing "wrong". Perhaps this gives them a sense of entitlement to somehow screw over those who are doing "wrong" since they are on the high moral ground.



It may also be related to believing the end justifies the means. If the end is "good", then the means are irrelevant since the end will be for the good.



In any case, people who think like that truly frighten me. They seem to have their own "laws".



These are also the type of people who want to give animals "rights". They are truly misguided.

Answer 6

To form a fully honest opinion, I would have to research the research and then compare it to additional, similar, and subsequent research....



That said, from the Poly-Sci (Political Science) world, it is said that every movement has its passionate element. Of course, the poly-sci world borrows from many different disciplines including psychology, sociology, history, organizational dynamics institutional dynamics, and more; they may beg to differ but.... Sometimes the passionate element of a movement can become zealots. - You are probably too young to remember the "bra burners"; these were folks from the women's movement of the 1960's who actually burned their bras in protest of the women's position in society. Long before gangster rap, preachers had record (vinyls) breaking parties of all things Motown, Rock-n-Roll, Elvis Presley, and more. Fahrenheit 451 is a Ray Bradbury novel centered around the burning of unapproved books. One of the reasons why we treat religion, politics and leash laws gingerly around the casual conversation table is that many have passionate to zealous feelings and opinions about these topics.



Most of us have been exposed to the business management world (which some say is simply the poly-sci world in a smaller pond) and "change". From this world, we are/were taught that: "Change occurs when the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived pains of the status-quo and the effort to change." From multiple worlds, including our own gut, it is said that: "Fear is a powerful motivator." (The business world does also say that "You change what you reward". Those with a little more depth will also say: "Be careful about what you are actually rewarding as opposed to what you intended to reward."). From the world of psychology, we are/were taught that: "Fear elicits a fight or flight response." Also, from psychology we are/were taught that: "Fear is the base emotion of anger."



So, does the report you cite shock me? - No - It does raise a curiosity in me however with the "more likely to cheat and steal". I'm curious as to what criteria was used to arrive at these conclusions. It seems as if the violins sing at least a little on every budget and funding request I've seen on and off the job. More than a few of us look for every loop hole, gray area/rule, and creative interpretation when doing our taxes, entering a contest, establishing an accounting system, applying for a building permit, and more. Speaking of which, how many report our garage sales earnings or the value of "bartered labor" between neighbors and family members on our state and federal taxes; how about those few dollars of unreported cash that exchange hands else wise? Are "green consumers" cheating/fudging when they consider carbon credits in their daily lives; or are we talking of the recording of carbon exchange efforts of commerce, as opposed to having an eye on sustainability of which carbon credits are but one measure? Are "green consumers" stealing when they dumpster dive, or simply pick something up along side the rubbish bin in the alley? - There are plenty of folks outside, as well as within, the green movement who would have to be taught the moral decadence of this one. And even then, many would not consider this type of activity to be morally decadent; they may come to know and understand the illegality of it, the moral rational of not doing it/doing it in some cases, but probably not undergo an internal transformation of personal moral code revolving around the picking up and using of others' refuse.

Answer 7

This article gives 'research' a bad name, for me. you can't measure morality with some phschology experiment. i suppose the green people were proven to be 12.64% less moral people?

'Research' gives people the ability to 'prove' some stupid generalisations