Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Questions and Answers in the Negative Footprint Illusion Paradigm: A Reply to Gorissen et al. (2024)

Version 1 : Received: 8 April 2024 / Approved: 8 April 2024 / Online: 8 April 2024 (15:39:22 CEST)

How to cite: Sörqvist, P.; Marsh, J.E. Questions and Answers in the Negative Footprint Illusion Paradigm: A Reply to Gorissen et al. (2024). Preprints 2024, 2024040560. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.0560.v1 Sörqvist, P.; Marsh, J.E. Questions and Answers in the Negative Footprint Illusion Paradigm: A Reply to Gorissen et al. (2024). Preprints 2024, 2024040560. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.0560.v1

Abstract

When asked to estimate the carbon footprint of a bundle of relatively low carbon footprint items and relatively high carbon footprint items, people typically report a lower value compared to estimating the high carbon footprint items alone. This finding is called the negative footprint illusion and suggests people report the average rather than sum of the combined items’ carbon footprint. In a recent paper by Gorissen et al. (2024), the authors claimed that people are immune to this illusion if the question is framed differently. Specifically, they found that estimates of the environmental friendliness of a set comprising a burger (high carbon footprint) and an organic apple (low carbon footprint) was higher than for a set comprising the burger alone, whereas no difference was found between the two sets when participants were asked to estimate how environmentally damaging they were. Using larger item categories wherein the degree of the items’ environmental impact is clearly communicated, here we show it does not matter whether participants are required to estimate how friendly or damaging the items are. The roles of attribute substitution, dependent variables, and independent variables (stimulus characteristics) in modulating the negative footprint illusion is discussed.

Keywords

negative footprint illusion; judgment; environmental impact; bias; attribute substitution

Subject

Social Sciences, Psychology

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.