Search Results (3)

Previous content analysis of video advertisements for functional foods identified “Exemption” advertisements. “Exemption” advertisements may imply to the audiences that “By taking functional foods, I can adopt unhealthy behaviors or I don’t have to adopt healthy behaviors”. In the context of Compensatory Health Beliefs (CHBs), this study refers to these beliefs as functional foods related to CHBs (FF-CHBs). This study aimed to assess the effects of exposure to “Exemption” advertisements for fat-reduction functional foods on audiences. The main hypothesis is exposure to “Exemption” video advertisements increases participants’ FF-CHBs. Participants (n  =  788) were randomly assigned to an intervention group that viewed three video advertisements or a control group and answered online self-administered questionnaires. Intervention videos were three videos with the highest number of views per month from among the “Exemption” video advertisements. Control videos were about how to brew green tea. FF-CHBs was assessed before and after the intervention. The intervention group showed significantly greater FF-CHBs after intervention (mean = 2.37 vs. 2.11, p < 0.001, η² = 0.026) compared with the control group. “Exemption” functional foods video advertisements increased FF-CHBs that can lead to adopting unhealthy behaviors and avoiding healthy behaviors. The content of these functional foods video advertisements should be improved to promote public health. Full article

Recent years have seen a marked increase in carbon emissions despite pledges made by the international community at the Paris Accord in 2015 to reduce fossil fuel production and consumption. Rebound effects could contribute to this phenomenon as, in which attempts to curb carbon emissions might have inadvertently led to an upswing in fossil fuel usage. The present study hypothesizes that rebound effects are driven by a misapplication of compensatory balancing heuristics, with the unintended outcome of producing inaccurate estimates of the environmental impact of “green” or environmentally friendly labelled products or behaviors. The present study therefore aims to investigate the relationship between participants’ degree of compensatory thinking (e.g., “Recycling compensates for driving a car”) and their susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion, a widely replicated phenomenon demonstrating that the presence of “green” products biases carbon footprint estimations. One hundred and twelve participants were asked to complete a 15-item Compensatory Green Beliefs scale and to estimate the total carbon footprint of a set of 15 conventional houses, followed by a set that included 15 “green” houses in addition to 15 conventional houses. Results indicated that participants, on average, believed that the “green” houses were carbon neutral, and that susceptibility to the Negative Footprint Illusion was predicted by performance on the Compensatory Green Beliefs scale. This is the first study confirming that individual differences in cognitive processes (i.e., Compensatory Green Beliefs) are indeed related to inaccurate estimates of “green” products, providing a foundation for further investigation of the influence of “green” and compensatory beliefs on carbon footprint estimates. Full article

When people evaluate the environmental impact of both “environmentally” and “non-environmentally” friendly objects, actions, or behavior, their judgement of the total set in combination is lower than the sum of the individual components. The current communication is a personal perspective article that proposes a human cognitive framework that is adopted during evaluations, which consequently results in wrong reasoning and the reinforcement of misconceptions. The framework gives plausible interpretation of the following: (1) “compensatory green beliefs”—the belief that environmentally harmful behavior can be compensated for by friendly actions; (2) the “negative footprint illusion”—the belief that introducing environmentally friendly objects to a set of conventional objects (e.g., energy efficient products or measures) will reduce the environmental impact of the total set; and (3) “rebound effects”—sustainability interventions increase unsustainable behavior directly or indirectly. In this regard, the framework herein proposes that many seemingly different environmentally harmful behaviors may sprout from a common cause, known as the averaging bias. This may have implications for the success of sustainability interventions, or how people are influenced by the marketing of “environmentally friendly” measures or products and policymaking. Full article