Background:
A study named “Green Products and Ethical Behavior, Do Green Products Make US Better people?” (link: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf) This study’s results were reported by Bay Area channel 44 recently. After I read the original study, from my perspective, I found that the researchers did not give their study’s results their most appropriate interpretation; further, the study’s observations were misrepresented by the TV news without proper balanced report or enough scientific reservation to the inferred idea about what these research results merely implies. The public who watched the news might be misled and gave them unnecessary hesitation of green products consumption in the future. Actually, this topic already could also be examined by the logic. However, I will preserve this logic investigation at the last because it is a bit too easy to the answer. Let me point out the most but not the least problem of this research:

The researcher actually did three experiments, however, the first experiment was only an opinion survey to concur that in general, people usually assume that green consumers tend to be more altruistic in society. This is not their conclusive experiment. So lets put this experiment aside from our discussion.

Next, they conducted two conclusive experiments. In the first experiment, they used two-by-two between subject factorial-design to create four conditions. There are two factors: Action of Purchase vs. No Action of Purchase (which will be called “Exposure” condition later), and Green Store vs. None Green Store (which will be called “Conventional Store” later in the article). These two factors created four conditions. By employing the between subject design, a pool of participants were randomly assigned to one of these four conditions: “Purchase in Green Store,” mere “Exposure to the Green Store,” “Purchase in Conventional Store,” and mere “Exposure to the Conventional Store.”

Then the researchers found that among these four conditions, those participants in the “Purchase in Green Store” were the group of people relatively less sharing when later they were asked to engage a game that would allow them to share their given rewarded money by will to an unreal recipient compared to the group “Purchase in Conventional Store.” Whereas the group that its participants were merely exposed to green store were relatively more sharing than the group merely exposed to the conventional store. These four results created an interaction in the factorial analysis. Then, the researchers conjectured that the results showed that the behavior of purchasing green products led to less sharing later (i.e., they thought that it was because the green purchasers earned the moral credentials).

Questionable Research Method
According to the design, participants could not make choices according to their “Personal Preference” on purchase in the green store or to purchase in the conventional store. In other words, participant’s “Personal Preference on the Green Products” was not tested in the design of the experiment. Any factors that are not tested in the experiment must be reasonably held as “Everything Else Equal.” Furthermore, none of the participants, including those who joined the “Purchase in Green Store,” joined the group by their own will/choice. They were randomly assigned. Therefore, we cannot say that this experiment is testing people who choose to buy green products according to their “Personal Preference on Green Products;” rather, it is testing people who are forced to buy green products. Then what is the consequence of this design? Lets explore further:

People’s preference on green products was a non-factor in the study:
For now, we could see that these are four groups of participants from a pool of different people. However, as long as researcher randomly assigned them into each group, their personal preference on green products becomes not a factor to the experiment. Therefore, the experiment was testing on something that entirely ruled out people’s preference on buying green products. If the research is basically not testing on people’s preference on buying green products, then the news and the researchers should not had left people impression that the research results indicated that people who likes buying green products are less sharing. This experiment is actually testing that people who were forced to purchase in green store became less sharing compared to those people who were not asked to purchase in green products but in conventional store.

People’s preference on green products and altruistic behaviors were mediated by other factors:
The second drain of the experiment is that in such kind of experiment design, because all things which are not tested must be assumed to be very closely to equal (i.e., everything else equal), in other words, these participants must be assumed as everything else equal, except the four different conditions that they were assigned, in order to make the study results valid. Since the researcher employed this kind of design for experiment, assuming “everything else fairly equal” becomes the key element that compromised this particular study result. In other words, in this experiment, we should as assume that those participants had NO PREFERENCE on green products.

If people do not have preference on green products, then, to base on what ground that they would feel that they earned a moral credential once they purchase in a green store? If assume that that’s because the green consumption is currently an upper hand reasoning and politically correct choice, therefore even individuals who don’t have preference on green products could feel earning green products after they commit themselves to this upper hand reasoning choice. Then this reasoning cannot rule out that individuals who are committed to any upper hand reasoning and politically correct choices in the past, and in the future would yield the similar result of feeling earning moral credential. Then this upper hand reasoning choice could be anything which is not limited to green products consumption. Further, once the green product consumption is no longer regarded as upper hand reasoning or politically correct choice a decade later, then the study could not warrant the similar result would happen if the experiment was conducted ten years later.

People’s preference on green products would spoil the experiment and limits the interpretation of the study:
Lets call people’s preference on green products as X. If those participants DO have preference on green products. Secondly, according everything else equal in this experiment, their green product preference should be very similar or very close to the X. Under this assumption, the design of the experiment would be spoiled.

Now, among those four conditions, only the “Purchase in Green Store” is the condition that all individuals, no matter what, MUST purchase products in a green store. And then, as discussed above, the X (i.e., Green product preference) is “No preference.” Then, in other words, the participants who were assigned to the Purchase in Green Store were FORCED to purchase products in a green store. Therefore, their will were transgressed by the random assignment to the group that they must purchase in a green store, which carried more green products. In the experiment, the researchers even warranted those participants that certain number among them would actually bring the product they purchased home. That means that the transgression to their will on purchasing green products would become a real consequence. That means their involuntary behavior would even bring them real negative reward: “punishment.” Since they don’t really prefer to get green products home, but they MUST purchase, and they would BRING it HOME. Under this circumstance, the researchers were creating a condition that individuals were forced to purchase in green store regardless their preference to green stores. Then, the mechanism of self-affirmation theory (i.e., in one event, when people experience a threat to their self-image, people would become eager to restore (e.g., pulling back/balancing) their own self-image by asserting themselves in another irrelevant event) would likely be activated. In this study, asserting self could be asserting a primitive perspective of self in an altruistic game because this is the only choice they got, according to the design of the experiment. In other words, the “Purchase in Green Store” group participants might appear to be less sharing than other groups of participants.

We may further ask that why we do not assume those participants who joined the “Purchase in Conventional Store” would feel that their assignment of purchasing in Conventional Store was an assigned task that was against their will? This is because the so called “Conventional Store” means that it was a store that is nothing very different from their experience of ordinary stores that they shops in their daily lives (or their in their daily choices, conventional store is a norm of their choice). Therefore, they wouldn’t feel anything wrong or feel that their will was transgressed by the assigned task (e.g., purchase in conventional store).

Now, if the X is all participants across four groups, averagely, had “Negative Preference” to green products, then, among those participants who were assigned to the Purchase in Green Store condition, their feeling of transgression to their value of purchasing green products became even worse than if they had no preference on purchasing in green products. They would feel their belief system were seriously violated by this kind of assignment. Furthermore, they even must be “punished” by taking the product home.

Then, what if the X is that all participants, across four groups, averagely, preferred green products. Then the group of “Purchase in Conventional Store” would feel that they were forced to purchase in a conventional store. Then, according to the self-affirmation theory, participants in the “Purchase in Conventional Store” felt that being FORCED to PURCHASE conventional products in the CONVENTIONAL STORE violated their self-image: loyal green product consumers. And then, they need to pull (boost) their self-image back. Therefore, the Purchase in Conventional Store participants became more sharing in the later altruistic game then participants were in the Purchase in Green Store. In other words, it is not the “Purchase in Green Store” participants were less sharing, rather, it could be the “Purchase in Conventional Store” participants were more sharing. Therefore, we saw an interaction in the two-by-two design, which superficially looks like the Purchase in Green Store led to less sharing. As long as, in this experiment, the researcher could not completely rule out this possibility, they could not conclude that purchase green products would lead to less sharing behavior because green consumers feel that they have earned moral credential to license them to commit to other negative behaviors. We need to remember, only when violating one’s belief system in an opposite way, according to self-affirmation theory, would the individual become eager to “balance” his/her self-image. It is still many steps that are lacking to presume a theory in such a way that if one does something that would strengthen one’s self-image would lead to an eagerness to “balance” his/her self-image back.

The third study made the same random assignment on the new pool of participants. Therefore, the third study entailed the similar shortcomings described in the second study.

The research topic was postulated in an awkward timing:
At the almost end, as one researcher from the academic circle, we need to keep asking ourselves about why we initiate a study. Green products could be assumed related to our both psych and behavioral activities in many ways. However, the researchers picked up the perspective that green products associate people’s negative behavior is an odd one. It is awkward because any study topic in academic circle is better off to show a legitimate need to study it. That means this topic could usually appear around the time that in a community some areas with green stores appeared to have more crimes than the other areas in the community without clear reasons…etc., then it would become worthy of postulating such kind of research topic (e.g., Green Store vs. Morality). However, when the global communities are still striving their infant steps on green choices, this study topic appeared to be entertaining but less likely to be a vital remedy as a social research needed by the society yet. Yesterday, we could have ask if any person eats ice cream, would the person more likely to stray walk. It’s a legitimate question, but it’s not a question necessarily need to be answered in any likely point of time yet.

Logical examination on the topic validity for conducting a scientific research:
At last, I would reveal my first rebuttal on this study: The topic could have been simply investigated by logic before engaging a scientific research. This study is exactly a typical problem of doing scientific research on WHAT leads to WHAT. However, WHY is neither inspected nor answered. If we use logic to examine the topic: would green products make us better people? The answer is definitely “No.” Why not? Lets use this example: “Does socks make your feet feel warmer?” We are very tempted to answer, “YES.” However, the answer should be “NO.” In logical analysis, merely socks wouldn’t make our feet warmer. The correct way, in the topic given, to warm our feet, is TO WEAR SOCKS. How about half step further, lets change the discussed topic from “Would green products make us better person” into “Would purchasing green products make us better person?” The answer is still a “NO.” Because this statement did not set up the premise of what kind of people purchase the green product in what kind of contextual reason. If all people live in a green product world, then, this topic is even not necessary to be investigated because people are varied, but everyone could only buy green product in this world. However, if buying green product becomes a choice, then this topic should be corrected this way: “Will those people who chose to buy green products better people than those who prefer conventional products?” or “Will those people who prefer choosing green products to buy prefer to cheat and steal later?” Then the study design should create conditions that would let participants freely choose to purchase green products vs. the others who chose not to buy green products. However, under this method, the researchers still need to pay close attention to the possibility of the “Audience Effect.” How would simply buying a product would have anything to do with a person’s ethical preference? We must question the intention behind the behavior. It is not what to what, it is why and how. Therefore, according to this current discussed research topic: “Do Green Products Make US Better people?” The answer is: “Of course Not.” This topic is already postulated in a way that definitely flows to NO. Then why waste all the time and resources to conduct such an experiment to study?

Extra words:
More words: Should we blame everything else equal in the experiment? No. Quite on contrary, “Everything Else Equal” assures this study ‘s results to be valid. It was the researcher’s interpretations were not appropriate; the research topic was postulated in a very awkward way in a very strange timing.

from: Sunny Liao Blog (http://sunnyliao.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/a-study-about-green-choices-an...)

The "green" behaviors listed are essentially self-serving, reducing costs or adding convenience.

• Installed more energy-efficient light bulbs (63%)
• Purchased energy-efficient appliances (36%)
• Started paying bills online (46%)
• Switched to paperless financial statements (40%)

If one is to be called a "green consumer" simply on the basis of a few self-benefitting actions that happen to have an environmental benefit without going out of their way or agreeing to spend even a bit more, it seems like a fairly low bar line. Perhaps it is time to raise the bar on how we define "green" consumers and see how the results of these kinds of studies might differ.

People who are “green” are quite fond of telling me how little I know and care about anything, I’m less intelligent because I don’t think concurrently with others and don’t aspire to achieve the same goals. If I could fine something to be sincere about I would but this is something more like a trendy clique.

I’ve known several green types, they are the ones who when they were younger traveled with “The Dead” selling homemade rain sticks and shoplifted from flea markets to buy gas money. If you’re going to vehemently profess to be so noble then build your soul to be beyond reproach. I recycle so I can drive an SUV and still label myself an archetypical member of the environmentally friendly guilt free green herd. Don't just be green and call it even, be a good person. (Karma)