This discrepancy—between wanting to appear supportive of the green movement on the one hand, and harboring misgivings about the effectiveness of green products on the other—was observed in a study that was conducted in the university campus in the Fall of 2009, when the Swine Flu epidemic seemed imminent. We set up a table with two hand-sanitizers on it. One hand-sanitizer was portrayed as a “green” version while the other was portrayed as a “regular” version. A large poster was placed next to the table with the hand-sanitizers, with the words, “Swine Flu Alert: The CDC advises that you use hand-sanitizers as often as possible,” encouraging students who walked by the table to use the hand-sanitizers. We recorded both the type of sanitizer (green vs. regular), as well as the amount of sanitizer (number of squirts) that the students used.

The results were interesting. When an assistant was present near the table, students were more likely to use the green hand-sanitizer; however, when there was no assistant in the vicinity (he was hiding behind a pillar to record student behavior), students were more likely to use the regular hand-sanitizer. This pattern is consistent with the idea that people wish to project themselves as favoring green products, but in private, prefer the regular one. Further, whenever a student used the green sanitizer, he used more of it—indicating that the student perceived the green products as less strong than the regular one. This pattern of results was replicated across other product categories such as car tires, shampoo, and laundry detergents too.

Now, here’s a final twist to the story: Consumers don’t necessarily think that green products are worse than regular products on all dimensions. When it comes to the dimension of gentleness, they think that green products are better than regular ones. In one experiment, participants were asked to predict which of two—green vs. regular—car shampoo and baby shampoo the average consumer would prefer to buy. Participants thought that the average consumer would have greater preference for the green product in the baby shampoo category as compared to the car shampoo category. This suggests that although green marketing is a liability for strength-related attributes, it can be an advantage for gentleness-related attributes.

Now, here’s an interesting question: Why do people think that green products are less strong and more gentle? The answer appears to lie in people’s implicit associations between ethicality and the dimensions of strength vs. gentleness, as one of our other studies showed. As sayings like “nice guys finish last,” or “you have to break an egg to make an omelet” convey, people think that one can’t be both ethical and effective at the same time. Recent findings by Aaker, Vohs, and Mogliner found further evidence consistent with this thesis: they found that people perceive non-profits as less competent than for-profits and, as a consequence, consumers are less likely to buy a product made by a non-profit than by a for-profit company.

If ethicality can be a liability for products and firms, could it be a liability for people as well? Specifically, is it possible that someone who cares more than the average person about the environment or the poor could be considered less effective? I am not aware of any research that has looked into this question directly, but wouldn't be surprised if results are consistent with the “nice-guys-finish-last” hypothesis. If findings do confirm that there’s a penalty for being good, two important implications would arise—one for managing how others view you, and another for managing how you view others. First, if you are seen as an ethical and compassionate person, you should take steps to ensure that you are not being perceived as ineffective. And second, you should be on guard against penalizing—even if you do so only inadvertently—those who have the image of being ethical and compassionate.   

Interested in these topics? Go to Sapient Nature.