Tag Archives: Sustainability

Cases

Why Stanford’s parking fees could backfire and fail to reduce driving

Leave a comment

At Stanford University, parking is segregated based on how much you pay. Drivers can purchase Permit A for $133 per month or Permit C for $38 per month. Each permit dictates where you are allowed to park. Permit A holders must park in Permit A-designated areas, while Permit C holders are restricted to Permit C zones.

This tiered system ensures that those who pay more get closer and more convenient parking, while lower-paying permit holders have to park farther away. For example, in the five-story outdoor Via Ortega Garage, the lower two floors are reserved for Permit A holders, while the upper three floors are designated for Permit C holders.

The same pricing structure applies to indoor, underground parking facilities like Roble Field Garage. Permit C holders should drive farther down to find an available spot than permit A holders.

Permit A parking lots are often partially empty, while Permit C lots are crowded. Those who pay more not only get better locations but also enjoy less competition for spaces. The message is clear: convenience comes at a price.

While searching for an empty space in the Permit C parking lot, a thought crossed my mind: Why not pay $100 more to enjoy convenience?

Then, it struck me that I had become so absorbed in choosing between two permits that I completely ignored a third, unspoken option which I once enjoyed: riding a bicycle. The very act of choosing between two permits kept me from questioning whether I needed to drive at all.

We are born to choose. Once presented with options, we become fixated on making a choice, failing to recognize that the choice itself may be artificially constructed. Differentiated parking fees may subtly reinforce car dependency instead of encouraging biking.

***

Reference

Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457-463.

Belief in one’s ability to exert control over the environment and to produce desired results is essential for an individual’s well-being. It has repeatedly been argued that perception of control is not only desirable, but is also probably a psychological and biological necessity. In this article, we review the literature supporting this claim and present evidence of a biological basis for the need for control and for choice—that is, the means by which we exercise control over the environment. Converging evidence from animal research, clinical studies, and neuroimaging suggests that the need for control is a biological imperative for survival, and a corticostriatal network is implicated as the neural substrate of this adaptive behavior.

Publications

Why do reusable cups turn into unnecessary waste?

Leave a comment

Jung, B., & Joo, J. (2021). Blind Obedience to Environmental Friendliness: The Goal Will Set Us Free. Sustainability, 13(21), 12322.

Abstract

In the past, researchers focusing on environmentally friendly consumption have devoted attention to the intention–action gap, suggesting that consumers have positive attitudes toward an environmentally friendly product even though they are not willing to buy it. In the present study, we borrow insights from the behavioral decision making literature on preference reversal to introduce an opposite phenomenon—that is, consumers buying an environmentally friendly product even though they do not evaluate it highly. We further rely on the research on goals to hypothesize that choice–evaluation discrepancies disappear when consumers pursue an environmentally friendly goal. A two (Mode: Choice vs. Evaluation) by three (Goal: Control vs. Quality vs. Environmentally friendly) between-subjects experimental design was used to test the proposed hypotheses. Our findings obtained from 165 undergraduate students in Korea showed that, first, 76% of the participants chose an environmentally friendly cosmetic product whereas only 49% of the participants ranked it higher than a competing product, and, second, when participants read the sentence “You are now buying one of the two compact foundations in order to minimize the waste of buying new foundations,” the discrepancy disappeared (64% vs. 55%). Our experimental findings advance academic discussions of green consumption and the choice–evaluation discrepancy and have practical implications for eco-friendly marketing.

Keywords

behavioral decision making; environmentally friendly; choice–evaluation discrepancy; intention–action gap; preference reversal; goal

Cases

How could we stop cigarette butt litter?

2 Comments

Cigarette butts are the tail ends of the cigarette left over after someone has smoked it. They are under-acknowledged, but widespread, pollutants. At the Quora, someone said the following.

In fact, thanks to the fact that for decades smokers just didn’t care where they threw them, there are very likely cigarette butts in the Amazon rain forest, at the North Pole, and on the fast-disappearing Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Practically the only place they are difficult to find is where they belong – in the trash bin.

To tackle this issue, various efforts have been suggested. According to Tara Rohan, for instance, posters and videos have been provided to educate people about the environmental impacts of cigarette-butt litter. Alternatively, cans have been installed in select neighborhoods. Most of these efforts aim to nudge smokers to throw cigarette butts in trash bins. Recently, I have noticed an interesting approach in London, UK.

At the Portobello Road market in London, bins are installed for those who want to throw gums and cigarette butts. For an unidentified reason, these bins have baby faces. As research suggests that large, round eyes, high eyebrows, and a small chin yielded the perception of a babyish facial appearance.

Since baby face or Kindchenschema (baby schema) is “related to the vulnerable nature of a living entity, it elicits responses from adults that increase the infant’s chance of survival. These include increased attention to and protection of the helpless infant (Brosch, Sandder, and Scherer 2007; Lorenz 1943) and increased carefulness and caretaking behavior (Sherman, Haidt, and Coan 2009). (Nenkov et al. 2014, pg. 326)”

Although adding a human face to the tip jar backfires, having a baby face even contributes to the success of high-ranking Black executives. Designing cigarette bins like cute babies must be effective to collect cigarette butts. I wish similar bins are installed in other markets and cities as well to stop cigarette butt litter.

***

Reference

Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. (2009). The teddy-bear effect: Does having a baby face benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological science, 20(10), 1229-1236.

Prior research suggests that having a baby face is negatively correlated with success among White males in high positions of leadership. However, we explored the positive role of such “babyfaceness” in the success of high-ranking Black executives. Two studies revealed that Black chief executive officers (CEOs) were significantly more baby-faced than White CEOs. Black CEOs were also judged as being warmer than White CEOs, even though ordinary Blacks were rated categorically as being less warm than ordinary Whites. In addition, baby-faced Black CEOs tended to lead more prestigious corporations and earned higher salaries than mature-faced Black CEOs; these patterns did not emerge for White CEOs. Taken together, these findings suggest that babyfaceness is a disarming mechanism that facilitates the success of Black leaders by attenuating stereotypical perceptions that Blacks are threatening. Theoretical and practical implications for research on race, gender, and leadership are discussed.