Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 213–230 | Cite as

The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels

  • Gunne Grankvist
  • Ulf Dahlstrand
  • Anders Biel


Eco-labels in use today signify environmentally benign outcomes: "Choose this product, it is better for the environment than the average product." Another strategy would be to indicate negative outcomes with the purpose of trying to persuade consumers to avoid a product: "Do not choose this product, it is worse for the environment than the average product." In a computer-based experiment, it was investigated how these two types of labels affected preference for some everyday products. Individuals who had a weak or no interest in environmental issues were unaffected by either kind of label. Individuals with an intermediate interest in environmental issues were more affected by a negative label than by a positive label. Individuals with a strong interest in environmental protection were equally affected by the two kinds of labels.


Environmental Protection Economic Policy Environmental Issue Average Product Consumer Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 1–101. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chinnici, G., D'Amico, M., & Pecorino, B. (2002). A multivariate statistical analysis on the consumers of organic products. British Food Journal, 104, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (1997). Pro-environmental habits: Propensity levels in behavioural change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 588–601.Google Scholar
  5. Davies, A., Titterington, A. J., & Cochrane, C. (1995). Who buys organic food? A profile of purchasers of organic food in northern Ireland, British Food Journal, 97, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Union On-Line (2003). Council Directive 92/75/EEC (31992L0075) of 22 September 1992. Retrieved June 18, 2003, from Scholar
  7. Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906.Google Scholar
  8. Fotopoulos, C., & Krystallis, A. (2002). Purchasing motives and profile of the Greek organic consumer: A countrywide survey. British Food Journal, 104, 730–765.Google Scholar
  9. Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro-environmental intention and behaviour by personal norms and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505–2528.Google Scholar
  11. Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food perception and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104, 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 133–168. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins, E. T., & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of the psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 527–535.Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.Google Scholar
  17. Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Åberg. L., & Sjödén, P.-O. (2001). Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103, 209–227.Google Scholar
  18. Miles, S., & Frewer, L. Y. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nordlund, A., Garvill, J., & Marell, A. (2000). Motives for pro-environmental behavior. In: E. Hölzl (Ed.), Fairness & cooperation. Proceedings IAREP/SABE 2000, Vienna/Austria, pp. 309–313.Google Scholar
  20. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palm, L., & Jarlbro, G. (1999). Nordiska konsumenter om Svanen-livsstil, kännedom, attityd och förtroende (Nordic consumers about the Swan-life style, knowledge, attitude and trust). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. TemaNord 1999:592.Google Scholar
  22. Saveenergy (2003). EU Energy Label. Retrieved June 17, 2003, from Scholar
  23. Schwartz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 2, pp. 527–561. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thøgersen, J. (1999). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439–460.Google Scholar
  26. Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23, 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thøgersen, J. (2002). Promoting “green” consumer behavior with eco-labels. In: T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.), New Tools for Environmental Protection, pp. 83–104. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M., & Francis, C. A. (2001). Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark county, Norway. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tregear, A., Dent, J. B., & McGregor, M. J. (1994). The demand for organically grown produce. British Food Journal, 96, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. In: D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values, and Frames, pp. 143–158. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wandel, M. (1994). Understanding consumer concern about food-related health risks. British Food Journal, 96, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wandel. M., & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In: D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 446–496. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Wier, M., & Calverly, C. (2002). Market potential for organic foods in Europe. British Food Journal, 104, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. WWF:s recommendation on fish and the environment (2002). Second ed. Retrieved November 20, 2003, from Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunne Grankvist
    • 1
  • Ulf Dahlstrand
    • 2
  • Anders Biel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department for Studies of the Individual and SocietyUniversity of Trollhättan/UddevallaVänersborgSweden
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations