The Negative Footprint Illusion: Why Our 'Green' Choices Might Not Be So Green?

Öz

The Negative Footprint Illusion (NFI) is a cognitive bias that leads individuals to falsely assume that adding an environmentally friendly product or behavior reduces the overall environmental impact. This illusion distorts sustainability assessments, as people rely on averaging bias, compensatory green beliefs (CGB), framing effects, and quantity insensitivity instead of objectively evaluating total environmental impact. This review examines NFI as a cognitive barrier to sustainable nutrition, exploring its underlying mechanisms and their role in shaping environmental decision-making. Empirical evidence highlights how individuals miscalculate their carbon footprint, particularly in food consumption and energy-related decisions and how perceptual biases reinforce this illusion. Addressing these biases through strategic sustainability communication and evidence-based decision-making frameworks is crucial for fostering truly sustainable consumption behaviors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Negative footprint ıllusion
• averaging bias
• sustainable consumption
• green halo effect
• cognitive bias
• compensatory green beliefs

Negatif Ayak İzi Yanılsaması: 'Yeşil' Seçimlerimiz Gerçekten O Kadar Yeşil mi?

Öz

Negatif Ayak İzi Yanılsaması (NAİY), bireylerin çevre dostu bir ürün veya davranış eklediğinde toplam çevresel etkinin azaldığını yanlış bir şekilde varsaymasına neden olan bilişsel bir yanılgıdır. Bu yanılsama, sürdürülebilirlik değerlendirmelerini sistematik olarak çarpıtarak bireylerin toplam çevresel etkiyi nesnel bir şekilde değerlendirmesi yerine ortalama alma yanılgısı, telafi edici yeşil inançlar (TEYİ), çerçeveleme etkisi ve miktar duyarsızlığı gibi faktörlere dayanmasına yol açar. Bu derleme, NAİY'yi sürdürülebilir beslenme açısından kritik bir bilişsel engel olarak ele almakta ve bu yanılsamanın temel mekanizmalarını, çevresel karar alma süreçleri üzerindeki etkilerini kapsamlı bir şekilde analiz etmektedir. Ampirik bulgular, bireylerin özellikle besin tüketimi ve enerjiyle ilgili kararlar sırasında karbon ayak izlerini yanlış hesapladığını ve algısal yanılgıların bu yanılsamayı nasıl güçlendirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu yanılgıların azaltılması, etkili sürdürülebilirlik iletişimi ve kanıta dayalı karar alma çerçeveleri ile mümkündür ve gerçekten sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışlarını teşvik etmek için hayati bir gerekliliktir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Negatif ayak izi yanılsaması
• ortalama alma yanılgısı
• sürdürülebilir tüketim
• yeşil hale etkisi
• bilişsel yanılgılar
• telafi edici yeşil inançlar

Kaynakça

1. 1. FAO and WHO. 2019. Sustainable healthy diets – Guiding principles. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/CA6640EN
2. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Rome, Italy: FAO; Published date 2012. Accessed February 3, 2025. https://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf
3. 3. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Published date 2019. Accessed February 3, 2025. https://www.un.org/es/desa/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights
4. 4. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Global Agriculture Towards 2050. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2009. December 10, 2025. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf
5. 5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2019. January 10, 2025. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
6. 6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Global Warming of 1.5°C. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2021. Accessed November 16, 2025. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
7. 7. British Dietetic Association. The Impact of Diet on Climate Change. Birmingham, UK: BDA Reports; Published date, 2021. Accessed February 3, 2025. https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/the-impact-of-diet-on-climate-change.html
8. 8. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK). Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics, 1990-2021. Ankara, Turkey: TÜİK; Published date, 2024. Accessed January 10, 2025. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Statistics-1990-2022-53701

9. 9. Liu L, Qu J, Maraseni TN, et al. Household CO₂ emissions: Current status and future perspectives. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7077.
10. 10. Weitensfelder L, Heesch K, Arnold E, et al. Areas of individual consumption reduction: a focus on implemented restrictions and willingness for further cut-backs. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):4956. doi: 10.3390/su15064956.
11. 11. Principato L, Pice G, Pezzi A. Understanding food choices in sustainable healthy diets: a systematic literature review on behavioral drivers and barriers. Environ Sci Policy. 2025;163:103975. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103975.
12. 12. Campbell-Arvai V, Árvai J, Kalof L. Motivating sustainable food choices: the role of consumer information. Appetite. 2012;59(3):661-668. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.039.
13. 13. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-522. doi: 10.1038/nature13959.
14. 14. Yassıbaş E, Bölükbaşı B. Evaluation of adherence to the Mediterranean diet with sustainable nutrition knowledge and environmentally responsible food choices. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1158155. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1158155.
15. 15. Gazan R, et al. Sustainable diets: a path toward environmental and health improvement. Nat Sustain. 2018;1:714-724. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0189-6.
16. 16. Korteling JE, Paradies GL, Sassen-van Meer J. Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1007131.
17. 17. Muñoz-Martínez J, Cussó-Parcerisas I, Carrillo-Álvarez E. Exploring the barriers and facilitators for following a sustainable diet: a holistic and contextual scoping review. Sustain Prod Consum. 2024;41:327-341. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.002.
18. 18. Engler JO, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H. Navigating cognition biases in the search of sustainability. Ambio. 2019;48:605-618. doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-01168-5.
19. 19. Gorissen P, Weijters B. The negative footprint illusion: perceptual bias in sustainable food consumption. J Environ Psychol. 2016;45:50-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009.
20. 20. Sánchez‐Bravo G, Villena‐Escribano M, Rivera‐Torres MP, et al. Consumers’ attitude towards the sustainability of different food categories. Foods. 2020;9(11):1608.
21. 21. Vries J. Public communication as a tool to implement environmental policies. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2019;13(1):61-88. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12061.
22. 22. Chernev A, Gal D. Categorization effects in value judgments: averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. J Mark Res. 2010;47(4):738-747.
23. 23. Kusch S, Fiebelkorn F. Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;78:103731. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731.
24. 24. Kim B, Schuldt JP. Judging the environmental impact of green consumption: evidence of quantity insensitivity. J Environ Psychol. 2018;60:122-127.
25. 25. Holmgren M, Andersson H, Sörqvist P. Averaging bias in environmental impact estimates: evidence from the negative footprint illusion. J Environ Psychol. 2018;55:48-52.
26. 26. Holmgren M, Kabanshi A, Marsh JE, Sörqvist P. When A + B < A: cognitive bias in experts’ judgment of environmental impact. Front Psychol. 2018;9:823.
27. 27. Andersson H, Holmgren M, Sörqvist P, et al. The negative footprint illusion is exacerbated by the numerosity of environment-friendly additions: unveiling the underpinning mechanisms. J Cogn Psychol. 2024;36(2):295-307. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2024.1234567.
28. 28. MacCutcheon D, Holmgren M, Haga A. Assuming the best: individual differences in compensatory “green” beliefs predict susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. Sustainability. 2020;12(8):3414. doi: 10.3390/su12083414.
29. 29. Sörqvist P, Holmgren M. The negative footprint illusion in environmental impact estimates: methodological considerations. Front Psychol. 2022;13:990056.
30. 30. Camilleri AR, Larrick RP, Hossain S, Patino-Echeverri D. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat Clim Change. 2019;9(1):53-58.
31. 31. Sundar A, Kardes FR. The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(5):512-521.
32. 32. Steenis ND, Van Herpen E, Van Der Lans IA, Ligthart TN, Van Trijp HC. Consumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J Clean Prod. 2017;162:286-298.
33. 33. Lazzarini GA, Visschers VH, Siegrist M. How to improve consumers’ environmental sustainability perception of food products: The effectiveness of different types of eco-labels. Food Quality and Preference. 2018;68:215-223.
34. 34. Chernev A. The dieter's paradox. J Consum Psychol. 2011;21(2):178-183.
35. 35. Sörqvist P, Langeborg L. Why people harm the environment although they try to treat it well: an evolutionary-cognitive perspective on climate compensation. Front Psychol. 2019;10:434719. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00434.
36. 36. Sorrell S. The rebound effect: definition and estimation. In: Evans J, Hunt L, eds. International Handbook on the Economics of Energy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009:199-233.
37. 37. Chitnis M, Sorrell S, Druckman A, Firth SK, Jackson T. Turning lights into flights: estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Policy. 2013;55:234-250. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.008.
38. 38. Grabs J. The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism: a microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior. Ecol Econ. 2015;116:270-279.
39. 39. Holmgren M, Andersson H, Ball LJ, Marsh JE. Can the negative footprint illusion be eliminated by summative priming? J Cogn Psychol. 2021;33(3):337-356.
40. 40. White K, Habib R, Hardisty DJ. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J Mark. 2019;83(3):22-49.
41. 41. Xie P, Zhang Y, Chen R, Lin Z, Lu N. Social media’s impact on environmental awareness: a marginal treatment effect analysis of WeChat usage in China. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):3237. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-12337-5.
42. 42. Ge J, Scalco A, Craig T. Social influence and meat-eating behaviour. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7935. doi: 10.3390/su14137935.
43. 43. Kaklamanou D, Jones CR, Webb TL, Walker SR. Using public transport can make up for flying abroad on holiday: Compensatory green beliefs and environmentally significant behavior. Environ Behav. 2015;47(2):184-204. doi: 10.1177/0013916513488784.
44. 44. Gorissen K, Weijters B, Deltomme B. Green versus grey framing: Exploring the mechanism behind the negative footprint illusion in environmental sustainability assessments. Sustainability. 2024;16(4):1411. doi: 10.3390/su16041411.
45. 45. Sörqvist P, Marsh JE. Conceptual and methodological considerations to the negative footprint illusion: A reply to Gorissen et al. (2024). J Cogn Psychol. 2024;36(8):954-963.
46. 46. Sörqvist P, Volna I, Zhao J, Marsh JE. Irregular stimulus distribution increases the negative footprint illusion. Scand J Psychol. 2022;63:530-535. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12833.
47. 47. Threadgold E, Marsh JE, Holmgren M, Andersson H, Nelson M, Ball LJ. Biased estimates of environmental impact in the negative footprint illusion: The nature of individual variation. Front Psychol. 2022;12:648328. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648328.
48. 48. Ateş H. Pre-service science teachers' perceptual biases regarding sustainable food consumption: Negative footprint illusion. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2020;6(4):599-612.
49. 49. Holmgren M, Kabanshi A, Langeborg L, et al. Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people's judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. J Environ Psychol. 2019;64:48-55.