Abstract

The effect of stimulus context on carbon footprint judgments was examined through two competing hypotheses: the assimilation hypothesis, which predicts estimates are drawn toward the surrounding context, and the contrast hypothesis, which predicts they are repelled from it. Participants judged centrally presented target items while exposed to a peripheral surrounding stimulus context that varied in both item number and carbon footprint valence – represented by coloured eco-labels (yellow for high carbon, green for low carbon, and grey for unspecified carbon). Across three experiments, judgments were influenced by the context, with estimates shifting toward the context valence: increasing in a yellow (high carbon) context and decreasing in a green (low carbon) context. These findings supported the assimilation hypothesis over the contrast hypothesis. However, there was some variability in how contextual information was integrated into judgments, and we investigated how assimilation/contrast effects can be influenced by manipulating perceived target-context commonality.