2026-10-12T00:06:55Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/33961363 2026-09-22T04:13:10Z category_173 portal_316 item_type_3 month_year_09_2026

Supplementary file 1_Plastic, synthetic material, or polymer? How material terminology shapes material meanings and informs green technology evaluations.pdf Barbara Stiglbauer (8101865) Sabrina Schopf (25087168) Applied Psychology green technology acceptance material perception material terminology plastic polymer sustainability Introduction<p>Material-related communication plays an important role in sustainability transitions, yet little is known about whether the terms used to describe polymer-based materials shape public evaluations. We investigated whether material terminology influences perceptions of polymer-based materials and whether such terminology-related differences extend to evaluations of green technologies.</p>Methods<p>Study 1 (N = 303) used a between-subjects design comparing three material terms (plastic, synthetic material, and polymer) that refer to overlapping categories in everyday non-expert communication but are not technically equivalent. Participants evaluated the material on multiple perceptual dimensions and reported their attitude toward its use; exploratory free associations were additionally assessed. Study 2 (N = 390) employed a 3 × 2 between-subjects experiment manipulating material terminology and information highlighting the material’s functional and sustainability-related contributions to green technologies. Material and technology perceptions as well as intention to use green technologies were examined, and path analyses examined indirect associations linking the experimental conditions to technology evaluations.</p>Results<p>In Study 1, plastic elicited less favourable attitudes toward material use than synthetic material or polymer. These differences were statistically accounted for mainly by ecological and functional-material perceptions. Exploratory free associations converged with the rating-based findings, indicating that plastic more readily evoked ecological harm, whereas polymer elicited more science- and chemistry-related associations as well as greater unfamiliarity. In Study 2, material terminology and information each influenced perceived material sustainability and usefulness, with no evidence that the information attenuated terminology effects. Direct experimental effects on technology perceptions and intention to use were limited, but path analyses showed significant indirect associations through material and technology perceptions, with the strongest indirect associations emerging through perceived usefulness.</p>Discussion<p>Together, the findings suggest that material terminology can activate different category representations and multidimensional material meanings and that these meanings may contribute to evaluations of technologies in which the materials are used. Importantly, the sustainability-related outcomes reflect participants’ perceptions rather than objective environmental performance. Communication about polymer-based materials and green technologies should therefore consider both the meanings activated by material terminology and substantiated information about a material’s role and environmental performance in specific applications.</p> 2026-09-22T04:13:10Z Dataset Dataset 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1951034.s001 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Supplementary_file_1_Plastic_synthetic_material_or_polymer_How_material_terminology_shapes_material_meanings_and_informs_green_technology_evaluations_pdf/33961363 CC BY 4.0