Supplementary file 1_Plastic, synthetic material, or polymer? How material terminology shapes material meanings and informs green technology evaluations.pdf

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>