Confirmation Bias and the Public’s Perception of Plastic Waste

Introduction: The Influence of Bias in Environmental Debates

As part of this exploration into cognitive biases shaping environmental policy, this article focuses on confirmation bias—the tendency to seek information that supports existing beliefs while overlooking evidence that challenges them. Following the previous discussion of the Nirvana Fallacy, confirmation bias further reveals how selective attention can distort perceptions of materials like Expanded Polystyrene (EPS).

In today’s environmental debates, plastic waste—especially in marine environments—commands significant public attention. Powerful images of EPS litter on beaches often reinforce negative views of the material, obscuring data that shows its relatively low contribution by weight to marine pollution and its role in sustainable practices. This article seeks to contextualize EPS within the broader plastic waste conversation, aiming to provide a nuanced perspective grounded in available data.

How Confirmation Bias Shapes Perception of EPS and Plastic Waste

Confirmation bias often surfaces when individuals focus selectively on information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, dismissing contradictory evidence. For EPS, confirmation bias typically frames the material as an environmental detriment, largely due to its visibility in marine litter and lingering doubts about its recyclability. However, EPS’s recycling potential is often underestimated; in Europe, North America, and Asia, post-consumer EPS packaging recycling rates range between 30% and 50%. In areas with advanced infrastructure, rates can exceed 50%, with Norway achieving an EPS recycling rate of 88% in 2023. Additionally, EPS industry initiatives, like the establishment of public drop-off points and recycling partnerships, actively address recycling accessibility and awareness. These steps are part of a wider industry effort to counter public misconceptions through transparent and accessible recycling options.              

Public perception frequently centers on images of EPS as a prominent component of beach litter, reinforcing the notion that it is a significant pollutant. However, the data paints a more complex picture. Studies reveal that while EPS is highly visible on coastlines due to its buoyancy, it constitutes a minimal percentage of marine plastic pollution by weight. This discrepancy underscores how visual data alone, without weight-based analysis, can lead to oversimplified conclusions about EPS’s environmental impact.

Case Study: The Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea region provides a detailed example of how relying solely on item counts can create a distorted view of EPS’s environmental impact. (see facts) Initial assessments indicated that EPS made up around 25% of beach litter items in Denmark, suggesting a substantial impact. However, a more thorough analysis contrasting item counts and weight offered a different perspective:

• Country-Specific EPS Beach Litter Data: Denmark: EPS comprises about 12% of plastic items on beaches, ranging from 11–20%. Poland: Roughly 4–5% of beach litter items are EPS. Sweden: EPS accounts for less than 1% (0.2–1%) of plastic litter. Estonia and Finland: EPS constitutes approximately 0.2% of plastic litter, with a range of 0–0.4%. Germany and Lithuania: EPS contributes less than 1% of plastic litter when categorized separately.

The initial press release on this survey emphasized the 11–12% EPS count on Danish beaches but omitted that, in other countries like Germany and Lithuania, EPS made up less than 1% of plastic litter. Nor did the release highlight a key finding: the significant difference between item counts and litter weight. For instance, a Baltic Sea study referenced EPS as comprising 14% of plastic items by count but only 1% by weight. This contrast highlights that while EPS may be visible, it is not a predominant pollutant by mass.

Additionally, the study exclusively focused on EPS leakage, reporting that EPS leakage amounted to 10–100 tonnes per year, representing roughly 0.0017–0.017% of regional EPS production. However, this figure was not contextualized within the broader estimate of 27,000 tonnes of total plastic leakage into the Baltic Sea annually, of which 22,120 tonnes are macroplastics. Thus, EPS contributes less than 0.5% of total plastic pollution by volume in the region. While EPS may be a visible component of litter due to its floating properties, its actual mass contribution to marine pollution is minimal compared to heavier plastics that settle in deeper, less visible zones but carry a more substantial environmental impact.

The Baltic Sea case underscores the importance of using comprehensive data that includes both item count and weight in environmental assessments. Overemphasizing EPS based solely on its visual prevalence may misrepresent its true environmental impact, potentially leading to skewed policy discussions. This example highlights how confirmation bias, through selective information, can overshadow a balanced understanding of the actual sources and impacts of marine pollution.

Data on EPS Recycling vs. Public Perception

The data surrounding EPS’s recyclability contrasts sharply with its public image. EPS is composed of 98% air, making it highly resource-efficient, and it is 100% recyclable in regions with effective collection systems. However, the challenge lies more in the implementation of these systems than in the material’s inherent recyclability.

• Recycling Rates: In regions with developed recycling infrastructures, such as Japan, South Korea, and parts of Europe, EPS recycling rates exceed 50%. Norway, for instance, achieved an EPS recycling rate of 88% in 2023.

• Global Classification: EPS transport packaging has been designated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as “recycled at scale and in practice” worldwide, a classification awarded to only six types of plastic.

Despite these advancements, misconceptions about EPS’s recyclability persist, driven in part by its visibility in waste streams and media portrayals of plastic pollution. The gap between public perception and factual data on EPS recycling highlights how confirmation bias influences understanding, often at the expense of a more balanced, data-informed narrative.

Impact on Policy: Confirmation bias doesn’t just shape public opinion; it influences policy, often leading to reactionary measures like EPS bans. When policies focus on visibility over data, they risk missing the broader environmental picture. Many EPS alternatives for packaging are heavier, requiring more resources for production and transportation, which can increase environmental impact. Industry engagement with policymakers has brought these trade-offs into focus, helping to foster balanced regulations that support EPS recycling over blanket bans. Recent EU proposals, for example, now consider material recyclability in their environmental assessments, underscoring the importance of data-driven policy decisions. For instance the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency published a study by EUNOMIA in 2019. It found that replacing EPS Single Use with non-plastic Single Use Food Service would increase Marine Litter threefold, and the third least cost-efficient measure for reducing Single Use Plastic pollution among the products suggested. And money spent on one policy solution cannot be spent elsewhere. We need to ensure that environmental policy is cost-efficient to ensure we achieve the largest impact.

Overcoming Confirmation Bias: Seeking a Balanced Perspective

Confirmation bias can deeply influence how we perceive materials like EPS, often leading us to focus on information that aligns with established beliefs while overlooking evidence that challenges them. To foster a balanced, data-driven understanding of EPS, it’s helpful to approach environmental issues with a mindset that actively questions pre-existing assumptions. Here are ways to recognize and mitigate confirmation bias in the context of plastic waste and EPS:

• Question the Basis of Your Beliefs Start by reflecting on whether your current views about EPS are based on visible narratives, such as images of EPS litter, or on a broader set of data. Asking questions like, “Have I explored all sides of this issue?” or “Am I basing my opinion solely on information that supports my initial beliefs?” can help uncover areas where confirmation bias may be influencing your perspective. This approach opens the door to a more well-rounded understanding of EPS and its role in sustainability.

• Actively Seek Out Contradictory Evidence Combat confirmation bias by intentionally looking for information that challenges your initial perceptions. For example, while EPS is visible in marine litter, examining data on its recyclability, resource efficiency, and environmental impact by weight can provide a different perspective. Recognizing that EPS contributes less to marine pollution by mass than its visual prominence suggests is one step in broadening your understanding. Accessing studies that contrast EPS’s environmental footprint with that of alternative materials can further support a balanced view.

• Avoid Relying Solely on Visual Data In environmental debates, visuals are powerful but can be misleading. Be cautious about forming conclusions based only on the visibility of materials like EPS, which may skew perceptions without offering the full picture. Reflect on whether visual data is influencing your stance more than quantitative data, such as recycling rates, environmental impact by weight, or resource use. Understanding the nuances in data, such as EPS’s lower carbon footprint in certain applications, allows for a more accurate assessment of its environmental role.

• Practice Open-Mindedness and Curiosity One of the best ways to counter confirmation bias is to stay curious and open to new information. As advancements in EPS recycling, resource efficiency, and circular economy integration continue, allowing yourself to revisit and revise your views with up-to-date data fosters a mindset that is adaptable and informed. By staying open to evolving information on EPS, you can support policies and perspectives that reflect a fair and evidence-based approach to sustainability.

Through these steps, we can overcome confirmation bias and engage with environmental discussions in a way that values balanced, comprehensive data over selective information. This reflective approach helps ensure that policies and personal opinions alike are informed by a fuller understanding of both the challenges and advancements surrounding EPS.

Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Understanding of Plastic Waste

Confirmation bias strongly influences perceptions of plastic waste, often reinforcing negative views of materials like EPS while overshadowing the complexities of its environmental role. Data reveals that while EPS may be visible in beach litter, its actual mass contribution to marine pollution is minor compared to other materials. At the same time, EPS is highly recyclable in regions with suitable infrastructure and offers notable sustainability benefits, such as energy efficiency and resource conservation. Industry initiatives have made significant strides in making EPS recycling more accessible, yet these efforts are often underreported in mainstream environmental discussions.

Achieving a balanced understanding of EPS and similar materials requires addressing confirmation bias and presenting both the challenges and successes in recycling. This comprehensive approach is essential for crafting environmental policies that balance public concern with accurate data. In the next article, we will explore the Availability Heuristic, examining how the ease with which images of EPS waste come to mind can skew perceptions. By understanding these cognitive biases, we can build a more informed foundation for sustainable environmental policies.

The next planned article in this series will examine the Availability Heuristic, a cognitive bias that influences how people estimate event frequency based on the ease with which examples come to mind. In environmental policy, this bias often skews perceptions of materials like EPS, where the visibility of plastic litter can overshadow more data-informed assessments. Understanding these biases provides insights for fostering balanced, effective environmental solutions. But as always other article ideas may inspire me and drop in.