ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Plastic, synthetic material, or polymer? How material terminology shapes material meanings and informs green technology evaluations.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: 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. Methods: Study 1 ( Results: 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. Discussion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.