How are anti-vaxxers not doing that?
The conservatives above don’t (as far as I can tell) see any benefit to themselves from avoiding “environmentally friendly” products. In this context, “environmentally friendly” is a synonym for “energy efficient.” They just don’t like treehuggers, so they avoid the term in order to avoid guilt-by-association. They would benefit personally from the products, and they know that, and they’re not supporting any cause they disagree with by purchasing the product; they just don’t like the sound of the term.
Anti-vaxxers have insanely stupid arguments against vaccines, but they do have arguments against them. It’s not just a case of spin.
I really have a hard time even thinking of something comparable. What if liberals were hesitant to support a charity like “Doctors Without Borders” if it were described as “pro-life,” meaning that they helped people live? It’s a real stretch, but I can’t think of anything more analogous. Maybe objecting to the word “capitalist” in product advertising? I dunno.
Really? So I guess every boycott ever is “ideology over practicality” then. Don’t buy from businesses that practice horrendous wage slavery overseas or pollute the environment, but miss out on those sweet, sweet savings!
I don’t have any specific examples, but I can suggest the kind of thing that the OP is looking for:
Imagine two identical products on the shelf. One is flamboyantly labelled with an American flag emblem and “made in America, by an American”, next to the product name.
The other one is just quietly labelled with the name of the product.
Many liberals will prefer to buy the foreign-made item, even it’s a little more expensive.
Or here’s a more realistic example: restaurants.
Liberals love ethnic food from every part of the world…but not from America. In the hip parts of New York , say near Greenwich Village, it’s easier to find Thai ,Vietnamese or Indian food than it is to find a hamburger. And don’t even think about some southern grits from good ol’ Alabama.
This is a good example, except for parity, label one product “locally sourced.” 
And even then, the parity isn’t exact: the interesting part about the original is that some conservatives would go against self-interest (i.e., saving money on energy costs) for no reason.
I think you found an uncommon but real example. I actually recall my wife and I hesitating to buy something or other (at a hardware store, maybe?) simply because of the over-the-top jingoistic “Made in America” shelf presentation.
I think your “hamburger/grits” example might be less likely, actually. Most liberals I know are almost as interested in American regional dishes, and local “best whatevers” (including hamburgers), as they are in Thai food, etc. They even sometimes dig some foods/drinks directly associated with conservatives (I guess I’m thinking of things like Coors beer), but of course from a neo-hipster, anthropological, even ironic perspective.
Liberals who disdain things that are perfectly fine for irrational ideological reasons?
You want hipsters.
Conservative here speaking up
Not to rekindle off topic debates, but when you look at how many environmentally friendly products actually are vastly inferior at least in some ways.
LED/CFLs vs. incandescent bulbs
electric cars vs. gasoline cars
DDT vs. whatever they use now
regular showerheads and toilets vs. water saving
plastic shopping bags vs. dragging reusable cloth bags all over creation
regular leaf bags vs. compostable
Phosphate detergent vs. whatever they use now
small cars vs. SUVs.
Coal power vs. conservation
If I see two widgets side by side on the store shelf, and one is labeled “environmentally friendly” and one is not, I’m probably going to by the one that is not. I wouldn’t care about making an anti-environmental statement, but if I knew nothing about widgets given the above list I’d figure there must be something inferior about the environmental product.
Gee, if only they had thought to account for that in the study!
Oh wait, they did. They demonstrated that without the “environmental” labeling, people evaluated the products as superior, or at least opted to purchase them more often. So, why you’re talking about believing the products to be inferior in some way, I have no idea.
As for your list, you seem to be suggesting that until these options are superior in every way, they would be poor choices. That’s, to be blunt, a very dim selection strategy. It strikes me as motivated by the same kind of spite being exemplified in the study.
That’s still a little different. If the two items are the same, then making a choice based on superficial reasons isn’t particularly remarkable. If two cleaning products are not meaningfully different from one another, choosing one because the packaging has a pleasing shape is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Even pizza or chicken choices are not idea examples. I’ve got plenty of places to choose pizza, and while some are obviously inferior to others, I might make decisions based on location or price as well. If I learn that the Domino’s corporation is anti-choice, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to not want my money to support them. Same for anti-gay Chik Fil A.
We need some example where one item is clearly preferable to another, but a political factor makes us choose the less preferable item. I cannot really think of a great example, though.
Of course they did! Without the “environmental” labeling people didn’t know they were looking at a likely inferior product.
“Environmental” and “inferior product” are basically synonyms. You can’t get something for nothing. Making things environmentally friendly almost always has a triple constraint: It will add to cost, reduce capability or take longer to do what it’s supposed to do.
I’m a hunter and I also do some other environmentally friendly things. I recycle. I use re-usable shopping bags. I do these despite the drawbacks of doing them because I care about the environment. I would never argue that they are practically better in any way.
Really?
How was it “over the top”?
I hate to say it, but: Why do you hate America?
Read the fucking link.
Read the fucking link.
Nonsense. There is always a reason. Perhaps Mdcastle’s post will help you understand that.
Seriously? Jesus Christ.
In the study, they confirmed that of the two options, the efficient bulb was preferred by both groups. This remained even when the efficient bulb was more costly.
The difference emerged ONLY in response to the environmental labeling.
Read the fucking link.
Yes, we did read the fucking link.
The environmental labeling is what tunes people in to the fact that it’s likely an inferior product. That’s why when the label changes it turns people off.
Without the label, people probably aren’t thinking about that.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why do you assume that people who understand this better than you didn’t read the link?
You keep asserting that it is an inferior product.
Please explain how it is an inferior product when these same people demonstrated that they would choose it over the other product when just considering the merits of the product? Why would they choose it when just considering the merits of the product even when the cost was greater?
You say that you understand this better, but these are some fundamental questions you keep glossing over. In fact, you are demonstrably wrong (read the fucking link) when you assert that it is an inferior product.
So, Debaser, you realize you are proving the study correct. You make ill-informed choices based on an unfounded emotional response to words associated with environmental labeling. Without that knee-jerk response you would see the new technology as superior and choose it over the old.
I haven’t asserted that yet, actually. I’ve stated that almost always environmentally friendly products are inferior to normal ones. Thus, it is logical to avoid environmentally friendly products if you don’t care about the environment, want to save money, or want the best product, or some combination of these.
But if you want to talk about the specific product in question, yes I will say it now. Incandescent lightbulbs are far superior to compact florescent ones.
Because they saw the environmental label, and it reminded them how fucking awful these things are.
Did you really not know how bad compact florescent bulbs were? I guess I didn’t realize I was talking to someone completely ignorant about the subject of the OP.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.