Letter | Published:

Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour

Nature Climate Change volume 3, pages 122125 (2013) | Download Citation


Inspired by the principles used to market physical products, campaigns to promote pro-environmental behaviour have increasingly emphasized self-interested (for example, economic) reasons for engaging with a self-transcendent cause (that is, protecting the environment)1,2. Yet, psychological evidence about values and behaviour suggests that giving self-interested reasons, rather than self-transcending reasons, to carry out a self-transcending action should be ineffective at increasing self-transcending behaviour more generally3,4. In other words, such a campaign may fail to cause spillover, or an increase in other, different environmental behaviours5. Here we show that recycling rates are dependent on the information participants receive about a separate environmental behaviour, car-sharing (carpooling in the USA). In two experiments, we found that recycling was significantly higher than control when participants received environmental information about car-sharing, but was no different from control when they received financial information or (in experiment 2) received both financial and environmental information. Our results suggest that, congruent with value theory, positive spillover from one environmental message to another behaviour (car-sharing to recycling) may occur primarily when self-transcending reasons alone are made salient.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Saving energy at home; available via  (2011).

  2. 2.

    Climate change—What You Can Do  (2011).

  3. 3.

    et al. The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 800–816 (2005).

  4. 4.

    in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 1–65 (Academic, 1992).

  5. 5.

    & Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. J. Consum. Pol. 32, 141–163 (2009).

  6. 6.

    & Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 1010–1028 (2005).

  7. 7.

    , , & Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 699–715 (2009).

  8. 8.

    , , & Applying the value of equality unequally: Effects of value instantiations that vary in typicality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 598–614 (2009).

  9. 9.

    & Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 434–447 (2002).

  10. 10.

    & To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environ. Behav. 38, 550–569 (2006).

  11. 11.

    An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof. Psychol.-Res. Pr. 40, 532–538 (2009).

  12. 12.

    European Commission. Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment Report No. 295/EB68.2 (2008); available via .

  13. 13.

    Behavioral responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 13–23 (2009).

  14. 14.

    in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 6 (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 1–62 (Academic, 1972).

  15. 15.

    & The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: Evidence for a self-perception process. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 25, 235–241 (2003).

  16. 16.

    , , & Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. Int. J. Res. Mark. 25, 46–55 (2008).

  17. 17.

    & Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-edientity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 305–314 (2010).

  18. 18.

    , & Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 392–404 (2010).

Download references


We wish to thank D. Turetsky, D. Diamondstone and F. Harrell for their statistical advice.

Author information


  1. School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

    • Laurel Evans
    • , Gregory R. Maio
    • , Adam Corner
    • , Carl J. Hodgetts
    • , Sameera Ahmed
    •  & Ulrike Hahn
  2. School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

    • Laurel Evans


  1. Search for Laurel Evans in:

  2. Search for Gregory R. Maio in:

  3. Search for Adam Corner in:

  4. Search for Carl J. Hodgetts in:

  5. Search for Sameera Ahmed in:

  6. Search for Ulrike Hahn in:


A.C., G.R.M., L.E. and U.H. designed experiment 1; A.C., C.J.H., G.R.M., L.E., S.A. and U.H. designed experiment 2. A.C., C.J.H. and L.E. carried out experiment 1 and analysed the data. S.A. carried out experiment 2; L.E. and S.A. analysed the data. L.E., G.R.M. and U.H. wrote the manuscript; all authors commented on the manuscript. G.R.M. and U.H. supervised the project.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Laurel Evans or Gregory R. Maio.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading