Article | Published:

Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning

Nature Climate Change volume 3, pages 413416 (2013) | Download Citation

Abstract

Environmental campaigns often promote energy conservation by appealing to economic (for example, lower electricity bills) rather than biospheric concerns (for example, reduced carbon emissions), assuming that people are primarily motivated by economic self-interest. However, people also care about maintaining a favourable view of themselves (they want to maintain a ‘positive self-concept’), and may prefer to see themselves as ‘green’ rather than ‘greedy’. Consequently, people may find economic appeals less attractive than biospheric appeals. Across two studies, participants indicated feeling better about biospheric (‘Want to protect the environment? Check your car’s tire pressure’) than economic (‘Want to save money? Check your car’s tire pressure’) tyre-check appeals. In a field experiment, we found that an economic tyre-check appeal (‘Do you care about your finances? Get a free tire check’) elicited significantly less compliance than parallel biospheric and neutral appeals. Together, these studies discredit the conventional wisdom that appealing to economic self-interest is the best way to secure behaviour change. At least in some cases, our studies suggest, this strategy is not effective.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Meeting environmental challenges: The role of Human Identity (WWF-UK, 2009); available at .

  2. 2.

    & The short list: The most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environ. Mag. 50, 12–25 (2008).

  3. 3.

    et al. Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. Am. Psychol. 66, 241–250 (2011).

  4. 4.

    , , , & Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

  5. 5.

    et al. Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Clim. Change  (2012).

  6. 6.

    The norm of self-interest. Am. Psychol. 54, 1053–1060 (1999).

  7. 7.

    , & Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 144–151 (2002).

  8. 8.

    Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good? Am. Behav. Sci. 55, 1052–1076 (2011).

  9. 9.

    The evolutionary roots of our environmental problems: Towards a Darwinian ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 78, 275–302 (2003).

  10. 10.

    The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316, 998–1002 (2007).

  11. 11.

    , & The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Market. Res. 45, 633–644 (2008).

  12. 12.

    , & Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Am. Econom. Rev. 99, 544–555 (2009).

  13. 13.

    in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4 edn (ed. Berkowits, L.) 1–34 (Academic, 1969).

  14. 14.

    Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 247–261 (2006).

  15. 15.

    The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychol. Inquiry 3, 303–311 (1992).

  16. 16.

    Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. J. Consum. Psychol. 17, 237–249 (2007).

  17. 17.

    & Licensing effect in consumer choice. J. Market. Res. 43, 259–266 (2006).

  18. 18.

    , & Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychol. Sci. 20, 523–528 (2009).

  19. 19.

    The High Price of Materialism (MIT Press, 2002).

  20. 20.

    , & Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science 319, 1687–1688 (2008).

  21. 21.

    in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 21: Social Psychological Studies of the Self: Perspectives and Programs (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 261–302 (Academic, 1988).

  22. 22.

    & On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 67, 382–394 (1994).

  23. 23.

    & To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2, 1024–1051 (2008).

  24. 24.

    & Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 38, 318 (2007).

  25. 25.

    et al. in Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems (ed. Penn, D. J.) 249–257 (Transaction, 2007).

  26. 26.

    & The dynamic interaction of personal norms and environment-friendly buying behavior: A panel study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36, 1758–1780 (2006).

  27. 27.

    & Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 63, 117–137 (2007).

  28. 28.

    & Do green products make us better people? Psychol. Sci. 21, 494–498 (2010).

  29. 29.

    Recognizing the role of positive emotions in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors. Ecopsychology 3, 1–5 (2011).

  30. 30.

    Bad blood: The moral stigmatization of paid plasma donors. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 20, 416–441 (1992).

  31. 31.

    , , , & The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J. Soc. Personal. Psychol. 78, 853–870 (2000).

  32. 32.

    , , & On the costs of self-interested economic behavior: How does stinginess get under the skin? J. Health Psychol. 15, 627–633 (2010).

  33. 33.

    & Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychol. Sci. 8, 423–429 (1997).

  34. 34.

    , , & Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. J. Socio-Econom. 31, 329–342 (2002).

  35. 35.

    , & Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89, 845–851 (2005).

  36. 36.

    & Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71, 83–93 (1996).

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

    , , & The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ. Behav. (2012), advance online publication.

  39. 39.

    & The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).

  40. 40.

    & Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 22, 34–38 (2011).

  41. 41.

    , , & Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

  42. 42.

    Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463, 296–297 (2010).

  43. 43.

    & Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change A 21, 1163–1172 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The manuscript has benefited from suggestions by K. E. Keizer and M. Keizer. We thank C. Furrow, L. Petersen, A. Dokter, G. Perlaviciute and B. Unal for their help with collecting data.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712TS Groningen, The Netherlands

    • J. W. Bolderdijk
    • , L. Steg
    •  & T. Postmes
  2. Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA

    • E. S. Geller
    •  & P. K. Lehman

Authors

  1. Search for J. W. Bolderdijk in:

  2. Search for L. Steg in:

  3. Search for E. S. Geller in:

  4. Search for P. K. Lehman in:

  5. Search for T. Postmes in:

Contributions

J.W.B. and L.S. designed Study 1. J.W.B., L.S. and T.P. designed Study 2. J.W.B., E.S.G. and P.K.L. designed Study 3. J.W.B. analysed the data and wrote the manuscript; all authors commented. J.W.B. and L.S. supervised the project.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. W. Bolderdijk.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1767

Further reading