Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour

Subjects

Abstract

Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions and limit global climate change. Many reviews and meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviour. Yet, it remains unclear which interventions are most effective, when and why. Because interventions are more likely to encourage pro-environmental behaviour when they target key determinants of the relevant behaviour, it is critical to understand which interventions target which determinants. We introduce a classification system that links six types of interventions to 13 determinants of environmental behaviour. Our classification enables a theory-based understanding of when and why interventions are effective (or not) in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour and provides guidelines to practitioners to select interventions that are most likely to change the key determinants of a specific target behaviour, and thus likely to be the most successful in changing behaviour in the given context.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Procedure for selecting promising interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviour.

References

  1. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  2. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  3. Wynes, S. & Nicholas, K. A. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074024 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall, M. P., Lewis, N. A. & Ellsworth, P. C. Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. J. Environ. Psychol. 56, 55–62 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Steg, L. Limiting climate change requires research on climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 759–761 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F. & Ford, R. The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1205–1227 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nisa, C. F., Belanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 4545 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Composto, J. W. & Weber, E. U. Effectiveness of behavioural interventions to reduce household energy demand: a scoping review. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 063005 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Brosch, T. The effectiveness of nudging: a meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107346118 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Andor, M. A. & Fels, K. M. Behavioral economics and energy conservation—a systematic review of non-price interventions and their causal effects. Ecol. Econ. 148, 178–210 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Delmas, M. A., Fischlein, M. & Asensio, O. I. Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61, 729–739 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Varotto, A. & Spagnolli, A. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling: a systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 168–188 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schultz, P. W. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior. Eur. Psychol. 19, 107–117 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Michie, S. et al. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: a protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of action. Ann. Behav. Med. 52, 501–512 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Geller, E. S. in Handbook of Environmental Psychology (eds Bechtel, R. B. & Churchman, A.) 525–540 (Wiley, 2002).

  17. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 273–291 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Osbaldiston, R. & Schott, J. P. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science. Environ. Behav. 44, 257–299 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McCaul, K. D. & Kopp, J. T. Effects of goal setting and commitment on increasing metal recycling. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 377–379 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Klöckner, C. A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1028–1038 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vesely, S. et al. Climate change action as a project of identity: eight meta-analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102322 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schultz, P. W. in New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures (eds Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C.) 67–82 (National Academy Press, 2002).

  24. Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M. (eds) Environmental Psychology: An Introduction 2nd edn (Wiley, 2018).

  25. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rogers, R. W. in Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook (eds Cacioppo, B. L. & Petty, L. L.) 153–176 (Guildford, 1983).

  27. Schwartz, S. H. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. Berkowitz, L.) Vol. 10, 221–278 (Academic Press, 1977).

  28. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. A value–belief–norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Res. Hum. Ecol. 6, 81–97 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stern, P. C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Steg, L. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 277–292 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwartz, S. H. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2, 11 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. The “New Environmental Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 10–19 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Guagnano, G. A. The New Ecological Paradigm in social–psychological context. Environ. Behav. 27, 723–743 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brosch, T. & Steg, L. Leveraging emotion for sustainable action. One Earth 4, 1693–1703 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G. & Bartels, J. The norm activation model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 141–153 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sjöberg, L. Emotions and risk perception. Risk Manage. 9, 223–237 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dang, H., Li, E. & Bruwer, J. Understanding climate change adaptive behaviour of farmers: an integrated conceptual framework. Int. J. Clim. Change Impacts Responses 3, 255–272 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Westcott, R., Ronan, K., Bambrick, H. & Taylor, M. Expanding protection motivation theory: investigating an application to animal owners and emergency responders in bushfire emergencies. BMC Psychol. 5, 13 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Taufik, D. & Venhoeven, L. in Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (eds Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M.) 189–197 (Wiley, 2018).

  42. Shipley, N. J. & van Riper, C. J. Pride and guilt predict pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis of correlational and experimental evidence. J. Environ. Psychol. 79, 101753 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ateş, H. Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 24, 169–180 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. van der Werff, E. & Steg, L. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: comparing the value–belief–norm theory and the value–identity–personal norm model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22, 107–114 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ajibade, I. & Boateng, G. O. Predicting why people engage in pro-sustainable behaviors in Portland Oregon: the role of environmental self-identity, personal norm, and socio-demographics. J. Environ. Manage. 289, 112538 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schuster, C., Goseberg, T., Arnold, J. & Sundermann, A. I share because of who I am: values, identities, norms, and attitudes explain sharing intentions. J. Soc. Psychol., https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2044282 (2022).

  47. Gatersleben, B. & van der Werff, E. in Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (eds Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M.) 198–206 (Wiley, 2018).

  48. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. I am what I am, by looking past the present. Environ. Behav. 46, 626–657 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Whitmarsh, L. & O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 305–314 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van der Werff, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 55–63 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Abrahamse, W. Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why (Academic Press, 2019).

  52. Abrahamse, W. & Matthies, E. in Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (eds Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M.) 261–272 (Wiley, 2018).

  53. Bolderdijk, J. W., Lehman, P. K. & Geller, E. S. in Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (eds Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M.) 273–282 (Wiley, 2018).

  54. Grilli, G. & Curtis, J. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: a review of methods and approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110039 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schultz, P. W. & Kaiser, F. in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (ed. Clayton, S. D.) 556–580 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  56. Blankenberg, A. & Alhusen, H. On the Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior: A Literature Review and Guide for the Empirical Economist (University of Göttingen, Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research, 2019).

  57. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N. & Jagers, S. C. Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 235–240 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J. Psychol. 49, 141–157 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 18, 1–8 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M. & Siegrist, M. Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change 114, 189–209 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kaiser, F. & Fuhrer, U. Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 598–613 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15, 199–213 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kothe, E. J. et al. Protection motivation theory and pro‐environmental behaviour: a systematic mapping review. Aust. J. Psychol. 71, 411–432 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Joshi, Y. & Rahman, Z. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. Int. Strateg. Manage. Rev. 3, 128–143 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stankuniene, G., Streimikiene, D. & Kyriakopoulos, G. L. Systematic literature review on behavioral barriers of climate change mitigation in households. Sustainability 12, 7369 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tilikidou, I. & Zotos, Y. Ecological consumer behaviour: review and suggestions for future research. Prospettive e Proposte Mediterranee Rivista di Economia, Agricoltura e Ambiente 1, 14–21 (1999).

  67. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. de Groot, J. I. M. & Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 149, 425–449 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Delaroche, M. Adoption of conservation practices: what have we learned from two decades of social–psychological approaches? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 25–35 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hoffmann, C., Abraham, C., White, M. P., Ball, S. & Skippon, S. M. What cognitive mechanisms predict travel mode choice? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Transp. Rev. 37, 631–652 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Okumah, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Novo, P. & Chapman, P. J. Revisiting the determinants of pro-environmental behaviour to inform land management policy: a meta-analytic structural equation model application. Land 9, 135 (2020).

  72. Schwartz, S. H. & Howard, J. A. in Altruism and Helping Behaviour (eds Rushton, J. P. & Sorrentino, R. M.) 189–211 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981).

  73. Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., van der Werff, E. & Ünal, A. B. A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. J. Environ. Psychol. 64, 78–97 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Lokhorst, A. M., Werner, C., Staats, H., van Dijk, E. & Gale, J. L. Commitment and behavior change. Environ. Behav. 45, 3–34 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Cialdini, R. B. Influence: Science and Practice (HarperCollins, 2001).

  77. Taufik, D., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Steg, L. Acting green elicits a literal warm glow. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 37–40 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. van der Linden Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1, 28–30 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Turuga, R. M. R., Howart, R. B. & Borsuk, M. E. Pro-environmental behavior: rational choice meets moral motivation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 211–224 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lin, M.-T., Zhu, D., Liu, C. & Kim, P. B. A meta-analysis of antecedents of pro-environmental behavioral intention of tourists and hospitality consumers. Tour. Manage. 93,104566 (2022).

  81. Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Steg, L. Why acting environmentally-friendly feels good: exploring the role of self-image. Front. Psychol. 7, 1846 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Morren, M. & Grinstein, A. Explaining environmental behavior across borders: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 47, 91–106 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Carfora, V., Zeiske, N., van der Werff, E., Steg, L. & Catellani, P. Adding dynamic norm to environmental information in messages promoting the reduction of meat consumption. Environ. Commun., https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2062019 (2022).

  84. Asensio, O. I. & Delmas, M. A. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E510–E515 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Bain Paul, G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Grundy, E. A. C. et al. Interventions that influence animal-product consumption: a meta-review. Future Food 5,100111 (2022).

  87. Farrow, K., Grolleau, G. & Ibanez, L. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140, 1–13 (2017).

  88. Masson, T. & Fritsche, I. We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘we’: a state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 89–96 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Niemiec, R. M., Champine, V., Vaske, J. J. & Mertens, A. Does the impact of norms vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33, 1024–1040 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldberg, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Carrico, A. R. & Riemer, M. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 1–13 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G. & Siero, F. Modification of driving behavior in a large transport organization: a field experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 417–423 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Mortensen, C. R. et al. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10, 201–210 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Pettifor, H., Wilson, C., Axsen, J., Abrahamse, W. & Anable, J. Social influence in the global diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles—a meta-analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 62, 247–261 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. St John, F. A. V., Edwards-Jones, G. & Jones, J. P. G. Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social psychology. Wildl. Res. 37, 658–667 (2010).

  99. Thøgersen, J. The mediated influences of perceived norms on pro-environmental behavior. Rev. Econ. Polit. 124, 179–193 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Appelbaum, S. H. & Hare, A. Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: some human resource applications. J. Manage. Psychol. 11, 33–47 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Zhuang, W., Luo, X. & Riaz, M. U. On the factors influencing green purchase intention: a meta-analysis approach. Front. Psychol. 12, 644020 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Udall, A. M., Groot, J. I. M., Jong, S. B. & Shankar, A. How do I see myself? A systematic review of identities in pro‐environmental behaviour research. J. Consum. Behav. 19, 108–141 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow (Macmillan, 2011).

  104. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

  105. Inzlicht, M., Legault, L. & Teper, R. Exploring the mechanisms of self-control improvement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 302–307 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Latham, G. P. & Locke, E. A. New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. Eur. Psychol. 12, 290–300 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Bolderdijk, J. W., Gorsira, M., Keizer, K. & Steg, L. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 8, e83911 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Boomsma, C. & Steg, L. The effect of information and values on acceptability of reduced street lighting. J. Environ. Psychol. 39, 22–31 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Steg, L. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 145–156 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H. & Larrick, R. P. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9314–9319 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Laursen, B. & Faur, S. What does it mean to be susceptible to influence? A brief primer on peer conformity and developmental changes that affect it. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 46, 222–237 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W. & Capstick, S. Behaviour change to address climate change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42, 76–81 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Steg, L., Keizer, K., Buunk, A. P. & Rothengatter, T. Applied Social Psychology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  116. Buunk, A. P., Dijkstra, P. & van Vught, M. Applying Social Psychology: From Problems to Solutions (Sage, 2021).

  117. Stern, P. C., DIetz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J. M. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Energy efficiency merits more than a nudge. Science 328, 308–309 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J. & Steffens, N. K. Why a nudge is not enough: a social identity critique of governance by stealth. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 54, 81–98 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Siegel, J. T., Navarro, M. A., Tan, C. N. & Hyde, M. K. Attitude–behavior consistency, the principle of compatibility, and organ donation: a classic innovation. Health Psychol. 33, 1084–1091 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. van der Werff, E. & Steg, L. One model to predict them all: predicting energy behaviours with the norm activation model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6, 8–14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Steg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods and Literature Review.

Supplementary Table 1

Coding literature review determinants.

Supplementary Table 2

Coding literature review interventions.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Valkengoed, A.M., Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 6, 1482–1492 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing