Experimental evidence on the role of framing, difficulty and domain-similarity in shaping behavioral spillovers.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
16
08
2022
accepted:
02
09
2024
medline:
25
10
2024
pubmed:
25
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Does prompting people to volunteer for the climate spur or hamper further environmental engagement? We address this question in an online experiment with 10,670 German respondents. First, respondents read a text explaining how to help scientists fight climate change. Second, participants choose whether to do a real-effort task, like the behavior emphasized in the text. Third, respondents can sign a petition against climate change. In Study 1, we manipulate the narrative of the texts. We compare narratives condemning inaction or praising climate action against a neutral narrative (control) and an unrelated article (placebo). In Study 2, we investigate how the difficulty of the first behavior moderates behavioral spillovers. In Study 3, we test if the similarity between the domains of the two behaviors (e.g., environment, health) moderates spillover effects. None of our narratives increase the uptake of the real-effort task. Doing the real-effort task does not increase the likelihood of signing the petition either. Difficulty and domain-similarity do not moderate these effects.Protocol registration The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on January 1, 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JPT8G .
Identifiants
pubmed: 39448619
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71988-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-71988-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25124Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926 .
Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, 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, 1–13 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12457-2
Carlsson, F., Gravert, C., Johansson-Stenman, O. & Kurz, V. The use of green nudges as an environmental policy instrument. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 15, 216–237 (2021).
doi: 10.1086/715524
Stern, P. C. A reexamination on how behavioral interventions can promote household action to limit climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–3 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14653-x
van der Linden, S. & Goldberg, M. H. Alternative meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to promote action on climate change yields different conclusions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–2 (2020).
Ettinger, J., Walton, P., Painter, J. & DiBlasi, T. Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Clim. Change 164, 19 (2021).
Bushell, S., Colley, T. & Workman, M. A unified narrative for climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 971–973 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2726
Bushell, S., Buisson, G. S., Workman, M. & Colley, T. Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 28, 39–49 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.001
Maki, A. et al. Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat. Sustain. 2, 307–315 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9
Galizzi, M. M. & Whitmarsh, L. How to measure behavioral spillovers: A methodological review and checklist. Front. Psychol. 10, 342 (2019).
pubmed: 31024368
pmcid: 6460990
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00342
Carrico, A. R., Raimi, K. T., Truelove, H. B. & Eby, B. Putting your money where your mouth is: an experimental test of pro-environmental spillover from reducing meat consumption to monetary donations. Environ. Behav. 50, 723–748 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/0013916517713067
Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 127–138 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
Dolan, P. & Galizzi, M. M. Like ripples on a pond: behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. J. Econ. Psychol. 47, 1–16 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M. & Schultz, W. P. Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review and research agenda. Environ. Educ. Res. 23, 573–589 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148
Wolstenholme, E., Poortinga, W. & Whitmarsh, L. Two birds, one stone: The effectiveness of health and environmental messages to reduce meat consumption and encourage pro-environmental behavioral spillover. Front. Psychol. 11, 577111 (2020).
pubmed: 33117243
pmcid: 7575709
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577111
Liu, Y., Kua, H. W. & Lu, Y. Spillover effects from energy conservation goal-setting: A field intervention study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 170, 105570 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105570
Van Rookhuijzen, M., De Vet, E. & Adriaanse, M. A. The effects of nudges: One-shot only? Exploring the temporal spillover effects of a default nudge. Front. Psychol. (2021).
Alt, M. & Gallier, C. Incentives and intertemporal behavioral spillovers: A two-period experiment on charitable giving. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 200, 959–972 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.05.028
Clot, S., Della Giusta, M. & Jewell, S. Once good, always good? Testing nudge’s spillovers on pro environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 54, 655–669 (2022).
doi: 10.1177/00139165211060524
Shreedhar, G. & Galizzi, M. M. Personal or planetary health? Direct, spillover and carryover effects of non-monetary benefits of vegetarian behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 78, 101710 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101710
Margetts, E. A. & Kashima, Y. Spillover between pro-environmental behaviours: The role of resources and perceived similarity. J. Environ. Psychol. 49, 30–42 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.005
Alacevich, C., Bonev, P. & Söderberg, M. Pro-environmental interventions and behavioral spillovers: Evidence from organic waste sorting in Sweden. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 108, 102470 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102470
Picard, J. & Banerjee, S. Behavioural spillovers unpacked: estimating the side effects of social norm nudges. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publications/?search=&post_types%5B%5D=publication&type=publication-type%7C435 (2023).
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. (2021).
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R. & Newsom, J. T. Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 318 (1995).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
Cialdini, R. B. Interpersonal influence. (1994).
Festinger, L. Cognitive dissonance. Sci. Am. 207, 93–106 (1962).
pubmed: 13892642
doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K. & Sachs, O. For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy 57, 160–171 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.021
Mullen, E. & Monin, B. Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 363–385 (2016).
pubmed: 26393870
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115120
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D. & Norton, M. I. Paying to be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Manag. Sci. 58, 179–187 (2012).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1437
Clot, S., Grolleau, G. & Ibanez, L. Smug alert! exploring self-licensing behavior in a cheating game. Econ. Lett. 123, 191–194 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.01.039
Freedman, J. L. & Fraser, S. C. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4, 195 (1966).
pubmed: 5969145
doi: 10.1037/h0023552
Lanzini, P. & Thøgersen, J. Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: An intervention study. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 381–390 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.006
Diekmann, A. & Preisendörfer, P. Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15, 441–472 (2003).
doi: 10.1177/1043463103154002
Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F. Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 225–236 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
Thøgersen, J. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 93–103 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00039-2
Truelove, H. B., Yeung, K. L., Carrico, A. R., Gillis, A. J. & Raimi, K. T. From plastic bottle recycling to policy support: An experimental test of pro-environmental spillover. J. Environ. Psychol. 46, 55–66 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.004
Jessoe, K., Lade, G. E., Loge, F. & Spang, E. Spillovers from behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from water and energy use. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 8, 315–346 (2021).
Ek, C. & Miliute-Plepiene, J. Behavioral spillovers from food-waste collection in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 89, 168–186 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.01.004
Schusser, S. & Bostedt, G. Green behavioural (In) consistencies: Are pro-environmental behaviours in different domains substitutes or complements?. Environ. Econ. 10, 23–47 (2019).
doi: 10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.03
Sintov, N., Geislar, S. & White, L. V. Cognitive accessibility as a new factor in proenvironmental spillover: Results from a field study of household food waste management. Environ. Behav. 51, 50–80 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/0013916517735638
Corazzini, L., Cotton, C. & Valbonesi, P. Donor coordination in project funding: Evidence from a threshold public goods experiment. J. Public Econ. 128, 16–29 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.05.005
Krieg, J. & Samek, A. When charities compete: A laboratory experiment with simultaneous public goods. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 66, 40–57 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.009
Meer, J. Does fundraising create new giving?. J. Public Econ. 145, 82–93 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.009
Deck, C. & Murphy, J. J. Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities. Eur. Econ. Rev. 112, 91–106 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.12.004
Filiz-Ozbay, E. & Uler, N. Demand for giving to multiple charities: An experimental study. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 17, 725–753 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvy011
Carlsson, F., Jaime, M. & Villegas, C. Behavioral spillover effects from a social information campaign. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109, 102325 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102325
Dolan, P., Galizzi, M. M. & Navarro-Martinez, D. Paying people to eat or not to eat? Carryover effects of monetary incentives on eating behaviour. Soc. Sci. Med. 133, 153–158 (2015).
pubmed: 25864152
pmcid: 4418444
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.002
Bech-Larsen, T. & Kazbare, L. Spillover of diet changes on intentions to approach healthy food and avoid unhealthy food. Health Educ. (2014).
Carpenter, C. S. & Lawler, E. C. Direct and spillover effects of middle school vaccination requirements. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 11, 95–125 (2019).
doi: 10.1257/pol.20170067
Mazar, N. & Zhong, C.-B. Do green products make us better people?. Psychol. Sci. 21, 494–498 (2010).
pubmed: 20424089
doi: 10.1177/0956797610363538
List, J. A. & Momeni, F. Leveraging upfront payments to curb employee misbehavior: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 130, 103601 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103601
Noblet, C. L. & McCoy, S. K. Does one good turn deserve another? Evidence of domain-specific licensing in energy behavior. Environ. Behav. 50, 839–863 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/0013916517718022
Garvey, A. & Bolton, L. The licensing effect revisited: How virtuous behavior heightens the pleasure derived from subsequent hedonic consumption. J. Mark. Behav. Forthcom. (2017).
Bouman, T., Steg, L. & Kiers, H. A. Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 9, 564 (2018).
pubmed: 29743874
pmcid: 5931026
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T. & Insko, C. A. Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 947 (2011).
pubmed: 21517196
doi: 10.1037/a0022641
Bruhn, M. & McKenzie, D. In pursuit of balance: Randomization in practice in development field experiments. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1, 200–232 (2009).
doi: 10.1257/app.1.4.200
Picard, J. Double-edged nudges? micro-foundations to behavioural interventions and their spillover effects. Available SSRN (2021).
Rivers, D. & Vuong, Q. H. Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. J. Econom. 39, 347–366 (1988).
doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(88)90063-2
Wooldridge, J. M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. (MIT press, 2010).
Evans, W. N. & Schwab, R. M. Finishing high school and starting college: Do Catholic schools make a difference?. Q. J. Econ. 110, 941–974 (1995).
doi: 10.2307/2946645
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A. & Baker, R. M. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is Weak. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 443–450 (1995).
Staiger, D. O. & Stock, J. H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. (1994).
Stock, J. H. & Yogo, M. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. (2002).
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370 (2001).
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Rozin, P. & Royzman, E. B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 296–320 (2001).
doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
Homar, A. R. & Cvelbar, L. K. The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecol. Econ. 183, 106950 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950
Maier, M. et al. No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2200300119 (2022).
pubmed: 35858389
pmcid: 9351501
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2200300119
Berger, S. & Wyss, A. M. Measuring pro-environmental behavior using the carbon emission task. J. Environ. Psychol. 75, 101613 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101613
Lange, F., Steinke, A. & Dewitte, S. The pro-environmental behavior task: A laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 56, 46–54 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.007
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. The Work for Environmental Protection Task: A consequential web-based procedure for studying pro-environmental behavior. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 133–145 (2021).
pubmed: 34109560
doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01617-2
Alsan, M. & Eichmeyer, S. Experimental evidence on the effectiveness of nonexperts for improving vaccine demand. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 16, 394–414 (2024).
pubmed: 38433953
pmcid: 10907065
doi: 10.1257/pol.20210393
Banerjee, A. et al. Can a Trusted Messenger Change Behavior when Information is Plentiful? Evidence from the First Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in West Bengal. Tech. Rep. (2022).
Bosshard, A. et al. Limited overlap between behavioral tasks, pro-environmental propensity, and carbon footprint. J. Environ. Psychol. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102297 .
Lauren, N., Fielding, K. S., Smith, L. & Louis, W. R. You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 48, 191–199 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004