Jan Willem Bolderdijk

Values Determine the (In)Effectiveness of Informational Interventions in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior

Informational interventions (e.g., awareness campaigns, carbon footprint calculators) are built on the assumption that informing the public about the environmental consequences of their actions should result in increased pro-environmental intentions and behavior. However, empirical support for this reasoning is mixed. In this paper, we argue that informational interventions may succeed in improving people’s knowledge about the negative environmental consequences of one’s actions, but this knowledge will not gain motivational force if people do not consider protecting the environment an important personal value. In an experiment, we measured individual differences in value priorities, and either presented participants a movie clip that portrayed the negative environmental consequences of using bottled water, or a control movie. As predicted, we found that the environmental movie improved recipients’ knowledge of the negative environmental impact of bottled water, but this knowledge only resulted in concomitant changes in intentions and acceptability of related policies among participants who strongly endorsed biospheric (i.e. environmental) values, while having no effect on those who care less about the environment. Interestingly, the results suggest that although informational interventions are perhaps not always successful in directly affecting less environmentally-conscious recipients, they could still have beneficial effects, because they make those who strongly care about the environment more inclined to act on their values.

Promoting sustainable consumption: The risks of using financial incentives

.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Why Acting Environmentally-Friendly Feels Good: Exploring the Role of Self-Image

Recent research suggests that engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior can feel good. Current explanations for such a link do not focus on the nature of environmentally-friendly behavior itself, but rather propose well-being is more or less a side-benefit; behaviors that benefit environmental quality (e.g., spending ones money on people rather than products) also tend to make us feel good. We propose that the moral nature of environmentally-friendly behavior itself may elicit positive emotions as well, because engaging in this behavior can signal one is an environmentally-friendly and thus a good person. Our results show that engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior can indeed affect how people see themselves: participants saw themselves as being more environmentally-friendly when they engaged in more environmentally-friendly behavior (Study 1). Furthermore, environmentally-friendly behavior resulted in a more positive self-image, more strongly when it was voluntarily engaged in, compared to when it was driven by situational constraints (Study 2). In turn, the more environmentally-friendly (Study 1) and positive (Study 2) people saw themselves, the better they felt about acting environmentally-friendly. Together, these results suggest that the specific self-signal that ensues from engaging in environmentally-friendly behavior can explain why environmentally-friendly actions may elicit a good feeling.

Emissions trading for households?: A behavioral law and economics perspective

This is the first research article on expanding emissions trading in the EU to households in which law and economics is explicitly and systematically combined with behavioral science. The goal of the article is neither to plead in favor nor against emissions trading for households, but rather to provide an analysis of such a scheme. To that end, the article gathers relevant theoretical insights and discusses how established empirical findings can be used to design a potentially workable scheme. The analysis not only presents an overview of possible economic and behavioral barriers, but also creates a feedback to its institutional design by presenting possible solutions to overcome them. Downstream allocation creates a more direct and visible carbon incentive, whereas administrative costs can be reduced by concentrating monitoring and enforcement upstream. Behavioral acceptance can be boosted via strategic communication, for instance by stressing that emissions trading is both effective (emissions are capped) and fair (those who emit less, pay less). Energy conservation can be stimulated by frequently sending updates to households of their carbon transactions to make the consequences of their behavior more noticeable. Whether these necessary conditions are also sufficient to ensure political acceptance remains an open question.

Understanding Effectiveness Skepticism

Policy makers have proposed various incentive programs to curb consumption-related problems, such as traffic congestion and carbon emissions. While experts consider such programs effective in reducing those problems, consumers are more skeptical. Although this “effectiveness skepticism” is currently viewed as an important cause of public opposition, the authors argue that it may also arise as a consequence of opposition. Specifically, consumers oppose policies they consider personally unattractive or unfair. This opposition motivates them to also be skeptical about the potential effectiveness of such policies. Three studies that include a variety of methods, policies, and samples provide empirical support for this reasoning: perceptions of expected effects can be biased by consumers’ perceptions of personal attractiveness and fairness. In line with this causal ordering, the authors find that offering optimistic effectiveness estimates, although successful in reducing effectiveness skepticism, did not boost policy support. Policy makers aiming to boost support prior to implementation should thus not only communicate a policys effectiveness, but also address other causes of opposition.

When Do Morally Motivated Innovators Elicit Inspiration Instead of Irritation

Innovators (i.e., consumers who are the first to adopt an innovation) are pivotal for the societal diffusion of sustainable innovations. But when are innovators most influential? Recent work suggests that morally motivated innovators (i.e., consumers who adopt an innovation out of concern for the welfare of others) can make fellow consumers who have not yet adopted that innovation feel morally inadequate. As a self-defense mechanism, those fellow consumers might dismiss these innovators and their choices. As a result, ironically, morally motivated innovators might discourage others to adopt sustainable innovations. In an experimental study, we replicate this pattern, but also show that moral innovators can elicit a more positive response as well. Specifically, our results offer initial evidence that morally motivated innovators may be more inspiring than self-interested innovators, provided that their actions do not directly pose a threat to the moral self-concept of observers. In sum, our research sheds empirical light on the conditions under which innovators are likely to facilitate, rather than slow down the transition to a more sustainable society.

Can Engagement in Environmentally-Friendly Behavior Increase Well-Being?

The transition to a sustainable society is an important goal in the coming years. For this transition individual behavior change is necessary. However, engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior may entail some level of discomfort or may involve giving up certain things. Consequently, it is often assumed that people see acting in an environmentally-friendly way as something that would decrease their quality of life. We argue that there is also a brighter view on environmentally-friendly behavior – a view in which engagement may even increase quality of life. In this chapter, we discuss the relationship between environmentally-friendly behavior and quality of life, and give several explanations for why positive and negative relationships might exist. Most importantly, we make a distinction between environmentally-friendly behavior as giving pleasure, and environmentally-friendly behavior as giving meaning, which both have implications for quality of life. Furthermore, we introduce the self-concept as a possible explanation for why engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior could increase quality of life, and discuss autonomy, individual values and the perceived environmental impact of the behavior as factors influencing when engagement could increase quality of life. Finally, we mention practical implications making the distinction between environmentally-friendly behavior as giving pleasure versus giving meaning may have.