Skip to main content

Behavioral Spillovers in Environmental Behavior

Domains, Links, and Economic and Psychological Factors

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Sustainability and Environmental Decision Making

Part of the book series: Sustainable Development ((SD))

Abstract

Favorable environmental behavior in daily life can make a substantial contribution in tackling current environmental challenges. For understanding and influencing environmental behavior, knowledge on behavioral spillovers is crucial: How does one beneficial act affect subsequent environmental behavior? Recent studies on behavioral spillovers observed two opposing phenomena: Moral consistency describes a gratifying effect where people’s subsequent behavior is improved due to a first favorable action. Moral self-licensing depicts people’s tendency for adverse conduct subsequent to a beneficial initial behavior. Two questions are pertinent: (1) Which environmental behaviors are linked and could be prone to spillover effects? (2) Which economic and psychological factors might moderate whether moral consistency or moral self-licensing is more likely to occur? In a first study, we administer a survey with a representative sample of the Swiss population and investigate correlations among a range of environmental behaviors that extends the scope of previous studies. We identify four clusters of environmental behavior that are strongly connected to each other. A second study employs an online experiment that tests proposed moderators of moral consistency and moral self-licensing effects. We find that none of the examined moderators is capable of triggering moral self-licensing in the realm of environmental behavior. However, our evidence shows that generally more closely related behaviors are more susceptible to behavioral spillovers as compared to distantly related behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bauer J (2009) Perspektivübernahme mit zukünftigen Generationen: als Mittel, umweltschützendes Verhalten zu erhöhen – ein Experiment. VDM Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 6. Elsevier, pp 1–62. Academic Press, New York. http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SP-Theory-Bem-Advances.pdf

  • Blanken I, van de Ven N, Zeelenberg M (2015) A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 41(4):540–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratt C (1999) Consumers’ environmental behavior: generalized, sector-based, or compensatory? Environ Behav 31(1):28–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Torres MMJ, Villegas CI (2016) Spillover effects from a social information campaign. Environ Dev 16(06)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1940) A culture-free intelligence test. J Educ Psychol 31(3):161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway P, Peetz J (2012) When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38(7):907–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook AJ, Kerr GN, Moore K (2002) Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J Econ Psychol 23(5):557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3):649–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • der Werff EV, Steg L, Keizer K (2014) I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ Behav 46(5):626–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P, Galizzi MM (2015) Like ripples on a pond: behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. J Econ Psychol 47:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan MB, Oswald FL, Baird BM, Lucas RE (2006) The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol Assess 18(2):192–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”. J Environ Educ 9(4):10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk A, Becker A, Dohmen T, Huffman D, Sunde U (2013) An experimentally validated preference survey module. University of Bonn, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2016) Stat-tab interactive tables (fso). https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/pxweb/en/. Accessed 29 May 2018

  • Festinger L (1957) Cognitive dissonance theory. (1989) Primary prevention of HIV/AIDS: psychological approaches. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1962) A theory of cognitive dissonance, vol 2. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach A, Zhang Y, Koo M (2009) The dynamics of self-regulation. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 20(1):315–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson K (n.d.) French translation of the 50-item lexical big-five factor markers and MPQ conservatism. https://ipip.ori.org/French50-itemBigFiveFactorMarkers&Conservatism.htm. Accessed 25 Apr 2018

  • Gneezy A, Imas A, Brown A, Nelson LD, Norton MI (2012) Paying to be nice: consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Manag Sci 58(1):179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander EP (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychol Rev 65(2):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard G, Roe BE, Nisbet EC, Martin JF (2017) Hypothetical bias mitigation techniques in choice experiments: do cheap talk and honesty priming effects fade with repeated choices? J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4(2):543–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser FG, Hübner G, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 35(10):2150–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzini P, Thøgersen J (2014) Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: an intervention study. J Environ Psychol 40:381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Bonilla LM, López-Bonilla JM (2016) From the new environmental paradigm to the brief ecological paradigm: a revised scale in golf tourism. Anatolia 27(2):227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki A, Rothman AJ (2017) Understanding proenvironmental intentions and behaviors: the importance of considering both the behavior setting and the type of behavior. J Soc Psychol 157(5):517–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers MHC et al (2014) On justifying eco-unfriendly behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. FMG, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijers MH, Verlegh PW, Noordewier MK, Smit EG (2015) The dark side of donating: how donating may license environmentally unfriendly behavior. Soc Influ 10(4):250–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monin B, Miller DT (2001) Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(1):33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen E, Monin B (2016) Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 67(1):363–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisan M, Horenczyk G (1990) Moral balance: the effect of prior behaviour on decision in moral conflict. Br J Soc Psychol 29(1):29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noblet CL, McCoy SK (2018). Does one good turn deserve another? Evidence of domain-specific licensing in energy behavior. Environment and Behavior, 50(8):839–863

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2017) Tackling environmental problems with the help of behavioural insights. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. Environmental Psychology on the Move

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhorst J, Klöckner CA, Matthies E (2015) Saving electricity – for the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. J Environ Psychol 43:125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streib H, Wiedmaier M (2001) IPIP Five Factors 100 item version-German translation. Forschungsstelle Biographische Religionsforschung, University of Bielefeld

    Google Scholar 

  • Susewind M, Hoelzl E (2014) A matter of perspective: why past moral behavior can sometimes encourage and other times discourage future moral striving. J Appl Soc Psychol 44(3):201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (1999) Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. J Econ Psychol 20(1):53–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. J Environ Psychol 24(1):93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J, Crompton T (2009) Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. J Consum Policy 32(2):141–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2006) To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environ Behav 38(4):550–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiefenbeck V, Staake T, Roth K, Sachs O (2013) For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy 57:160–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP (2014) Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Chang 29:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Portmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Online Appendix

Survey Study 1: Linked Behaviors

In this section, we present the survey questions for study 1 in English. In the study, we used only German and French questionnaires that have been translated for the paper. The participants answered four blocks of questions where each block covers the same ten pro-environmental behaviors. Afterwards, they filled a questionnaire regarding personality, environmental attitudes, preferences, and political views.

English Version (Translated)

How often did you engage in the following behaviors in the past? Choose your answer on a scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always):

  • During the last year, I recycled paper.

  • During the last year, I conserved water in daily life.

  • During the last year, I saved electricity in daily life.

  • During the last year, I chose to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car.

  • During the last year, I avoided to use air travel.

  • During the last year, I dressed warmly at home on cold days to reduce heating.

  • During the last year, I bought seasonal, local, and organic food.

  • During the last year, I replaced electrical devices (e.g., the smart phone) only if they were defective.

  • During the last year, I did not throw away food.

  • During the last year, I recycled aluminum, glass, and PET.

How important are the following behaviors to you personally? Choose your answer on a scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree):

  • Recycling paper is personally very important to me.

  • Conserving water in daily life is personally very important to me.

  • Saving electricity in daily life is personally very important to me.

  • Choosing to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car is personally very important to me.

  • Avoiding to use air travel is personally very important to me.

  • Dressing warmly at home on cold days to reduce heating is personally very important to me.

  • Buying seasonal, local, and organic food is personally very important to me.

  • Replacing electrical devices (e.g., the smart phone) only if they are defective is personally very important to me.

  • Not throwing away food is personally very important to me.

  • Recycling aluminum, glass, and PET is personally very important to me.

What do you personally think about the following behaviors? Choose your answer on a scale from −4 (very bad) to 4 (very good):

  • For me, recycling paper is….

  • For me, conserving water in daily life is….

  • For me, saving electricity in daily life is….

  • For me, choosing to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car is….

  • For me, avoiding to use air travel is….

  • For me, dressing warmly at home on cold days to reduce heating is….

  • For me, buying seasonal, local, and organic food is….

  • For me, replacing electrical devices (e.g., the smart phone) only if they are defective is….

  • For me, not throwing away food is….

  • For me, recycling aluminum, glass, and PET is….

How often do you intend to engage in the following behaviors in the future? Choose your answer on a scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always):

  • During the next year, I will recycle paper.

  • During the next year, I will conserve water in daily life.

  • During the next year, I will save electricity in daily life.

  • During the next year, I will choose to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car.

  • During the next year, I will avoid to use air travel.

  • During the next year, I will dress warmly at home on cold days to reduce heating.

  • During the next year, I will buy seasonal, local, and organic food.

  • During the next year, I will replace electrical devices (e.g., the smart phone) only if they are defective.

  • During the next year, I will not throw away food.

  • During the next year, I will recycle aluminum, glass, and PET.

Please answer how the following statements describe you and your personality. Please use a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree):

  • I am the life of the party.

  • I sympathize with other’s feelings.

  • I get chores done right away.

  • I have frequent mood swings.

  • I have a vivid imagination.

  • I don’t talk a lot.

  • I am not interested in other people’s problems.

  • I often forget to put things back in their proper place.

  • I am relaxed most of the time.

  • I am not interested in abstract ideas.

  • I talk to a lot of different people at parties.

  • I feel others’ emotions.

  • I like order.

  • I get upset easily.

  • I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

  • I keep in the background.

  • I am not really interested in others.

  • I make a mess of things.

  • I seldom feel blue.

  • I do not have a good imagination.

We would like to know your opinion on several environmental topics. Please use a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to assess to what extent you agree to each statement:

  • Humans are severely abusing the environment.

  • Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

  • The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

  • The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

  • If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

How well do the following statements describe you as a person? Please use a scale from 0 (does not describe me at all) to 10 (describes me perfectly):

  • As long as I am not convinced otherwise I always assume that people have only the best intentions.

  • I do not understand why people spend their lifetime fighting for a cause that is not directly beneficial for them.

  • I make a special effort to help someone who has already helped me in the past.

  • If somebody hurts me on purpose, I will try to hurt them back.

The traditional classification of political views uses “left” and “right.” How would you classify your political views? [scale from 0 (left) to 10 (right)]

Survey Experiment Study 2: Moderators of Spillover Effects

In this section, we present the survey questions for study 2 in English. The participants were assigned to one of the eight treatments to induce an initial behavior (options a–h). Afterwards, they reported the target behavior regarding electricity saving and either water conservation (option i) or usage of public transport or bicycle instead of car (option ii). Finally, the participants filled a questionnaire regarding personality, environmental attitudes, preferences, and political views and answered a question to check for diligence.

English Version

Initial Behavior

Option (a) Costliness Moderator: “Costly” Treatment

We would like to thank you for your participation in this study. You will receive a payment of 3 euro at the end of the survey. Of those 3 dollars, 1 dollar will be automatically deducted and donated in your name to the independent nonprofit organization Eurosolar. The main aim of this European institution is the substitution of nuclear and fossil with renewable energy sources. Therefore, they promote various forms of sustainable electricity. Thank you for your contribution!

Once we have finished this study, we will donate the total amount and inform you about it.

How much money do you personally get at the end of this study? [provided choices: “1 dollar,” “2 dollars,” “3 dollars,” and “4 dollars”]

Option (b) Costliness Moderator: “Costless” Treatment

We would like to thank you for your participation in this study. You will receive a payment of 3 dollars at the end of the survey. Moreover, 1 dollar will be additionally donated in your name to the independent nonprofit organization Eurosolar. The main aim of this European institution is the substitution of nuclear and fossil with renewable energy sources. Therefore, they promote various forms of sustainable electricity. Thank you for your contribution!

Once we have finished this study, we will donate the total amount and inform you about it.

How much money do you personally get at the end of this study? [provided choices: “1 dollar,” “2 dollars,” “3 dollars,” and “4 dollars”]

Option (c) Costliness Moderator: Control Treatment

We would like to thank you for your participation in this study. You will receive a payment of 3 dollars at the end of the survey.

How much money do you personally get at the end of this study? [provided choices: “1 dollar,” “2 dollars,” “3 dollars,” and “4 dollars”]

Option (d) Construal Level Moderator: “Temporally Distant” Treatment

Please describe an act which you personally performed in the past to save electricity. Please choose an act either which you performed more than a year ago or which you have been regularly performing for quite some time. Three sentences to describe this act are sufficient.

For example, possible measures to save electricity would be to switch off the light when leaving a room, to forgo using the tumble dryer, or to buy energy-saving devices (e.g., energy-efficient light bulbs).

Option (e) Construal Level Moderator: “Recent” Treatment

Please describe an act which you personally performed lately to save electricity. For this, specifically please choose an act which you performed last week. Three sentences to describe the act are sufficient.

For example, possible measures to save electricity would be to switch off the light when leaving a room, to forgo using the tumble dryer, or to buy energy-saving devices (e.g., energy-efficient light bulbs).

Option (f) Goal Perspective Moderator: “Commitment” Treatment

Please describe one or several acts which you personally perform to save electricity. Three sentences to describe the act(s) are sufficient.

For example, possible measures to save electricity would be to switch off the light when leaving a room, to forgo using the tumble dryer, or to buy energy-saving devices (e.g., energy-efficient light bulbs).

Now, think about the described act(s) and your personal goals concerning electricity saving. Please rate to which degree you feel committed to save electricity in the future [scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much)].

Option (g) Goal Perspective Moderator: “Progress” Treatment

Please describe one or several acts which you personally perform to save electricity. Three sentences to describe the act(s) are sufficient.

For example, possible measures to save electricity would be to switch off the light when leaving a room, to forgo using the tumble dryer, or to buy energy-saving devices (e.g., energy-efficient light bulbs).

Now, think about the described act(s) and your personal goals concerning electricity saving. Based on your considerations, please assess your own progress regarding electricity savings [scale from 1 (very low progress) to 6 (very high progress)].

Option (h) Construal Level and Goal Perspective Moderators: Control Treatment

Please describe the current weather conditions. Three sentences for the description are sufficient.

Target Behavior

Dependent variables regarding save electricity:

  • For the sake of the environment, I will save significantly more electricity in daily life during the next year [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • Saving electricity in daily life is personally very important to me [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • For me, saving electricity in daily life is… [scale from −4 (very bad) to 4 (very good)].

  • During the last year, I saved electricity in daily life [scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always)].

Option (i) Dependent variables regarding conserve water:

  • For the sake of the environment, I will conserve significantly more water in daily life during the next year [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • Conserving water in daily life is personally very important to me [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • For me, conserving water in daily life is… [scale from −4 (very bad) to 4 (very good)].

  • During the last year, I conserved water in daily life [scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always)].

Option (ii) Dependent variables regarding less driving:

  • For the sake of the environment, I will significantly more often choose to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car during the next year [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • Choosing to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car is personally very important to me [scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)].

  • For me, choosing to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car is… [scale from −4 (very bad) to 4 (very good)].

  • During the last year, I chose to travel by public transport or by bicycle instead of using the car [scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always)].

Questionnaire

Please answer how the following statements describe you and your personality. Please use a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree):

  • I am the life of the party.

  • I sympathize with other’s feelings.

  • I get chores done right away.

  • I have frequent mood swings.

  • I have a vivid imagination.

  • I don’t talk a lot.

  • I am not interested in other people’s problems.

  • I often forget to put things back in their proper place.

  • I am relaxed most of the time.

  • I am not interested in abstract ideas.

  • I talk to a lot of different people at parties.

  • I feel others’ emotions.

  • I like order.

  • I get upset easily.

  • I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

  • I keep in the background.

  • I am not really interested in others.

  • I make a mess of things.

  • I seldom feel blue.

  • I do not have a good imagination.

We would like to know your opinion on several environmental topics. Please use a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to assess to what extent you agree to each statement:

  • Humans are severely abusing the environment.

  • Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

  • The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

  • The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

  • If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

How well do the following statements describe you as a person? Please use a scale from 0 (does not describe me at all) to 10 (describes me perfectly):

  • As long as I am not convinced otherwise I always assume that people have only the best intentions.

  • I do not understand why people spend their lifetime fighting for a cause that is not directly beneficial for them.

  • I make a special effort to help someone who has already helped me in the past.

  • If somebody hurts me on purpose, I will try to hurt them back.

We would like to know how carefully you read the descriptions in this survey. Please answer this question with “Ship” to show that you have read this text [provided choices: “Bicycle,” “Car,” “Airplane,” and “Ship”].

The traditional classification of political views uses “left” and “right.” How would you classify your political views? [scale from 0 (left) to 10 (right)]

Additional Tables and Figures

See Table 4.

See Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Cluster dendrogram of environmental domains based on future intentions. The underlying function used for the cluster analysis sorted all FPBs based on homogeneity among them. Increasing height indicates decreasing homogeneity. In other words, the lower the height of a connection, the higher is the correlation between the variables and the center of the cluster

See Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14

Table 5 Overview of the distribution of gender, age, income, and education in the total sample and within each treatment
Table 6 Simple and controlled influence of costliness treatments on electricity saving statements
Table 7 Simple and controlled influence of construal level treatments on electricity saving statement
Table 8 Simple and controlled influence of goal perspective treatments on electricity saving statements
Table 9 Simple and controlled influence of costliness treatments on water conservation statements
Table 10 Simple and controlled influence of construal level treatments on water conservation statements
Table 11 Simple and controlled influence of goal perspective treatments on water conservation statements
Table 12 Simple and controlled influence of costliness treatments on less driving statements
Table 13 Simple and controlled influence of construal level treatments on less driving statements
Table 14 Simple and controlled influence of goal perspective treatments on less driving statements

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Portmann, J., Ghesla, C., Schubert, R. (2021). Behavioral Spillovers in Environmental Behavior. In: Quah, E., Schubert, R. (eds) Sustainability and Environmental Decision Making. Sustainable Development . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9287-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics