Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 413–422 | Cite as

Making Small Numbers Count: Environmental and Financial Feedback in Promoting Eco-driving Behaviours

  • Ebru DoganEmail author
  • Jan Willem Bolderdijk
  • Linda Steg
Original Paper


Energy conservation results in environmental (reduced emissions) and financial (reduced costs) savings. Consumers’ perception of the worthiness of changes in behaviour may differ depending on whether environmental or financial savings are emphasized. The current study investigated the effects of using either environmental or financial feedback in the context of eco-driving. Participants evaluated six scenarios describing different eco-driving behaviours. Participants in experimental groups were informed about either the environmental or financial savings realized by adopting the behaviours. A control group did not receive information on possible savings. Results indicated that, unlike commonly assumed, environmental savings are considered more worthwhile than commensurate financial savings. Yet, intentions to adopt eco-driving behaviours were mainly sensitive to the presence of feedback per se, rather than the content of feedback. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.


Feedback framing Eco-driving Worthwhile Effort 


  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birrell, S. A., & Young, M. S. (2011). The impact of smart driving aids on driving performance and driver distraction. Transportation Research Part F, 14, 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K., & Postmes, T. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CIECA. (2007). Eco-driving in category B driver training and the driver testing. Accessed 24 Oct 2010.
  5. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the Naitonal Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 1061–18456.Google Scholar
  7. Dogan, E., Steg, L., & Delhomme, P. (2011). The influence of multiple goals on driving behavior: the case of safety, time saving, and fuel saving. Accident analysis and Prevention, 43, 1635–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eco-drive Netherlands. (2011). How to eco-drive? Accessed 10 Feb 2012.
  9. Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46, 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological Science, 15, 787–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: the role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothman, A. J., Baldwin, A. S., Hertel, A. W., & Fuglestad, P. T. (2004). Self-regulation and behavior change: Disentangling behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications (pp. 106–122). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior in a large transport organization: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: the impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Statistics Netherlands. (2011). Gemiddelde jaarkilometrage van personenauto’s (Average annual mileage of passenger cars). Accessed 15 Oct 2012.
  21. Stillwater, T., & Kurani, K. S. (2013). Drivers discuss ecodriving feedback: Goal setting, framing, and anchoring motivate new behaviours. Transportation Research Pat F, 19, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1999). Trust as an obstacle in environmental-economic disputes. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1350–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. The Daily Green. (2011). Ten ways to save money on gas. Accessed 25 March 2011.
  24. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Emission facts: average CO2-emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel (report no: EPA420-F-05-001). Accessed 25 March 2011.
  26. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004). Less is sometimes more: Goal content matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebru Dogan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Willem Bolderdijk
    • 2
  • Linda Steg
    • 3
  1. 1.VeDeCoM InstituteVersaillesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Business, and MarketingUniversity of GroningenGroningenNetherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GroningenGroningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations