Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 341–356 | Cite as

Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy

  • Folke Ölander
  • John ThøgersenEmail author
Original Paper


Information has not been proven a very successful means to promote voluntary behaviour change to protect the environment. On this backcloth, there is currently increasing interest in recommendations from behavioural economics focusing on making the choice architecture more facilitating for the desired behaviour. The authors present three studies demonstrating how mental shortcuts, based on subtle cues in the context, unconsciously influence human decision-making, with important consequences for the environment. Two of our own studies illustrate the behavioural impacts of (a) anchoring (the design of the European energy label) and (b) default effect (the framing of a request to participate in the Smart Grid), and data from Göckeritz et al. (Eur J Soc Psych 40:514-523, 2010) are used to illustrate the impacts of (c) herding or descriptive norms (the social context of energy saving). The authors end by pointing at theoretical weaknesses in behavioural economics and calling for research to strengthening the theoretical underpinnings of this approach to behaviour change.


Environmental policy Information Nudging Energy labelling Smart Grid Energy saving 



  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. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economy, 95, 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Better Regulation Executive, & National Consumer Council. (2007). Warning: too much information can harm (2007th ed.). London: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.Google Scholar
  5. Biel, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2007). Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, T. (2006). Consumer preference not to choose: methodological and policy implications. RFF Discussion Paper 05-51. Washington DC: Resources for the Future (RFF)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, C. L., & Krishna, A. (2004). The skeptical shopper: a metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (Eds.). (2003). Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72, 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 332–341.Google Scholar
  14. Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Better neighbors and basic knowledge: a field experiment on the role of non-pecuniary incentives on energy consumption. Oxford: University of Oxford, Merton College.Google Scholar
  15. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2012). Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way. J Econ Psychol, 33, 264–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Egan, C., & Waide, P. (2005). A multi-country comparative evaluation of labelling research. Paper presented at the eceee 2005 Summer Study - Energy savings: What works & who delivers?, Mandelieu La Napoule, France, 30 May – 4 JuneGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2010). Questions & answers: new energy labels for televisions, refrigerators, dishwashers and washing machines. Brussels: European Commission. MEMO/10/451.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2011). Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 365/EB 75.2. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2010). The European environment—state and outlook 2010. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  20. Göckeritz, S., Schultz, P. W., Rendón, T., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: the Moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur J Soc Psychol, 40, 514–523.Google Scholar
  21. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 443–468.Google Scholar
  23. Heinzle, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2012). Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes and consumer choice—the revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, E. J., Shu, S., Dellaert, B., Fox, C., Goldstein, D., Häubl, G., & Weber, E. (2012). Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark Lett, 23, 487–504. doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Junghans, C., Feder, G., Hemingway, H., Timmis, A., & Jones, M. (2005). Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. British Medical Journal, 331, 940–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keller, P. A., Harlam, B., Loewenstein, G., & Volpp, K. G. (2011). Enhanced active choice: a new method to motivate behavior change. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 376–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khalil, E. L. (Ed.). (2009). The new behavioral economics. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Leire, C., & Thidell, Å. (2005). Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases—a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 1061–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Litvine, D., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2011). Helping "light green" consumers walk the talk: results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecological Economy, 70, 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Messick, D. M., & McClelland, C. L. (1983). Social traps and temporal traps. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reisch, L. A., & Oehler, A. (2009). Behavioural Economics: Eine neue Grundlage für die Verbraucherpolitik? Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 78(3), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reiss, P. C., & White, M. W. (2008). What changes energy consumption? Prices and public pressures. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39, 636–663.Google Scholar
  39. Rettie, R., Burchell, K., & Riley, D. (2012). Normalising green behaviours: a new approach to sustainability marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 420–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richter, J., Friman, M., & Gärling, T. (2010). Review of implementations of soft transport policy measures. Transportation: Theory and Application, 2, 5–18.Google Scholar
  41. Sammer, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2006). The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behavior—results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business Strategy and Environment, 15, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scholl, G., Rubik, F., Kalimo, H., Biedenkopf, K., & Söebech, Ó. (2010). Policies to promote sustainable consumption: innovative approaches in Europe. Natural Resources Forum, 34, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: education, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 67–82). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656-667.Google Scholar
  46. Staats, H. J., Wit, A. P., & Midden, C. Y. H. (1996). Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 45, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Teisl, M. F., Rubin, J., & Noblet, C. L. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers. Journal of Economicl Psychology, 29, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  52. Thøgersen, J. (2002). Promoting green consumer behavior with eco-labels. In T. Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: education, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 83–104). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  53. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A.-K., & Sandager, S. (2012). Consumer decision making regarding a “green” everyday product. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Toft, M. B., Schuitema, G., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). The importance of framing for consumer acceptance of the smart grid: a three country study. Manuscript submitted for review (Submitted).Google Scholar
  56. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Gabriola, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationAarhus University, School of Business and Social SciencesAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations