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

  • Leonie VenhoevenEmail author
  • Linda Steg
  • Jan Willem Bolderdijk
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)


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.


Sustainable society Environmentally-friendly behavior Sustainable behavior Quality of life 


  1. Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 347–355. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368. doi: 10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., & Dewitte, S. (2008). Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. doi: 10.1177/0013916506297831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2(2), 61–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00048.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 368–378. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Young, R. (1990–1991). Some psychological aspects of living lightly: Desired lifestyle patterns and conservation behavior. Journal of Environmental Systems, 20(3), 215–227.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dogan, E., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2014). Making small numbers count: Environmental and financial feedback in promoting eco-driving behaviours. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 413–422. doi: 10.1007/s10603-014-9259-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DuNann Winter, D., & Koger, S. M. (2004). The psychology of environmental problems. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, D., & Jackson, T. (2008). Sustainable consumption: Perspectives from social and cultural theory (Working Paper No. RESOLVE Working Paper 05–08). Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, L., Maio, G. R., Corner, A., Hodgetts, C. J., Ahmed, S., & Hahn, U. (2013). Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 3, 122–125. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitzpatrick, G., & Smith, G. (2009). Technology-enabled feedback on domestic energy consumption: Articulating a set of design concerns. Pervasive Computing IEEE, 8(1), 37–44. doi: 10.1109/MPRV.2009.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Gifford, R., Kormos, C., & McIntyre, A. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(6), 801–827. doi: 10.1002/wcc.143.Google Scholar
  22. Grant, A. M., & Campbell, E. M. (2007). Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning out: The interactions of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 665–691. doi: 10.1348/096317906X169553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackmann, H., Moser, S. C., & St. Clair, A. L. (2014). The social heart of global environmental change. Nature Climate Change, 4, 653–655. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 23–30. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsee, C. K., Rottenstreich, Y., & Xiao, Z. (2005). When is more better? On the relationship between magnitude and subjective value. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 234–237. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00371.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jain, R. K., Taylor, J. E., & Culligan, P. J. (2013). Investigating the impact eco-feedback information representation has on building occupant energy consumption behavior and savings. Energy and Buildings, 64, 408–414. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. doi: 10.1080/17439760802303044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2002). What makes for a Merry Christmas? Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(4), 313–329. doi: 10.1023/A:1021516410457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Losier, G. F., & Koestner, R. (1999). Intrinsic versus identified regulation in distinct political campaigns: The consequences of following politics for pleasure versus personal meaningfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3), 287–298. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noppers, E. H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2014). The adoption of sustainable innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52–62. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nordahl, D. (2012). Making transit fun! How to entice motorists from their cars (and onto their feet, a bike, or bus). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norms on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 339–347. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (1994). Symposium: Sustainable consumption. 19–20 January 1994, Oslo, Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
  36. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25–41. doi: 10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152–165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2014). Walking the talk: Value importance, value enactment, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 38(5), 609–619. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9424-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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(2), 143–153. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steg, L., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81–92). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Taufik, D., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2015). Acting green elicits a literal ‘warm-glow’. Nature Climate Change, 5, 37–40. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32(2), 141–163. doi: 10.1007/s10603-009-9101-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014a). I am what I am, by looking past the present. The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626–657. doi: 10.1177/0013916512475209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014b). Follow the signal: When past environmental actions signal who you are. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 273–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vassileva, I., Odlare, M., Wallin, F., & Dahlquist, E. (2012). The impact of consumers’ feedback preferences on domestic electricity consumption. Applied Energy, 93, 575–582. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2013). Explaining the paradox: How pro-environmental behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability, 5, 1372–1386. doi: 10.3390/su5041372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Volkswagen. (2011). The fun theory. Retrieved from
  51. Weaver, C. P., Mooney, S., Allen, D., Beller-Simms, N., Fish, T., Grambsch, A. E., et al. (2014). From global change science to action with social sciences. Nature Climate Change, 4, 656–659. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xiao, J. J., & Li, H. (2011). Sustainable consumption and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 104(2), 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zapico, J. L., Guath, M., & Turpeinen, M. (2011). Kilograms or cups of tea: Comparing footprints for better CO2 understanding. PsychNology Journal, 9(1), 43–54. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonie Venhoeven
    • 1
    Email author
  • Linda Steg
    • 1
  • Jan Willem Bolderdijk
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations