Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental

Abstract

People frequently fail to see themselves as environmentally conscious consumers; one reason for this is that they are oftentimes prone to dismissing their more common ecological behaviors (e.g., avoid littering) as non-diagnostic for that particular self-image. The cueing of commonly performed ecological behaviors as environmentally friendly (what we call positive cueing) renders both cued and non-cued common ecological behaviors more diagnostic for the inference of pro-environmental attitudes (Study 1). As a result, positive cueing increases the likelihood that people will see themselves as consumers who are concerned with the degree to which their behavior is environmentally responsible (Study 2). The cueing of common ecological behaviors leads participants to choose environmentally friendly products with greater frequency, and even to use scrap paper more efficiently (Study 3). We discuss the implications for effective social marketing campaigns.

Saving electricity – For the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing

“…In line with this explanation, goal framing theory states that when normative goals become focal, individuals are focused on acting appropriately and are therefore more likely to show pro-environmental behaviour (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). In the case of environmental framing (emphasising environmental reasons for behavioural change) first evidence revealed positive effects on the likelihood of further non-targeted pro-environmental behaviour (Cornelissen et al, 2008;Evans et al, 2013). In a study by Cornelissen et al (2008) participants were cued with environmental behaviours.…”

“…In the case of environmental framing (emphasising environmental reasons for behavioural change) first evidence revealed positive effects on the likelihood of further non-targeted pro-environmental behaviour (Cornelissen et al, 2008;Evans et al, 2013). In a study by Cornelissen et al (2008) participants were cued with environmental behaviours. Afterwards, these participants chose environmentally friendly products more often than participants who were cued with non-environmental behaviours.…”

“…Nevertheless, few studies investigated the effects of different kinds of framing on personal norms or a feeling of moral obligation (i.e. Cornelissen et al, 2008). There are no studies comparing the effects of environmental framing with monetary framing on personal norms.…”

“…Previous research suggests that the framing of pro-environmental behaviour is one of the key factors that can trigger spillover (Cornelissen, Dewitte, Warlop, & Yzerbyt, 2007;Cornelissen, Pandelaere, Warlop, & Dewitte, 2008;Evans et al, 2013). It was shown that monetary framing can limit positive spillover effects (Evans et al, 2013).…”

Understanding the Human Factor of the Energy Transition: Mechanisms Underlying Energy-Relevant Decisions and Behaviors

“…Engaging in sustainable energy behavior is likely to strengthen the environmental self-identity, that is, the extent to which a person sees himself or herself as a pro-environmental person (Cornelissen et al, 2008;Van der Werff et al, 2013, 2014a. Environmental self-identity is particularly strengthened when people engaged in pro-environmental behaviors that are somewhat costly or uncommon, probably because such behaviors are more likely to signal how pro-environmental a person is (Van der Werff et al, 2014a).…”