Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning

Abstract

Environmental campaigns often promote energy conservation by appealing to economic (for example, lower electricity bills) rather than biospheric concerns (for example, reduced carbon emissions), assuming that people are primarily motivated by economic self-interest. However, people also care about maintaining a favourable view of themselves (they want to maintain a 'positive self-concept'), and may prefer to see themselves as 'green' rather than 'greedy'. Consequently, people may find economic appeals less attractive than biospheric appeals. Across two studies, participants indicated feeling better about biospheric ('Want to protect the environment? Check your car's tire pressure') than economic ('Want to save money? Check your car's tire pressure') tyre-check appeals. In a field experiment, we found that an economic tyre-check appeal ('Do you care about your finances? Get a free tire check') elicited significantly less compliance than parallel biospheric and neutral appeals. Together, these studies discredit the conventional wisdom that appealing to economic self-interest is the best way to secure behaviour change. At least in some cases, our studies suggest, this strategy is not effective.

Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges

“…People prefer to see themselves as "green" rather than "greedy." In a field experiment, Bolderdijk et al (2012) found that an economic appeal (e.g. "do you care about your finances?")…”

“…Consumers care about the environment and are willing to pay a higher price for products that generate less environmental harm (Cason and Gangadharan 2002). About 1 million US consumers pay a green premium in their energy bill (Bird et al 2009), and the market for green products is predicted to grow significantly (Tolliver-Nigro 2011). Socially responsible investments represent more than 10% of investments in financial markets (Social Investment Forum 2010).…”

Advertising energy saving programs: The potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings.

“…The overjustification hypothesis, based on self-perception theory (Bem, 1965(Bem, , 1967deCharms, 1968), has been offered as an explanation for these results: when extrinsic rewards, such as monetary payments, are offered, people attribute their behavior to those rewards rather than to their intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971;Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973;Tang & Hall, 1995). Extrinsic rewards may lead people to see themselves as more greedy, making them less willing to engage in prosocial behavior (Benabou and Tirole, 2006;Bolderdijk, Steg, Geller, Lehman, & Postmes, 2012). This would imply that people who intrinsically engage in an activity should not be simultaneously motivated by monetary benefits.…”

Editorial Volume 14

“…As far as individual behaviour is concerned, much of it certainly qualifies as irrational-the myth of the rational actor has long been debunked in academic circles outside of business schools. As individuals our behaviour tends to be informed primarily by attitudes, ideals, unexamined beliefs and assumptions, and values that are implicit and culturally contingent [3,16].…”