Taking Close Others’ Environmental Behavior Into Account When Striking the Moral Balance? Evidence for Vicarious Licensing, Not for Vicarious Cleansing

Abstract

Research shows that people search for balance in their moral (e.g., environmentally friendly) behaviors such that they feel licensed to behave less morally after a previous moral act (licensing) and cleanse previous morally questionable behaviors by subsequently behaving more morally (cleansing). This article investigates whether this balancing may extend to close others, but not to nonclose others, and tests vicarious licensing and cleansing in the environmental domain. Study 1 showed that vicarious licensing effects are more likely when a close other displayed environmentally friendly (vs. neutral) behavior. Study 2 showed that environmental vicarious licensing effects are more likely for close than nonclose others. Studies 3 and 4 suggested that vicarious licensing effects, but not vicarious cleansing effects are more likely for close (vs. nonclose) others. Finally, a meta-analysis

The progress and trend of pro-environmental behavior research: a bibliometrics-based visualization analysis

“…The theory and practice of PEB are typical interdisciplinary characteristics in nature (Stern, 2011 ; Forstman & Sagioglou, 2017 ; Meijers et al, 2019 ). For current study, the time zone map of subject categories in Citespace software is utilized to analyze the subject characteristic of PEB.…”

“…For example, moral licensing theory has been used to explain bound effect of PEBs. It is arguable that psychological permission could be initially provided for engaging in moral behaviors such as PEB, but the moral behaviors shall be reduced at a later point in time (Meijers et al, 2019 ).…”

Do Backer Affiliations Help or Hurt Crowdfunding Success?

“…In crowdfunding communities where individuals are often motivated by prosocial goals (e.g., Simpson et al 2021), we propose that seeing affiliated others fund may make individuals feel less of a need to do so, a process referred to as vicarious moral licensing (e.g., Decety and Grèzes 2006; Goldstein and Cialdini 2007; Meijers et al 2019). Vicarious moral licensing occurs when individuals see affiliated others’ actions as satisfying their own goals, which changes their perceived moral imperative and subsequent behavior.…”

“…Vicarious moral licensing occurs when individuals see affiliated others’ actions as satisfying their own goals, which changes their perceived moral imperative and subsequent behavior. For example, learning that affiliated others demonstrate environmentally friendly behavior makes individuals less likely to do so (Meijers et al 2019). It is important to recognize that this effect is not merely akin to strangers’ behavior in a crowd (i.e., the bystander effect; e.g., Kuppuswamy and Bayus 2017), but that it is those with whom an individual perceives a social connection (i.e., affiliation) that drives the focal effect.…”

“…However, in crowdfunding communities where individuals are often motivated by prosocial goals (e.g., Simpson et al 2021), we propose that such affiliation can negatively affect behavior. When individual actions benefit a social cause, seeing affiliated others participate may make individuals feel less of a need to do so, a process referred to as “vicarious moral licensing” (e.g., Decety and Grèzes 2006; Goldstein and Cialdini 2007; Meijers et al 2019). Thus, we propose that when backers decide whether to fund an idea, they are less likely to do so or more likely to fund a lower amount if affiliated others have already done so.…”