Which construal level combinations generate the most effective interventions? A field experiment on energy conservation

Abstract

Many campaigns targeting pro-environmental behavior combine multiple approaches without properly understanding how these different approaches interact. Here we study the effect of such combinations. We apply construal level theory to classify different intervention approaches, which can either be at a high construal level (abstract and distant) or at a low construal level (concrete and proximal). In a field experiment we recruited 197 students living in one-person apartments in an all-inclusive student housing facility. We objectively measured their individual electricity and warm water use, and measured psychological variables through surveys. We expected that the (commonly considered superior) combination between a high and a low construal level approach would be least effective. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2(Construal Level: low vs. high) × 2(Social Distance: low vs. high) plus control condition mixed-model design targeting a reduction in warm water use. Our findings suggest that a congruent combination at a high construal level (i.e., the high construal level condition combined with the high social distance condition) has the largest effect on warm water use and that spillover to electricity use is most likely to occur when a high construal level is used (i.e., high social distance). Moreover, especially participants who valued nature and the environment less were most strongly influenced by the combination of two high construal level approaches. In sum, our study suggests that when designing interventions one should consider the construal level and when targeting pro-environmental behavior high construal levels appear most appropriate.

The Psychological Distance and Climate Change: A Systematic Review on the Mitigation and Adaptation Behaviors

“…These results suggest the limited use of the construal level in predicting pro-environmental behaviors. Moreover, contrary to the expected results, the study of Griffioen et al (2019) showed that a high social distance condition was correlated with high construal levels which had a greater effect on mitigation behaviors. For these reasons, the existence of the relation among psychological distance and construal levels is not always obvious, especially in the situation of climate change and related adaptation and mitigation behaviors.…”

“…This is especially relevant because the impacts of climate change may differ between different geographical territories and may consequently be perceived differently. The description of results for each study is divided into three paragraphs based on environmental behavior: two studies explored the role of psychological distance in the commitment to adaptation behavior toward climate change (Niles et al, 2015;Singh et al, 2017); 10 studies focused on engagement in mitigation with reference to some dimensions of psychological distance and climate change (Spence et al, 2012;Busse and Menzel, 2014;Milfont et al, 2014;Carmi and Kimhi, 2015;Jones et al, 2017;Soliman et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2019;Griffioen et al, 2019;Kim and Ahn, 2019;Kyselá et al, 2019); seven studies analyzed the link between psychological distance and each dimension with mitigation and adaptation behaviors applied to climate change (Haden et al, 2012;Brügger et al, 2015aBrügger et al, , 2016Rickard et al, 2016;Schuldt et al, 2018;de Guttry et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2019).…”

La distance psychologique comme outil actionnable par les managers

“…La distance psychologique pour comprendre l'écart entre attitudes et comportements prosociaux du consommateur White et al (2019) ont souligné l'écart existant entre les attitudes prosociales du consommateur et son comportement effectif. L'une des raisons qui expliquent cette différence est liée à la distance psychologique expérimentée avec des causes environnementales telles que le changement climatique (Brügger, 2020 ;Brügger et al, 2015 ;Spence et Pidgeon, 2010 ;Spence et al, 2012), la pollution (Zhang et al, 2014, la réduction du gaspillage (Barnes, 2019 ;Guillard, 2019 ), l'utilisation raisonnée des énergies (Griffioen et al, 2019 ;Tangari et Smith, 2012 ;Tangari et al, 2015) ou encore le recyclage (Schill et Schaw 2016 ;White et al, 2011).…”

Psychological distance as a working tool for managers

“…White et al ( 2019) have highlighted the gap between consumers' prosocial attitudes and their actual behavior. One reason for this difference is related to the psychological distance experienced with environmental causes such as climate change (Brügger, 2020;Brügger et al, 2015;Spence et al, 2012;Spence and Pidgeon, 2010), pollution (Zhang et al, 2014), waste reduction (Barnes, 2019;Guillard, 2019), sensible energy use (Griffioen et al, 2019;Tangari et al, 2015;Tangari and Smith, 2012), and recycling (Schill and Schaw, 2016;White et al, 2011). Understandably, when consumers feel psychologically distant from an environmental cause (e.g.…”