Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda - Nilsson, Bergquist, & Schultz (2017) - Article

Environmental behavior Spillover effects in environmental issues

Individual changes in environmental behavior have been shown to make a difference, where government policy falls short. Education campaigns are relatively ineffective in producing behavior change, slightly more so than price incentives (or disincentives). In specific situations, goal setting, social norms, and prompts have had some success.

Spillover effects in environmental issues

The concept of spillover means that by engaging in one behavior, people will adopt a more pro-environmental orientation and will engage in other pro-environmental related behaviors. The precise definition is: the extent to which engaging in one behavior influences the probability of conducting a subsequent behavior. This can be very effective, but the downside is that it can also work in a negative direction, where people use one behavior as a rationale for not performing other acts. There are three types of spillover effect (not mutually exclusive):

• Spillovers across behavior: one behavior causes another behavior
• Spillovers across time: one behavior causes the same behavior to occur again in the future
• Spillovers across contexts: one behavior causes the same behavior again in a different context

Theoretical basis of positive spillovers

Following now are several theories that can explain the positive spillover effect.

Cognitive dissonance theory

This theory states that perceived incongruence between elements of cognitions or behaviors will lead to feelings of discomfort. This motivates dissonance reduction strategies, such as behavioral change. When someone behaves inconsistently concerning the environment, cognitive dissonance might cause them to change their behavior to be more consistently pro-environmental, especially if first pro-environmental behavior is relevant for the self-concept.

Self-perception theory

This theory predicts that people use their own behavior as cues when forming evaluative cognitions (attitudes, norms, values). Describing peoples past behaviors as pro-environmental is associated with stronger moral obligations and higher positive pro-environmental attitudes.

Action based learning

This is grounded in the assumption that beliefs about outcomes affect behaviors, and that increased learning about the outcomes of a specific behavior can extend to other behaviors. Buying energy effective light bulbs may influence beliefs about energy conservation in general and thus elicit positive spillover effects.

Theoretical basis of negative spillovers

While in positive spillovers a first behavior promotes a second that is more of the same, in negative spillover the first behavior creates permission for a second behavior that is the opposite of the first. For example, recycling might decrease the feeling of obligation for waste prevention when shopping.

Moral licensing: credits and credentials

In this concept, an initial moral action results in a subsequent immoral action. This can be explained by two hypothesis: moral credentials and moral credits. Moral credentials predicts that engaging in a behavior that is perceived as morally good will boost the self-concept. These positive emotions inhibit the influence of discomfort when conducting a perceived immoral behavior. Moral credits predicts that engaging in a behavior which is perceived as morally good creates room for perceived immoral behaviors. Think of this like a credit account, where you build up credit by being ‘good’, which you will then spend on behavioral transgressions.

Spillover across behaviors

Positive spillover across behavior

Positive cueing is a tool used to stimulate self-perception via framing of past behavior as ‘diagnostic’ of pro-environmental behavior. Reminding people of past pro-environmental behavior can therefore lead to increased pro-environmental judgments and intentions, mediated by self-identity. That means the first behavior must lead to a more pro-environmental self-identity to cause positive spillover.

Rebound effects

A rebound effect occurs when technological improvements create decreased costs, leading to increased demand. This means that improved efficiency of an appliance or technology causes more people to buy that appliance, which offsets the actual energy savings achieved. A direct rebound effect occurs like described above, for example when an energy efficient vehicle subsequently gets driven more often. An example of indirect rebound effects is if the money saved on household energy conservation is spent on a more extensive holiday, leading to increased rather than decreased environmental impact.

Negative spillover across pro-environmental behaviors

In one study that gave participants weekly information about water usage, increased energy consumption was found. This indicated that the intervention campaign stimulated a negative spillover effect of increased energy usage. The direction of spillover seems to depend on whether the first behavior serves as an identity signal. Positive spillover occurs more often when the first behavior was a high-cost behavior. When the first behavior is low-cost, negative spillover is more likely to occur.

Negative spillovers promoting environmental actions

So far, negative spillovers have been exemplified as a first pro-environmental behavior leading to subsequent pro-environmental inaction. Negative spillover could also go the other way: first an environmentally unfriendly behavior promoting a second environmental friendly behavior. When participants in a study are made mindful of a past transgression, they are more likely to engage in a second (similar) behavior that is pro-environmental.

Temporal spillover

In contrast to spillovers spreading between behaviors, in temporal spillover a behavior at time 1 will affect the same behavior at time 2. As in behavioral spillover, the effect may be positive or negative: people may feel like they are ‘a pro-environmental person’ and execute the behavior more often, or they may feel they have done their share and don’t execute the behavior again soon.

Post-decisional dissonance

This effect means that people who choose from two alternatives immediately have stronger attitudes towards the chosen alternative. This shows that engaging in behavior A in time 1 can affect people’s attitudes toward that behavior in a positive direction.

Contextual spillover

Contextual spillover occurs when a behavior A spreads from context 1 to context 2, for example a spillover effect of energy saving behavior between work settings and home settings. The effect is especially strong when similar equipment is used in both contexts and both have similar triggers. The support for negative spillovers between contexts is ambiguous, but there is consistent evidence for positive pro-environmental contextual spillovers.

Moderating factors for positive and negative spillover

Moderating the strength of spillover effect

Moderators for the strength of spillover effect are:

• Similarity in material content and process between contexts
• Similarity between two behaviors over time
• A high score on Personal Preference for Consistency (PFC)
• Pro-environmental self-identity
• Framing behavior in terms of self-transcendence or normative goals toward environment

Moderating positive vs. negative spillover effect

Positive spillover seems to induce PFC or stability, via a long term goal achievement, an abstract level of construal (recalling a distant moral action), or a rule-based mindset (ethical strategy of conforming to moral norms). Negative spillovers seem to be associated with the focus on outcome or a concrete action in the present.

Techniques for promoting positive spillover effects

In automatic techniques, researchers measure a first behavior or set of behaviors, and assume that merely conducting these behaviors will spread to additional behaviors, times or contexts. Intervening techniques use an active strategy to affect the mediating psychological constructs. Spillover effects induced by cognitive dissonance are likely unreliable, because it is easier to use small behaviors as justification than to change behavior to be more consistent. Targeting self-perception seems a more clear and stable way to promote positive spillover.

Conclusion

Cognitively based intervention techniques are most likely to elicit positive pro-environmental spillovers. This means techniques such as cueing seem to provide a stronger and more stable basis for pro-environmental behaviors to elicit positive spillover compared to automatic interventions. However, most studies use correlational evidence, so more research is needed to look at causal relationships. Often positive and negative spillover are studied in isolation, but psychological processes that may influence both should be varied in experimental settings.

BulletPoints

• The concept of spillover means that by engaging in one behavior, people will adopt a more pro-environmental orientation and will engage in other pro-environmental related behaviors. The precise definition is: the extent to which engaging in one behavior influences the probability of conducting a subsequent behavior. Spillover can happen across behavior, across time, or across contexts.
• While in positive spillovers a first behavior promotes a second that is more of the same, in negative spillover the first behavior creates permission for a second behavior that is the opposite of the first. For example, recycling might decrease the feeling of obligation for waste prevention when shopping.
• Moderators for the strength of spillover effect are: similarity between contexts or behaviors, a high score on Personal Preference for Consistency (PFC), pro-environmental self-identity, framing in terms of self-transcendence or normative goals toward environment.
• Cognitively based intervention techniques are most likely to elicit positive pro-environmental spillovers. This means techniques such as cueing seem to provide a stronger and more stable basis for pro-environmental behaviors to elicit positive spillover compared to automatic interventions.