Climate change is characterized by delayed consequences, which cause people to discount future environmental outcomes and to perceive that their consumption behaviors have no effect. This study measured participants' willingness to purchase a sustainable clothing item given information that the environmental tipping point would be reached in six months, 1, 5, 10, 30, 80, or 120 years. In one condition, participants were told that either 15 percent, 50 percent, or 85 percent of others would also purchase sustainable clothing. In another, the purchase was either recommended by a close other, an acquaintance, or no recommendation was given. The consequences of participants' actions were framed as either a gain or a loss. The 205 participants discounted more when told that a small percentage of others acted similarly. There was no effect on type of social tie or gain-loss framing. These findings suggest that informing people that few others are acting pro-environmentally could be detrimental when policy makers and marketers seek to promote sustainable consumption.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamseW., & StegL. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029
2.
BerryM. S., FriedelJ. E., DeHartW. B., MahamaneS., JordanK. E., et al. (2017). The value of clean air: Comparing discounting of delayed air quality and money across magnitudes. Psychological Record, 67, 137-148. DOI 10.1007/s40732-017-0233-4
3.
BicchieriC. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BixterM., & RogersW. (2019). Age-related differences in delay discounting: Immediate reward, reward magnitude, and social influence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(4), 471-484. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2124
5.
BurgerJ. M., MessianN., PatelS., del PradoA., & AndersonC. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203258838
6.
CarricoA. R., & RiemerM. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004
7.
CentolaD., BeckerJ., BrackbillD., & BaronchelliA. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116-1119. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas8827
8.
ChanceP. (2007). The ultimate challenge: Prove B. F. Skinner wrong. The Behavior Analyst, 30, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392152
9.
ChengT., WoonD. K., & LynesJ. K. (2011). The use of message framing in the promotion of environmentally sustainable behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15245004.2011.570859
10.
CialdiniR. B., RenoR. R., & KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
11.
DemarqueC., CharalambidesL., HiltonD. J., & WaroquierL. (2015). Nudging sustainable consumption: The use of descriptive norms to promote a minority behavior in a realistic online shopping environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 166-174. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.008
12.
FieldA. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
13.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
14.
GilroyS. P., FranckC. T., & HantulaD. A. (2017). The discounting model selector: Statistical software for delay discounting applications. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 107(3), 388-401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.257
15.
HardistyD. J., & WeberE. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 329-340. doi:10.1037/a0016433
16.
HartA. (2001). Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: Differences in spread can be important. British Medical Journal, 323, 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7309.391
17.
KahnemanD., & TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185
18.
KangM. J., RangelA., CamusM., & CamererC. F. (2011). Hypothetical and real choice differentially activate common valuation areas. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(2), 461-468. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1583-10.2011
19.
KaplanB., ReedD., & McKercharT. (2014). Using a visual analogue scale to assess delay, social, and probability discounting of an environmental loss. The Psychological Record, 64, 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0041-z
20.
KormosC., GiffordR., & BrownE. (2015). The influence of descriptive social norm information on sustainable transportation behavior: A field experiment. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 479-501. doi:10.1177/0013916513520416
21.
KühbergerA., Schulte-MecklenbeckM., & PernerJ. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1162-1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3
LoceyM. L., JonesB. A., & RachlinH. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(6), 552–564.
24.
MaddenG. J., BegotkaA. M., RaiffB. R., & KasternL. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.11.2.139
McKercharT. L., KaplanB. A., ReedD. D., SuggsS. A., & FranckC. T. (2019). Discounting environmental outcomes: Temporal and probabilistic air-quality gains and losses. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(3), 273-280. doi:10.1037/bar0000138
27.
McKercharT. L., PickfordS., & RobertsonS. E. (2013). Hyperboloid discounting of delayed outcomes: Magnitude effects and the gain–loss asymmetry. The Psychological Record, 63(3), 441-451. doi:10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.3.003
28.
MilgramS., BickmanL., & BerkowitzL. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(2), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028070
29.
NeffM. B., & MacaskillA. C. (2021). The effect of “should” and “would” instructions on delay discounting of rewards for self and others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2230
30.
NolanJ. M., SchultzP. W., CialdiniR. B., GoldsteinN. J., & GriskeviciusV. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691
31.
PasupathiM. (1999). Age differences in response to conformity pressure for emotional and non-emotional material. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 170-174. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.1.170
32.
PeruginiM., GallucciM., & CostantiniG. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 20. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181
ReesJ. H., & BambergS. (2014). Climate protection needs societal change: Determinants of intention to participate in collective climate action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 466-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2032
35.
ReimersS., MaylorE. A., StewartN., & ChaterN. (2009). Associations between a one-shot delay discounting measure and age, income, education and real-world impulsive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 973-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.026
36.
RobertsonS. H., & RasmussenE. B. (2018). Comparison of potentially real versus hypothetical food outcomes in delay and probability discounting tasks. Behavioural Processes, 149, 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.01.014
37.
RungJ. M., & MaddenG. J. (2018). Experimental reductions of delay discounting and impulsive choice: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(9), 1349–1381. doi:10.1037/xge0000462.
38.
SalazarH. A., OerlemansL., & van Stroe-BiezenS. (2012). Social influence on sustainable consumption: Evidence from a behavioural experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01110.x
39.
SargissonR. J., De GrootJ. I. M., & StegL. (2020). The relationship between sociodemographics and environmental values across seven European countries. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02253
40.
SargissonR. J., & SchönerB. V. (2020). Hyperbolic discounting with environmental outcomes across time, space, and probability. The Psychological Record, 70, 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00368-z
41.
SenecalN., WangT., ThompsonE., & KableJ. W. (2012). Normative arguments from experts and peers reduce delay discounting. Judgemental Decision Making, 7(5), 568-589. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626281/
42.
SolimanM., AlisatS., BashirN. Y., & WilsonA. E. (2018). Wrinkles in time and drops in the bucket: Circumventing temporal and social barriers to pro-environmental behavior. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018774826
43.
ThalerR. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8, 201-207. doi: 10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7
44.
van ValkengoedA. M., & StegL. (2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 9, 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y
45.
WeenigM. W., & MiddenC. J. (1991). Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.734
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
