Behavioral spillover theory has potential for promoting meaningful behavior change. Spillover occurs when engagement in environmental behaviors affects the adoption of other environmental behaviors. By testing a new experimental model of spillover, this article is the first to concurrently investigate three predicted mechanisms of spillover—self-identity, self-efficacy, and contribution ethic—on different types of environmental behavior. The experimental spillover model examined how triggering self-perceptions (i.e., self-identity, self-efficacy, and contribution ethic) may influence the likelihood of spillover to occur from engagement in household behaviors to intentions for other environmental behaviors. Triggering self-identity was associated with increased private- and public-sphere intentions. Contrary to expectations, contribution ethic was not associated with decreased intentions, and instead was associated with increased public-sphere intentions. Self-efficacy did not uniquely influence intentions. These findings demonstrate that everyday behaviors can provide an “entry point” for other behaviors, strengthening self-perceptions and generating positive spillover.
AshfordS.EdmundsJ.FrenchD. P. (2010). What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 265-288. doi:10.1348/135910709X461752
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
3.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
5.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
7.
BozdoganH. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370. doi:10.1007/BF02294361
8.
CarricoA. R.RaimiK. T.TrueloveH. B.EbyB. (2018). Putting your money where your mouth is: An experimental test of pro-environmental spillover from reducing meat consumption to monetary donations. Environment & Behavior, 50, 723-748. doi:10.1177/0013916517713067
9.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
10.
Corral-VerdugoV.González-LomelíD.Rascón-CruzM.Corral-FríasV. O. (2016). Intrinsic motives of autonomy, self-efficacy, and satisfaction associated with two instances of sustainable behaviour: Frugality and equity. Psychology, 7, 662-671. doi:10.4236/psych.2016.75068
11.
DeanA. J.LindsayJ.FieldingK.SmithL. (2016). Fostering water sensitive citizenship—Community profiles of engagement in water-related issues. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 238-247. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.016
12.
De YoungR. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motivates for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 509-526. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00181
13.
DolanP.GalizziM. M. (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003
14.
EarleyP. C.GibsonC. B.ChenC. C. (1999). “How did I do?” versus “how did we do?” Cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and self-efficacy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 594-619. doi:10.1177/0022022199030005003
15.
FieldingK. S.McDonaldR. I.LouisW. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318-326. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003
16.
GistM. E.MitchellT. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211. doi:10.5465/AMR.1992.4279530
17.
GrimmP. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, 2. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
18.
GuagnanoG. A.DietzT.SternP. C. (1994). Willingness to pay for public goods: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science, 5, 411-415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00295.x
19.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. London, England: Guilford Press.
20.
HuL.BentlerP. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modelling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
HuL.BentlerP. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
22.
JoheM. H.BhullarN. (2016). To buy or not to buy: The roles of self-identity, attitudes, perceived behavioral control and norms in organic consumerism. Ecological Economics, 128, 99-105.
23.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12-23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
24.
KahnemanD.RitovI.JacowitzK. E. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4, 310-316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00570.x
25.
KneeboneS.SmithL.FieldingK. (2017). The impact-likelihood matrix: A policy tool for behaviour prioritisation. Environmental Science & Policy, 70, 9-20. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.013
26.
KreuterF.PresserS.TourangeauR. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847-865. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063
27.
LacasseK. (2016). Don’t be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 149-158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.006
28.
LamS. (2006). Predicting intention to save water: Theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2803-2824. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00129.x
29.
LamS.ChenJ. (2006). What makes customers bring their bags or buy bags from the shop? A survey of customers at a Taiwan hypermarket. Environment & Behavior, 38, 318-332. doi:10.1177/0013916505278327
30.
LanziniP.ThøgersenJ. (2014). Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: An intervention study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 381-390. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.006
31.
LaurenN.FieldingK. S.SmithL.LouisW. (2016). You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 191-199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004
32.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
33.
MargettsE. A.KashimaY. (2017). Spillover between pro-environmental behaviours: The role of resources and perceived similarity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 30-42. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.005
34.
PetersonR. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450-461. doi:10.1086/323732
35.
PietersR. G. M.BijmoltT.van RaaijW. F.de KruijkM. D. (1998). Consumers attributions of pro-environmental behavior, motivation and ability to self and others. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 215-225. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000772
36.
PugesekB. H.TomerA.von EyeA. (2003). Structural equation modeling: Applications in ecological and evolutionary biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RabinovichA.MortonT. A.PostmesT.VerplankenB. (2009). Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 391-399. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.004
38.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
39.
SchultzP. W.NolanJ. M.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
40.
SteinhorstJ.KlöcknerC. A.MatthiesE. (2015). Saving electricity—For the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 125-135. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.012
41.
SternP. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
ThøgersenJ. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 53-81. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00043-9
44.
ThøgersenJ.CromptonT. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141-163. doi:10.1007/s10603-009-9101-1
45.
ThøgersenJ.NobletC. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?Energy Policy, 51, 854-862. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.044
46.
ThøgersenJ.ÖlanderF. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225-236. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
47.
TiefenbeckV.StaakeT.RothK.SachsO. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160-171. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.021
48.
TrueloveH. B.CarricoA. R.WeberE. U.RaimiK. T.VandenberghM. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
49.
TrueloveH. B.YeungK. L.CarricoA. R.GillisA. J.RaimiK. T. (2016). From plastic bottle recycling to policy support: An experimental test of pro-environmental spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 55-66. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.004
50.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1258-1265. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.018
51.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2014a). Follow the signal: When past pro-environmental actions signal who you are. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 273-282. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.004
52.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2014b). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behaviour on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46, 626-657. doi:10.1177/0013916512475209
53.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-268. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
54.
WhitmarshL.O’NeillS. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305-314. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
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.
