Not all pro-environmental behaviors are equally effective in fostering sustainable habits. Psychological mechanisms, such as moral licensing, can paradoxically reduce the positive impact of well-intentioned actions. In this preregistered quasi-experimental study (N = 514), we examined how curtailment behaviors (e.g., recycling) and efficiency behaviors (e.g., adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet) differently influence moral credentials and subsequent pro-environmental actions. Results showed that salient curtailment behaviors lowered guilt and perceived environmental impact after unsustainable actions, creating a potential licensing effect, whereas efficiency behaviors mitigated this effect and promoted further sustainable behavior. Crucially, feelings of guilt and perceived environmental impact predicted later pro-environmental engagement. These findings highlight that encouraging high-impact efficiency behaviors may prevent moral licensing and support more consistent, sustainable choices, offering actionable insights for interventions aimed at fostering lasting environmental behavior change.
AdamsI., HurstK., & SintovN. D. (2020). Experienced guilt, but not pride, mediates the effect of feedback on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101476; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476
2.
AnderssonM., & von BorgstedeC. (2010). Differentiation of determinants of low-cost and high-cost recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 402–408; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.003
3.
Bissing-OlsonM. J., FieldingK. S., & IyerA. (2016). Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 145–153; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001
4.
BösehansG., BolderdijkJ. W., & WanJ. (2020). Pay more, fly more? Examining the potential guilt-reducing and flight-encouraging effect of an integrated carbon offset. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101469; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101469
5.
BurgerA. M., SchulerJ., & EberlingE. (2022). Guilty pleasures: Moral licensing in climate-related behavior. Global Environmental Change, 72, 102415; doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102415
6.
ByrkaK., & KaminskaK. (2015). Can recycling compensate for speeding on highways? Similarity and difficulty of behaviors as key characteristics of green compensatory beliefs. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 46, 477–487; doi: 10.1515/ppb-2015-0054
7.
CapstickS., WhitmarshL., PoortingaW., PidgeonN., & UphamP. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 35–61; doi: 10.1002/wcc.321
De NardoM., BrooksJ. S., KlinskyS., & WilsonC. (2017). Social signals and sustainability: Ambiguity about motivations can affect status perceptions of efficiency and curtailment behaviors. Environment Systems and Decisions, 37, 184–197; doi: 10.1007/s10669-017-9624-y
10.
DiekmannA., & PreisendörferP. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441–472; doi: 10.1177/1043463103154002
11.
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
12.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA.-G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
13.
GardnerG. T., & SternP. C. (2008). The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 12–25; doi: 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25
14.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American Psychologist, 66, 290–302; doi: 10.1037/a0023566
15.
GneezyA., ImasA., BrownA., NelsonL. D., & NortonM. I. (2012). Paying to be nice : Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58, 179–187.
16.
GorissenK., & WeijtersB. (2016). The negative footprint illusion: Perceptual bias in sustainable food consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 50–65; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009
17.
HolmgrenM., AnderssonH., & SörqvistP. (2018). Averaging bias in environmental impact estimates: Evidence from the negative footprint illusion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 48–52; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005
18.
HopeA. L. B., JonesC. R., WebbT. L., WatsonM. T., & KaklamanouD. (2018). The role of compensatory beliefs in rationalizing environmentally detrimental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 50, 401–425; doi: 10.1177/0013916517706730
19.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, PörtnerH.-O, RobertsD.C, TignorM, PoloczanskaE.S, MintenbeckK, AlegríaA, CraigM, LangsdorfS, LöschkeS, MöllerV, OkemA, RamaB., eds.). IPCC.
20.
IvanovaD., BarrettJ., WiedenhoferD., MacuraB., CallaghanM., & CreutzigF. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 93001; doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
21.
KaklamanouD., JonesC. R., WebbT. L., & WalkerS. R. (2015). Using public transport can make up for flying abroad on holiday: Compensatory green beliefs and environmentally significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47, 184–204; doi: 10.1177/0013916513488784
22.
KarlinB., DavisN., SanguinettiA., GambleK., KirkbyD., & StokolsD. (2014). Dimensions of conservation: Exploring differences among energy behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 46, 423–452; doi: 10.1177/0013916512467532
23.
KnäuperB., RabiauM., CohenO., & PatriciuN. (2004). Compensatory health beliefs: Scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology & Health, 19, 607–624; doi: 10.1080/0887044042000196737
24.
LalotF., Falomir-PichastorJ. M., & QuiamzadeA. (2022). Regulatory focus and self-licensing dynamics: A motivational account of behavioural consistency and balancing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101731; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101731
MeijersM. H. C., NoordewierM. K., VerleghP. W. J., WillemsW., & SmitE. G. (2019). Paradoxical side effects of green advertising: How purchasing green products may instigate licensing effects for consumers with a weak environmental identity. International Journal of Advertising, 38, 1202–1223; doi: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1607450
27.
MerrittA. C., EffronD. A., & MoninB. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357; doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x
28.
MillerD. T., & EffronD. A. (2010). Psychological license. When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 115–155; doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8
29.
MoninB., & MillerD. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
30.
NielsenK. S., ClaytonS., SternP. C., DietzT., CapstickS., & WhitmarshL. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. The American Psychologist, 76, 130–144; doi: 10.1037/amp0000624
31.
NilssonA., BergquistM., & SchultzW. P. (2017). Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 23, 573–589; doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148
32.
NobletC. L., & McCoyS. K. (2018). Does one good turn deserve another? evidence of domain-specific licensing in energy behavior. Environment and Behavior, 50, 839–863; doi: 10.1177/0013916517718022
33.
PascaL. (2022). Pride and guilt as mediators in the relationship between connection to nature and pro-environmental intention. Climatic Change, 175; doi: 10.1007/s10584-022-03458-0
34.
PascaL., & PoggioL. (2023). Biased perception of the environmental impact of everyday behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163, 515–521; doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354
SusewindM., & HoelzlE. (2014). A matter of perspective: Why past moral behavior can sometimes encourage and other times discourage future moral striving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 201–209; doi: 10.1111/jasp.12214
37.
TrueloveH. B., & ParksC. (2012). Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 246–259; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002
38.
TylerT. R., OrwinR., & SchurerL. (1982). Defensive denial and high cost prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–281; doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp0304_4
39.
UmitR., PoortingaW., JokinenP., & PohjolainenP. (2019). The role of income in energy efficiency and curtailment behaviours: Findings from 22 European countries. Energy Research & Social Science, 53, 206–214; doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.025
40.
UrbanJ., BahníkŠ., & KohlováM. B. (2019). Green consumption does not make people cheat: Three attempts to replicate moral licensing effect due to pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 139–147; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.011
41.
WeberE. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103–120; doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
42.
WynesS., & NicholasK. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12, 74024; doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aab210
43.
WynesS., ZhaoJ., & DonnerS. D. (2020). How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Climatic Change, 162, 1521–1534; doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5
