Climatic Change

, Volume 155, Issue 4, pp 563–580 | Cite as

The influence of environmental identity labeling on the uptake of pro-environmental behaviors

  • Brianne Eby
  • Amanda R. CarricoEmail author
  • Heather Barnes Truelove


In this era of green marketing, consumers can earn the label of being pro-environmental for relatively simple and mundane actions. Researchers and practitioners have raised concerns that highlighting consumer behaviors as green might spill over, therefore increasing (positive spillover) or decreasing (negative spillover) an individual’s propensity to adopt a subsequent pro-environmental behavior (PEB). We report the results of two experimental studies that sought to investigate how labeling a person’s consumer behaviors or preferences as pro-environmental or not influences their decision to engage in a second PEB (donating to an environmental charity). Study 1 found that receiving a green label had no effect on environmental donations. Study 2 revealed that when a respondent’s consumer preferences were labeled as “not green”, they were significantly less likely to donate to an environmental cause relative to the control. We also find evidence that green labels interact with political identity. When Republicans were labeled as green, they were more likely to make an environmental donation than Republicans in the control condition. The donation behaviors of Democrats and Independents were not responsive to the label manipulation. Finally, both studies suggest that pre-existing environmental values are predictive of donation behavior. With additional research, the policy implications of using social labels to encourage PEBs can be better understood.



We wish to thank Leaf Van Boven and Max Boykoff for their helpful comments.

Funding information

Support for this project was provided by a grant from the NSF (SES-1325660).

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2501_MOESM1_ESM.docx (838 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 837 kb)


  1. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Gerber ER (2015) Motivational crowding in sustainable development interventions. Am Polit Sci Rev 109:470–488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen CTT (1982) Self-perception based strategies for stimulating energy conservation. J Consum Res 8:381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asensio OI, Delmas MA (2016) The dynamics of behavior change: evidence from energy conservation. J Econ Behav Organ 126:196–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin A, Cox J, Barnett J, Thomas C (2011) Exploring catalyst behaviours: executive summary. Brook Lyndhurst for Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bamberg S (2003) How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J Environ Psychol 23:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 6:1–62. Google Scholar
  8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodol) 57:289–300Google Scholar
  9. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (2000) On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. J Educ Behav Stat 25:60–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benz M, Meier S (2008) Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations. Exp Econ 11(3):268–281Google Scholar
  11. Bin S, Dowlatabadi H (2005) Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33:197–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breakwell G (2010) Resisting representations and identity processes. Papers. Pap Soc Represent 19:6.1–6.11Google Scholar
  13. Brick C, Sherman DK, Kim HS (2017) “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 51:226–238Google Scholar
  14. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:3–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burger JM, Caldwell DF (2017) The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: evidence for a self-perception process. Basic Appl Soc Psych 25:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carrico AR, Vandenbergh MP, Stern P et al (2011) Energy and climate change : key lessons for implementing the behavioral wedge. J Energy Environ Law 1:10–24Google Scholar
  17. Carrico AR, Truelove HB, Vandenbergh MP, Dana D (2015) Does learning about climate change adaptation change support for mitigation? J Environ Psychol 41:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carrico AR, Raimi KT, Truelove HB, Eby B (2018) Putting your money where your mouth is: an experimental test of pro-environmental spillover from reducing meat consumption to monetary donations. Environ Behav 50:723–748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clements JM, McCright AM, Dietz T, Marquart-Pyatt ST (2015) A behavioural measure of environmental decision-making for social surveys. Environmental Sociology 1(1):27–37Google Scholar
  20. Cornelissen G, Dewitte S, Warlop L, Yzerbyt V (2007) Whatever people say I am, that’s what I am: social labeling as a social marketing tool. Int J Res Mark 24:278–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crompton T (2008) Weathercocks & Signposts. Surrey, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahl R (2010) Greenwashing. Environ Health Perspect 118:246–253. Google Scholar
  23. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press: New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RMM (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull 125:627–668 discussion 692-700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DEFRA (2008) A framework for pro-environmental behaviors, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Delmas MA, Fischlein M, Asensio OI (2013) Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61:729–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P (2003) Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration Soc 15:441–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J et al (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions: supporting information. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D et al (2010) MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour for public policy. Institute for Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 58:4–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Executive Order No. 13707 (2015) Executive order -- using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people. The White House, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  32. Fielding KS, Hornsey MJ (2016) A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front Psychol 7:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gardner GT, Stern P (2008) The short list: the most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 50:12–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) A fine is a price. J Leg Stud 29:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldman M, Seever MM, Seever MM (1982) Social labeling and the foot-in-the-door effect. J Soc Psychol 117:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP (2013) Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(23):9314–9319Google Scholar
  37. Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior 27(5):699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gubler T, Larkin I, Pierce L (2016) Motivational spillovers from awards: crowding out in a multitasking environment. Organ Sci 27(2):286–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hagmann D, Ho EH, Loewenstein G (2019) Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nat Clim Chang 9:484–489Google Scholar
  40. Hamilton LC, Safford TG (2015) Environmental views from the coast: public concern about local to global marine issues. Soc Nat Resour 28:57–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Katsnelson A (2015) Will McDonald’s ‘sustainable beef’ burgers really be any better? The Guardian Retrieved February 15, 2019 from
  42. Kraut RE (1973) Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:551–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lacasse K (2016) Don’t be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label. J Environ Psychol 48:149–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lacasse K (2017) Can’t hurt, might help: examining the spillover effects from purposefully adopting a new pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav.
  45. Lanzini P, Thøgersen J (2014) Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: an intervention study. J Environ Psychol 40:381–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lauren N, Smith LDG, Louis WR, Dean AJ (2017) Promoting spillover: how past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environ Behav.
  47. Lepper M, Greene D, Nisbett RE (1973) Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: a test of the “overjustificationt” hypothesis. Artic J Personal Soc Psychol 28:129–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maki A, Carrico AR, Raimi KT, et al (2019) Meta-analysis of pro-environmental spillover. Under RevGoogle Scholar
  49. Margetts EA, Kashima Y (2017) Spillover between pro-environmental behaviours: the role of resources and perceived similarity. J Environ Psychol 49:30–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mason W, Suri S (2011) Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods June 30:1–23. Google Scholar
  51. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American Public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mellström C, Johannesson M (2008) Crowding out in blood donation: was Titmuss right? J Eur Econ Assoc 6(4):845–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murtagh N, Gatersleben B, Uzzell D (2012) Self-identity threat and resistance to change: evidence from regular travel behaviour. J Environ Psychol 32:318–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nash N, Whitmarsh L, Capstick S et al (2017) Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang:e481.
  55. Nilsson A, Bergquist M, Schultz PW (2017) Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda. Environ Educ Res 23:573–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Noblet CL, Mccoy SK (2017) Does one good turn deserve another? Evidence of domain-specific licensing in energy behavior.
  57. Ottman J (2017) The new rules of green marketing. Routledge, London and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peattie K (2001) Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. Mark Rev 2:129–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pimputkar S, Speck JS, DenBaars SP, Nakamura S (2009) Prospects for LED lighting. Nat Photonics 3(4):180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ Behav 36:70–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Suffolk C (2013) The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. J Environ Psychol 36:240–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ramroth L (2008) Comparison of life-cycle analyses of compact fluorescent and incandescent lamps based on rated life of compact fluorescent lamp. Rocky Mountain Institute, pp 11–12 Accessed 15 Feb 2019
  63. Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus Soc 44:377–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sintov N, Geislar S, White LV (2017) Cognitive accessibility as a new factor in proenvironmental spillover: results from a field study of household food waste management. Environ Behav 001391651773563.
  65. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steinhorst J, Klöckner CA, Matthies E (2015) Saving electricity - for the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. J Environ Psychol 43:125–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strenta A, Dejong W (1981) The effect of a prosocial label on helping behavior. Soc Psychol Q 44:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stryker S (1968) Identity salience and role performance: the relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. J Marriage Fam 558–564Google Scholar
  69. Stryker S, Serpe RT (1982) Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: theory and research example. In Personality, roles, and social behavior. Springer: New York, pp. 199–218Google Scholar
  70. TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc (2007) The six sins of greenwashing: a study of environmental claims in North American consumer markets. Retrieved February 15, 2019 from
  71. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR, Balz JP (2013) Choice architecture. In: The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  72. Thøgersen J (1999) Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. J Econ Psychol 20:53–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thøgersen J, Crompton T (2009) Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. J Consum Policy 32:141–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber E et al (2014) Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Chang Policy Dimens 29:127–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Truelove HB, Yeung KY, Carrico AR et al (2016) From plastic bottles to policy support: an experimental test of pro-environmental spillover. J Environ Psychol 46:55–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K (2014) I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ Behav 46:626–657. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Vugt M (2001) Community identification moderating the impact of financial incentives in a natural social dilemma: water conservation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 27(11):1440–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vandenbergh MP, Barkenbus J, Gilligan J (2008) Individual carbon emissions: the low-hanging fruit. UCLA L Rev 55:1701Google Scholar
  79. Wagner G (2011a) Going green but getting nowhere. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  80. Wagner G (2011b) But will the planet notice? How smart economics can save the world. Hill and Wang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Werfel SH (2017) Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nat Clim Chang 7:512–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S (2010) Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol 30:305–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. York R (2017) Environmental consequences of moral disinhibition. Socius 3:2378023117719612Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations