1

How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework

Katherine White, Rishad Habib, & David J. Hardisty UBC Sauder School of Business

2

Abstract Highlighting the important role of marketing in encouraging sustainable consumption, the current research presents a review of the academic literature from marketing and behavioral science examining the most effective ways to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable. In the process of the review, the authors develop a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing and encouraging sustainable consumer behavior change. The framework is represented by the acronym SHIFT, and it proposes that consumers are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behaviors when the message or context leverages the following psychological factors: Social influence, Habit, Individual self, Feelings and cognition, and Tangibility. The authors also identify five broad challenges to encouraging sustainable behaviors and use these to develop novel theoretical propositions and directions for future research. Finally, the authors outline how the framework can be used by practitioners aiming to encourage sustainable consumer behaviors.

Keywords: sustainable consumer behavior, environmentally friendly behavior, ecological behavior, corporate social responsibility

3

More than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issue “warning to humanity”: A similar warning was first issued by scientists in 1992…. Humanity is now being given a second notice, as illustrated by these alarming trends. We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption…. ~CBC News (2017), World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

I always make the business case for sustainability. It's so compelling. Our costs are down, not up. Our products are the best they have ever been. Our people are motivated by a shared higher purpose—esprit de corps to die for. And the goodwill in the marketplace—it's just been astonishing. ~Ray Anderson (2017), Founder and CEO of Interface Carpet

Our behaviors as individual “consumers” are having unprecedented impact on our natural environment (Stern 2000). Partly as a result of our consumption patterns, society and business are confronted with a confluence of factors—including environmental degradation, pollution, and climate change; increasing social inequity and poverty; as well as the growing need for renewable sources of energy—that point to a new way of doing business (Menon and Menon 1997). In response, many companies are recognizing the need for a sustainable way of doing business, and across industries we see firms such as Interface Carpet, Unilever, Nike, and Starbucks embedding sustainability into the DNA of their brands (Hardcastle 2013). The current paper provides a review of the literature regarding sustainable consumer behavior change and outlines a comprehensive psychological framework to guide researchers and practitioners in fostering sustainable behavior.

MARKETING AND SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

There are many reasons why understanding facilitators of sustainable consumer behavior should be of interest to marketers. One reason is reflected in the first quote above—marketers should be cognizant that the very consumption mindset that conventional marketing encourages is a key driver of negative environmental impacts (Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Peattie and Peattie 2009).

Second, as the subsequent quote suggests, businesses able to adapt to the demands of our changing world, including the urgent demand for sustainability, will be more likely to thrive in the long term and enjoy strategic benefits (Banerjee, Iyer, and Kashyap 2003). A sustainable business focus has advantages such as identifying new products and markets, leveraging emerging technologies, 4 spurring innovation, driving organizational efficiency, and motivating and retaining employees

(Hopkins et al. 2009). Moreover, research suggests that socially and environmentally responsible practices have the potential to garner more positive consumer perceptions of the firm, as well as increases in profitability (Brown and Dacin 1997; Luo and Bhattacharya 2006; Olsen, Slotegraaf, and Chandukala 2014; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001).

Firms that are able not only to operate more sustainably but also to consider new models of business that offer and encourage sustainable consumption can potentially earn greater long- term profits (Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan 2010). In one example, the growth in the “sharing economy” demonstrates the substantial environmental and economic gains possible through shifting consumers sustainably—in this case, from owning products to accessing existing products and services. While the question of how marketing relates to sustainable consumption has historically received attention in the form of identifying the “green consumer” segment (Anderson and Cunningham 1972; Kilbourne and Beckmann 1998), scholars now call for work on the predictors of sustainable consumption (Kotler 2011; Menon and Menon 1997; Mick 2006). Rather than merely targeting the green consumer, marketers can expand their market for the long-term mutual benefit of the firm and the planet. Thus, as firms operate and offer products and services in a more sustainable manner they might, at the same time, wish for their sustainable values and actions to be recognized, embraced, and rewarded by consumers in ways that spur sustainable consumption and maximize the firm’s sustainability and strategic business benefits.

The current work is motivated by the need for a comprehensive review and framework related to the key drivers of sustainable consumer behavior change. We build on existing work that has aptly outlined the steps marketers can take in identifying, fostering, and evaluating sustainable behavior (McKenzie-Mohr 2011; Peattie and Peattie 2009). While this existing work details the 5 social marketing concept and spotlights examples, it does not provide a comprehensive psychological framework for influencing consumer behavior change. Extant work often concentrates on a more focused set of factors that motivate sustainable behavior (Gifford 2014;

Peattie 2010; Steg and Vlek 2009)1. The first intended contribution of the present work, then, is to outline a comprehensive framework to help both practitioners and researchers encourage sustainable consumer behavior. On the practitioner side, access to a broader framework (including all the major factors from the literature) will allow for the most effective interventions to be developed. Second, the unique, process-driven focus of our framework (as opposed to the intervention focus of previous work) ensures that as technologies and societies change, our framework can easily be applied to new situations. Thus, a key contribution is that we offer a comprehensive set of tools firms can use as they pursue their sustainability and strategic business goals. Third, undertaking a more complete review allowed us to delineate a broader set of challenges to sustainable consumer behavior change, which can inform both practitioners and researchers. We discuss these challenges—the self-other trade-off, the long time horizon, the requirement of collective action, the problem of abstractness, and the need to replace automatic with controlled processes—in the theoretical-contribution section of the manuscript. Finally, we use these challenges to sustainable consumer behavior change to introduce a set of novel theoretical propositions to guide further conceptual development and future research.

SHIFTING CONSUMERS TO BEHAVE SUSTAINABLY

At first glance, it might appear that the goals and assumptions of marketing are incompatible with the goals and assumptions of sustainability. Traditional marketing encourages

1Steg and Vlek (2009) focus on three key motivators of sustainable behavior change: weighing costs and benefits, moral and normative factors, and affective factors. Peattie (2010) provides a comprehensive review but does not give a detailed analysis of habit formation, emotional factors, or tangibility. Gifford (2014) gives a broad review of theories and techniques but does not delve as deeply into issues linked to habit, the self-concept, cognition, or tangibility. 6 growth, promotes an endless quest for satisfying needs and wants, and seems to view resources as ever abundant (Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Swim, Clayton, and Howard 2011). In contrast, a sustainability focus suggests that resources utilized can be renewed by mimicking the circular flows of resources in nature, and it respects the fact that capacity of both resources and the environment are limited (McDonough and Braungart 2002; Mont and Heiskanen 2015). We argue that, because of this apparent contradiction, marketing and sustainability are inextricably intertwined. We further take the optimistic view that marketing and behavioral science have much to say about how we might influence consumption to be more sustainable. We review the literature and highlight ways in which consumers can be encouraged to behave more sustainably. Our review of the literature has led to the emergence of the acronym SHIFT, which reflects the importance of considering how Social influence, Habit formation, Individual self, Feelings and cognition, and Tangibility can be harnessed to encourage more sustainable consumer behaviors.

The SHIFT framework can help address the “attitude-behavior gap” that is commonly observed in sustainability contexts. Although consumers report favorable attitudes towards pro- environmental behaviors (Trudel and Cotte 2009), they often do not subsequently display sustainable actions (Auger and Devinney 2007; Gatersleben, Steg, and Vlek 2002; Kollmuss and

Agyeman 2002; Young et al. 2010). This divide between what consumers say and do is arguably the biggest challenge for marketers, companies, public policy makers, and non-profit organizations aiming to promote sustainable consumption (Johnstone and Tan 2015; Prothero et al. 2011).

Thus, while consumer demand for sustainable options is certainly on the rise (Gershoff and

Frels 2014)—for example, 66% of consumers (73% of millennials) worldwide report being willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings (Nielson 2015)—there is room to further encourage and support sustainable consumer behaviors. We define sustainable consumer behavior as actions that result in decreases in adverse environmental impacts, as well as decreased utilization of natural 7 resources across the lifecycle of the product, behavior, or service. While we focus on environmental sustainability we note that, consistent with a holistic approach to sustainability

(Norman and MacDonald 2004), improving environmental sustainability can result in both social and economic advances (Chernev and Blair 2015; Savitz and Weber 2013). We examine the process of consumption including information search, decision making, product or behavior adoption, product usage, as well as disposal in ways that allow for more sustainable outcomes.

Thus, sustainable consumer behaviors could include voluntarily reducing or simplifying one’s consumption in the first place (Leonard-Barton 1981; McDonald et al. 2006), choosing products with sustainable sourcing, production, and features (Luchs, Brower, and Chitturi 2012; Pickett-

Baker and Ozaki 2008), conserving resources such as energy and water during product use (Lin and Chang 2012), and more sustainable modes of product disposal (White and Simpson 2013).

Unlike typical consumer decision-making, which classically focuses on maximizing immediate benefits for the self, sustainable choices involve longer-term benefits to other people and the natural world. While broader marketing strategies can be useful in this domain, marketers also need a unique set of tools to promote sustainability. We endeavor to outline the key drivers of sustainable consumption with one comprehensive framework. Our review of existing literature on sustainable consumption began with an initial selection of top marketing journals: Journal of

Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, and Journal of

Consumer Research. These behavioral marketing and consumer behavior journals are the most highly regarded in the field, with high impact factors (above 3.0), and they are all featured on the

Financial Times Top 50 list. Using this set of journals, we conducted a literature search using specific keywords on Web of Science. The keywords included: sustainab* or ecolog* or green or environment* or eco-friendly and consum* or behavi* or choice or usage or adopt* or disposal. 8

This set of papers was then read and grouped into themes, which formed the five factors in the SHIFT framework. We used these five categories because they emerged in our initial review as being the most frequently occurring concepts, and because they allowed us to summarize the literature on sustainable behavior change in an inclusive manner. In order to extend our review, we then searched the literature more broadly by using our first set of search terms and then replacing the third search word with more specific labels that were relevant to our five themes. We refined our search to include Behavioral Sciences, Business, Psychology Multidisciplinary, Economics, and Management journals. For example, for the first section on social influence we searched

“social influence” and “norms.” Based on this, additional articles were identified in peer-reviewed academic journals in marketing, psychology, and economics. These articles were read and reviewed in terms of quality and relevance, which were determined via consensus among the authors before inclusion in our analysis. Our review identifies a set of 320 articles, some of which are used to frame the introduction (n = 40) and the rest represent the SHIFT factors (n = 280).

Next, we discuss the five identified routes to sustainable consumer behavior change (refer to Web

Appendix G for a summary of articles representing our SHIFT factors).

THE SHIFT FRAMEWORK

Social Influence

The first route to influencing sustainable consumer behaviors is social influence.

Consumers are often impacted by the presence, behaviors, and expectations of others. Social factors are one of the most influential factors in terms of effecting sustainable consumer behavior change (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). We examine how three different facets of social influence— social norms, social identities, and social desirability—can shift consumers to be more sustainable.

Social norms. Social norms, or beliefs about what is socially appropriate and approved of in a given context, can have a powerful influence on sustainable consumer behaviors (Cialdini et 9 al. 2006; Peattie 2010). Social norms predict behaviors such as avoiding littering (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren 1990), composting and recycling (Oskamp et al. 1991; White and Simpson 2013), conserving energy (Dwyer, Maki, and Rothman 2015; Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008;

Jachimowicz et al. 2018; Schultz et al. 2007), choosing sustainably sourced food (Dowd and

Burke 2013), selecting eco-friendly transportation (Harland, Staats, and Wilke 1999), choosing green hotels (Teng, Wu, and Liu 2015), and opting for solar panels (Bollinger and Gillingham

2012). The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that, along with subjective norms, attitudes and perceived behavioral control shape intentions, which predict behavior. This framework has been applied to sustainable behaviors (Han and Stoel 2017; Heath and Gifford 2002).

Cialdini and his colleagues use the term descriptive norm to refer to information about what other people are doing or commonly do (Cialdini et al. 1990; Reno, Cialdini, and Kallgren

1993). Descriptive norms can be stronger predictors of sustainable consumer behaviors than other factors such as self-interest, and people tend to underestimate how influential such norms can be

(Nolan et al. 2008). Descriptive norms are most effective when combined with reference to similar contexts (Fornara et al. 2011). In one example, descriptive norms communicating that others were taking part in a hotel energy-conservation program were more effective than a traditional environmental message, especially when the message referred to the same hotel room as the guest’s (Goldstein et al. 2008). Although descriptive norms are often very influential, if the majority of people are not engaging in the desired sustainable behavior, highlighting a descriptive norm might unintentionally lead to decreases in the desired action (Cialdini 2003; Schultz et al.

2007). One field study sheds light on an exception to this: When community organizers themselves installed (vs. did not install) solar panels on their homes (a behavior that reflects low norms), they were able to recruit 62.8% more residents to do the same (Kraft-Todd et al. 2018). 10

On the other hand, injunctive norms convey what is perceived as approved (or disapproved) of by other people and can thereby influence sustainable behaviors (Jachimowicz et al. 2018; Reno et al. 1993; Schultz et al. 2007), but they should be used carefully (Kronrod,

Grinstein, and Wathieu 2012). Injunctive norms are most effective when combined with thoughts about the ingroup and when they do not threaten feelings of autonomy, which can lead to

“reactance” responses (White and Simpson 2013). Thus, both descriptive and injunctive norms can impact sustainable behaviors, but these should be used with care.

Social identities. The impact of social influence depends on people’s social identities or sense of identity stemming from group memberships (Tajfel and Turner 1986). For example, consumers are more likely to engage in sustainable actions if ingroup members are doing the behavior (Goldstein et al. 2008; Han and Stoel 2017; Welsch and Kühling 2009). Moreover, viewing the self as a member of a pro-environmental ingroup is a key determinant of pro- environmental choices and actions (Fielding et al. 2008; Gupta and Ogden 2009; Van der Werff,

Steg, and Keizer 2013). Seeing the self as similar to a “typical recycler” predicts recycling intentions, over and above other factors such as attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Mannetti, Pierro, and Livi 2004).

One additional implication of social identities is that individuals desire to view their ingroups positively (Rabinovich et al. 2012) and do not wish to see their ingroup outperformed by other groups (Ferguson, Branscombe, and Reynolds 2011). This is particularly true of outgroups that the consumer does not wish to be associated with, or dissociative groups. In one example, researchers examined intentions to undertake sustainable actions such as water conservation, composting organics, and recycling (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014). When people learned that a dissociative reference group had performed better on a positive, sustainable behavior (thus casting the ingroup in a negative light), the focal group members increased their own positive behaviors. 11

These effects were augmented in public settings, because this is a condition under which the collective self is most relevant. One practical implication of this work is that friendly challenges could be encouraged between competing groups (Vugt, Griskevicius, and Schultz 2014), such as cities, neighborhoods, organizations, or business units.

Another finding stemming from the social identity literature is that social identity effects are heightened for those high in ingroup identification. Identifying with being “an organic consumer” or “a green consumer,” for example, predicts organic purchases (Bartels and

Hoogendam 2011; Bartels and Onwezen 2014). Moreover, messages encouraging sustainable consumption are received more positively by majority group members, as well as minority group members who are high in ingroup attachment (Grinstein and Nisan 2009). Highlighting a shared, superordinate ingroup identity can increase acceptance of information related to sustainable actions, especially for those who are high in ingroup identification (Schultz and Fielding 2014).

Social desirability. Another means by which social influence can impact sustainable behaviors is via social desirability. Consumers tend to select sustainable options in order to make a positive impression on others (Green and Peloza 2014) and endorse high-involvement sustainable options (e.g., hybrid vehicles) to convey social status to others (Griskevicius, Tybur, and Bergh 2010). However, sustainable behaviors are sometimes viewed negatively by observers, leading some consumers to avoid pro-environmental actions (Brough et al. 2016; Minson and

Monin 2012; Olson et al. 2016; Sadalla and Krull 1995; Shang and Peloza 2016). In one instance, males avoided appearing “eco-friendly” because it was associated with feminine traits (Brough et al. 2016). One implication, then, is to make sustainable products or behaviors socially desirable and to buffer against potential negative perceptions linked to sustainable consumption.

Moreover, consumers are more likely to act in a socially desirable manner in public contexts where other people can observe and evaluate their actions (Green and Peloza 2014; 12

Grolleau, Ibanez, and Mzoughi 2009; Peloza, White, and Shang 2013). In addition, encouraging public commitments to engage in sustainable consumer behavior can increase such actions (Burn and Oskamp 1986; Gonzales, Aronson, and Costanzo 1988). For example, those who committed to participate in a hotel energy-conservation program and wore a pin as a public symbol of this commitment were the most likely to engage in the program (Baca-Motes et al. 2012).

Habit Formation

While some sustainable behaviors (e.g., installing an efficient showerhead) require only a one-time action, many other sustainable behaviors (e.g., taking shorter showers) involve repeated actions that require new habit formation. Habits refer to behaviors that persist because they have become relatively automatic over time, as a result of regularly encountered contextual cues (Kurz et al. 2014). Because many common habits are unsustainable, habit change is a critical component of sustainable behavior change (Verplanken 2011). Many behaviors with sustainability implications—such as food consumption, choice of transportation, energy and resource use, shopping, and disposal of products—are strongly habitual (Donald, Cooper, and Conchie 2014;

Verplanken and Roy 2016). Interventions that break repetition, such as discontinuity and penalties, can disrupt bad habits. Actions that encourage repetition, such as making sustainable actions easy, and utilizing prompts, incentives, and feedback, can strengthen positive habits.

Discontinuity to change bad habits. The habit discontinuity hypothesis suggests that if the context in which habits arise changes in some way, it becomes difficult to carry out usual habits that would occur. In other words, a disruption in the stable context in which automatic behaviors arise can create ideal conditions for habit change. Life changes (e.g., a recent move) make people more likely to alter their eco-friendly behaviors (Bamberg 2006; Thøgersen 2012; Verplanken et 13 al. 2008; Walker, Thomas, and Verplanken 2015). Thus, combining context changes with habit- formation techniques can be one way to encourage sustainable behaviors.

Penalties. Penalties are essentially types of punishment that decrease the tendency to engage in an undesirable behavior. A penalty might take the form of a tax, a fine, or a tariff on an unsustainable behavior. Fines can encourage behavior change in domains that can be monitored, such as the disposal of waste (Fullerton and Kinnaman 1995), while taxes and tariffs can be effective in domains that involve strong habits (e.g., driving gasoline-powered vehicles; Krause

2009). Although penalties certainly can deter unsustainable behaviors in some instances, they can trigger backfire effects if the penalty seems unreasonable (Fullerton and Kinnaman 1995) and can lead to negative affect and defensive responses (Bolderdijk, Lehman, and Geller 2012; Geller,

Bechtel, and Churchman 2002; Steg and Vlek 2009). Moreover, penalties can be difficult to enforce and monitor (Bolderdijk et al. 2012). Thus, it is often desirable to turn to positive behavior-change strategies instead, which we discuss next.

Implementation intentions. One means of transitioning from an old habit to a new one is to have people consider implementation intentions, or thoughts about what steps they will take to engage in the action (Kurz et al. 2014). Such intentions can positively influence recycling

(Holland, Aarts, and Langendam 2006) and sustainable food-purchasing habits (Fennis et al.

2011). Then the new behavior can be encouraged via repetition and by positive habit formation techniques such as making it easy, prompts, feedback, and incentives.

Making it easy. Many sustainable actions are viewed as effortful, time-consuming, or difficult to carry out, which can be a barrier to sustainable actions (McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Thus, one strategy to encourage sustainable habit formation is to make the action easier to do (Houten,

Nau, and Merrigan 1981). Contextual changes that improve the ease of engaging in sustainable behaviors, such as placing recycling bins nearby, requiring less complex sorting of recyclables, 14 and offering showerheads with “low-flow” settings, encourage such behaviors (Brothers, Krantz, and McClannahan 1994; Gamba and Oskamp 1994; Ludwig, Gray, and Rowell 1998). One means of making sustainable actions easier is to make them the default (Frederiks, Stenner, and Hobman

2015; Theotokis and Manganari 2015). In one example, when sustainable electricity was set as the default option, individuals were more likely to stick with it (Pichert and Katsikopoulos 2008).

Because consumers are often low on cognitive resources, simplifying the decision-making process can allow them to more automatically form sustainable habits (Steg and Vlek 2009)

Prompts. Another means of encouraging sustainable habit formation is the use of prompts: messages that are given before the behavior occurs to remind the consumer what the desired sustainable behavior is (Lehman and Geller 2004). Prompts can positively impact many sustainable behaviors including waste disposal, energy usage, and recycling (Osbaldiston and

Schott 2012). Prompts to engage in sustainable behaviors work best when they are large, clear, easy to follow, and placed in proximity to where the behavior will be performed (Austin et al.

1993; Werner, Rhodes, and Partain 1998). Because prompts are easy to employ and cost-effective, they can be a good initial behavior-change strategy (Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri 1995), but they are best utilized in combination with other strategies (Delmas, Fischlein, and Asensio 2013).

Incentives. Rewards, discounts, gifts, and other extrinsic incentives can increase desired behaviors and positive habit formation. Monetary incentives such as rebates, tiered pricing, and cash can encourage the adoption and maintenance of sustainable behaviors (Diamond and Loewy

1991; Slavin, Wodarski, and Blackburn 1981; Wilhite and Ling 1995). Incentives have been shown to impact sustainable behaviors such as waste disposal and clean-up (Baltes and Hayward

1976), energy usage (Abrahamse et al. 2005), and transportation choices (Everett, Hayward, and

Meyers 1974). Although incentives can encourage the adoption and maintenance of sustainable behaviors, they do have potential drawbacks (Bolderdijk and Steg 2015). Smaller monetary 15 rewards are often less motivating than other types of incentives such as a free gift, a lottery entry, or social praise (Handgraaf, de Jeude, and Appelt 2013; Hutton and McNeill 1981). Second, incentives to engage in sustainable behaviors can lead to actions that are short-lived (Katzev and

Johnson 1984). Consumers initially respond positively to rewards, but the sustainable behavior often disappears once the incentive is removed (Cairns, Newson, and Davis 2010). Thus, one-time sustainable actions are easier to encourage with incentives than are longer-term changes (Geller et al. 2002). Further, incentives can have the unintended consequence of decreasing the desired behavior, because the intrinsic motive to engage in the action is reduced (Bowles 2008).

Feedback. Another means of encouraging sustainable habit formation is to use feedback.

This involves providing consumers with specific information about their own performance on a task or behavior. Feedback can be given for actions like water and energy usage, and it can be provided with reference to the consumer’s own past behaviors or in comparison to the performance of other individuals (Abrahamse et al. 2007; Fischer 2008; Tiefenbeck et al. 2016).

Research suggests that feedback is more effective when it is presented over an extended period of time, in real-time, and in a clear manner (Chiang et al. 2014; Fischer 2008; Karjalainen 2011).

Sharing group feedback with households and in work settings can also be an effective behavior- change strategy (De Leon and Fuqua 1995; Schultz 1999; Schultz et al. 2007; Siero et al. 1996).

The Individual Self

Factors linked to the individual self can have a powerful influence on consumption behaviors. The concepts discussed in this section include positivity of the self-concept, self- interest, self-consistency, self-efficacy, and individual differences.

The self-concept. Individuals desire to maintain positive self-views and can reaffirm the positivity of the self-concept via consumption (Dunning 2007). As a result of the desire to view the self positively, people often exhibit self-defensive reactions to learning that their own 16 behaviors have negative environmental impacts (Dickinson 2009; Feygina, Jost, and Goldsmith

2010) and derogate others displaying more sustainable actions (Minson and Monin 2012; Zane,

Irwin, and Reczek 2015). Moreover, people display motivated biases including the tendency to seek out and reinforce information that confirms pre-existing views (Weber 2016). Further, some forms of sustainable behavior change (e.g., travel behaviors) are avoided because changing can threaten the self (Murtagh et al. 2015). In one example, threats to Republican self-identity led to backfire effects, such that Republicans decreased support for climate-change mitigation policies in response to climate-change communications (Hart and Nisbet 2012) or were less likely to choose an eco-friendly option (Gromet, Kunreuther, and Larrick 2013). Thus, positively associating sustainable behaviors with the self-concept and buffering against self-threatening information can be critical for sustainable behavior change. For example, self-affirmation, or the endorsement of important self-values, mitigates self-protective responses, leading to greater endorsement of sustainable actions (Brough et al. 2016; Prooijen and Sparks 2014; Sparks et al. 2010).

The self-concept also relates to sustainable behaviors in that the possessions people own can become extensions of their identity (Belk 1988). One way this sense of extended-self manifests is that people can be unwilling to part with possessions that are linked to the self, due to a sense of identity loss (Winterich, Reczek, and Irwin 2017). Winterich and her colleagues showed that this identity loss was mitigated by having the consumer take a picture of a sentimental product before considering donating, which led to increased possession donation. Giving possessions to others not only has positive sustainability implications, it can lead to greater well-being for the giver

(Donnelly et al. 2017). Finally, consumers take better care of and are less likely to trash (versus recycle) identity-linked products (Trudel, Argo, and Meng 2016).

Self-consistency. In addition to wanting to see the self in a positive light, people want to see the self as being consistent. Self-consistency research shows that when a consumer reaffirms a 17 component of the self-concept (e.g., being environmentally concerned) or engages in a sustainable behavior at one time point, this often leads to consistent sustainable behaviors in the future (Van der Werff, Steg, and Keizer 2014). Similarly, initial personal commitments to act sustainably can increase the likelihood of subsequently behaving in a sustainable manner (Bodur, Duval, and

Grohmann 2015; Katzev and Johnson 1984), especially when they are made in writing (Lokhorst et al. 2013). Along with individual consistency, when a firm adheres to green values this can lead to increased consumer conservation behaviors (Wang, Krishna, and McFerran 2016). Further, evidence suggests that people who engage in a sustainable action in one domain are often more likely to perform sustainably in other domains too (i.e., positive spillover; Juhl, Fenger, and

Thøgersen 2017; Lanzini and Thøgersen 2014; Lokhorst et al. 2013; Ölander and Thøgersen 2014;

Truelove et al. 2014). Consistency can also be driven by assessments of the consumer’s own behavior. For example, those who felt that the end “sustainability” goal was unimportant were less motivated to pursue the end goal when they were unable to enact sub-goals (e.g., failing to recycle a newspaper; Devezer et al. 2014). Moreover, cuing people that a given behavior has positive sustainability outcomes leads them to see themselves as being more environmentally concerned and to be more likely to choose eco-friendly products (Cornelissen et al. 2008). Finally, simply reminding consumers of a time when their behavior was inconsistent with a personally held value related to sustainability can subsequently lead the consumer to behave in a manner consistent with those sustainable values (Dickerson et al. 1992; Peloza et al. 2013).

While there are many examples of self-consistency effects, inconsistency effects can also arise. Licensing effects may occur wherein individuals who have engaged in a sustainable action at one time point will later be less likely to engage in another sustainable or positive behavior

(Phipps et al. 2013; Sachdeva, Jordan, and Mazar 2015; Tiefenbeck et al. 2013). For example, researchers found that people who took part in a “green” (vs. conventional) virtual shopping task 18 that asked them to select from sustainable products were subsequently more likely to behave in an antisocial manner (Mazar and Zhong 2010). The availability of pro-environmental technologies and resources also can lead to negative spillover effects (Small and Dender 2007; Sorrell,

Dimitropoulos, and Sommerville 2009). For example, Catlin and Wang (2013) found that when consumers knew that a recycling option was available, they used more resources.

Moreover, both inconsistency and consistency can emerge in the same context. People who brought a reusable shopping bag to the market subsequently spent more money on both sustainable and indulgent food options (Karmarkar and Bollinger 2015). Further, making a sustainable choice decreases subsequent sustainable behaviors for those low in environmental consciousness, but increases these behaviors for those highly conscious of environmental issues

(Garvey and Bolton 2017). Consistency rather than inconsistency effects may be more likely to occur when connected to transcendent rather than self-interested values (Evans et al. 2013).

Self-interest. Economic and evolutionary theories both suggest that appeals to self-interest can be leveraged to influence pro-environmental behaviors (Griskevicius, Cantú, and Vugt 2012;

Paavola 2001). One strategy is to highlight the self-benefits associated with a given sustainable product, service, or behavior (Green and Peloza 2014; Nolan et al. 2008). Research shows that if self-motives are fulfilled (vs. not fulfilled), consumers are more influenced by sustainable attributes (Schuitema and Groot 2015). Another means of appealing to consumer self-interest is to highlight self-benefits that can counteract the barriers to sustainable action (Gleim et al. 2013;

Lanzini and Thøgersen 2014). Such barriers include the belief that sustainable attributes can have negative implications for aesthetics (Luchs and Kumar 2017), functional performance (Luchs et al.

2010; Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014; Truelove et al. 2014), effort (Johnstone and Tan 2015), or affordability (Chang 2011; Gleim et al. 2013; Hughner et al. 2007). Messages that appeal to self- interest are most effective in private (Green and Peloza 2014) and when the individual self is 19 primed in some way (White and Simpson 2013). Research suggests that a focus on self-interest is not always effective alone (McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Moreover, self-interests can crowd out pro- environmental motivations (Schwartz et al. 2015), especially when appeals include self-focused and environmentally-focused reasons for acting sustainably (Edinger-Schons et al. 2018).

Self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy involves beliefs that a) one can undertake the required action and b) carrying out the behavior will have the intended impact.

Consumers’ feelings of self-efficacy predict sustainable attitudes, as well as continuing sustainable behaviors over time (Armitage and Conner 2001; Cleveland, Kalamas, and Laroche 2005; Ellen,

Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren 1991; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed 1974; White, MacDonnell, and

Dahl 2011). According to Peattie (1999, 2001), consumers are most likely to choose sustainable options when consumer compromise is low, and when there is high confidence that a particular behavior will make a difference (i.e., self-efficacy is high).

Individual differences. An important individual difference is personal norms or beliefs regarding a sense of personal obligation that are linked to one’s self-standards (Bamberg,

Hunecke, and Blöbaum 2007; Jansson, Marell, and Nordlund 2010; Schwartz 1977; Stern and

Dietz 1994). Individual differences in personal norms around sustainability predict sustainable behaviors including recycling (Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz 1995), selecting sustainable food

(Wiidegren 1998), and being willing to pay more for sustainable options (Guagnano, Dietz, and

Stern 1994; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993). Other research has focused on differences in environmental concern (Alwitt and Pitts 1996; Paul, Modi, and Patel 2016; Schwepker Jr and

Cornwell 1991). Marketers can find success targeting those with strong personal norms and values around sustainability or by strengthening existing personal norms via priming (Peloza et al. 2013;

Steg 2015; Steg et al. 2014; Verplanken and Holland 2002). In addition, individual differences in mindfulness (Bahl et al. 2016; Barber and Deale 2014; Panno et al. 2018; Sheth, Sethia, and 20

Srinivas 2011) as well as perceptions of feeling connected to nature (Nisbet, Zelenski, and

Murphy 2009) have been shown to predict environmental concern and sustainable behaviors.

Further, traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and environmental concern predict green buying behaviors (Fraj and Martinez 2006; Mainieri et al. 1997).

Finally, demographics have been shown to relate to sustainable consumption behaviors

(Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Gifford and Nilsson 2014; Murphy, Kangun, and Locander 1978).

Sometimes gender differences are noted, wherein females exhibit more sustainable consumer behaviors, which may be partly because females tend to be higher in traits such as agreeableness, interdependence, and openness to experience (Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002; Eagly 2009; Luchs and Mooradian 2012). Other work finds that those who are more liberal, younger, and highly educated are likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (Gilg, Barr, and Ford 2005; Granzin and Olsen 1991; Roberts 1993; Semenza et al. 2008). It makes sense to target responsive segments with sustainability appeals (Anderson and Cunningham 1972; Kinnear et al. 1974; Laroche,

Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001), and interventions should be tailored to reflect the specific needs and motivations, barriers, and benefits of the target consumer (Abrahamse et al. 2007;

Balderjahn et al. 2018; Daamen et al. 2001).

Feelings and Cognition

We introduce the concepts of feelings and cognition together because, generally speaking, consumers take one of two different routes to action—one that is driven by affect or one that is more driven by cognition (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999). This proposition is consistent with theories suggesting that either an intuitive, affective route or a more deliberative, cognitive route can dominate in decision-making (Epstein 2003; Kahneman 2003, 2011). We note that this distinction is likely to be highly relevant in the domain of reacting to information about ecological issues

(Marx et al. 2007). We first outline how negative and positive emotions can impact pro- 21 environmental behaviors. Then we discuss the role of cognition in determining sustainable actions by considering information and learning, eco-labeling, and framing.

Negative emotions. Consumers often consider the negative emotional consequences of either engaging or not engaging in sustainable behaviors (Rees, Klug, and Bamberg 2015).

Generally speaking, it is important to avoid creating negative emotional states that are too intense

(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Instead, more subtle activation of negative emotions can be effective (Meng and Trudel 2017; Peloza et al. 2013). We next address the impact of specific negative emotions: fear, guilt, and sadness.

Communications regarding sustainable behavior often use fear appeals that highlight the negative consequences of a given action or inaction (Banerjee, Gulas, and Iyer 1995). On the one hand, when communications leave the individual feeling that the consequences are uncertain and temporally distant, this can make the situation seem less dangerous and lead to inaction (Lowe et al. 2006). However, using strong fear appeals can lead to a sense of being unable to overcome the threat and result in denial (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole 2009). Because of this, it is best to use moderate fear appeals and to combine these with information about efficacy and what actions to take (Li 2014; Osbaldiston and Sheldon 2002).

Guilt can influence sustainable intentions and behaviors (Carrus, Passafaro, and Bonnes

2008; Jiménez and Yang 2008; Luchs and Mooradian 2012; Mallett, Melchiori, and Strickroth

2013; Muralidharan and Sheehan 2018; Onwezen, Antonides, and Bartels 2013). This is largely due to the appraisal of individual responsibility associated with guilt (Lerner and Keltner 2000), leading people to feel morally responsible for the environment (Kaiser and Shimoda 1999).

Research shows that anticipated guilt can also influence people to act in a pro-environmental manner (Grob 1995; Kaiser 2006; Mallett 2012; Steenhaut and Kenhove 2006). Anticipated guilt is more effective at encouraging sustainable behavior when consumers are subtly asked to 22 consider their own self-standards of behavior, rather than when they are exposed to explicit guilt appeals, which can backfire (Peloza et al. 2013). Collective guilt also can be a motivator of pro- environmental action (Ferguson et al. 2011). Information conveying that one's country has a significant carbon footprint leads to a sense of collective guilt, and such feelings predict willingness to support sustainable causes and actions (Ferguson et al. 2011; Mallett et al. 2013).

In addition to fear and guilt, sadness has been examined as a driver of sustainable attitudes and behaviors (Sevillano, Aragonés, and Schultz 2007). Sadness was shown to lead to more pro- environmental behaviors such as using an energy-footprint calculator and allocating higher donation amounts to a sustainable cause (Schwartz and Loewenstein 2017). However, once the emotion dissipated, differences in sustainable actions were eliminated between those who had received the sadness message versus a non-affective message. Thus, emotions such as sadness are more influential when they are currently experienced.

Positive emotions. Consumers are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental actions when they derive some hedonic pleasure or positive affect from the behavior (Corral-Verdugo et al. 2009). Sustainable behaviors can both decrease negative and increase positive emotions

(Onwezen et al. 2013; Rezvani, Jansson, and Bengtsson 2017; Sun and Trudel 2017). Engaging in sustainable actions has been shown to result in “warm glow” feelings that can spill over and lead to more favorable evaluations of the overall service experience (Giebelhausen et al. 2016).

Positive emotions such as joy and pride have been shown to influence consumer intentions to decrease plastic water bottle usage; and optimism can motivate the maintenance of sustainable behaviors over time (Peter and Honea 2012). On the other hand, research suggests that positive emotions can work to negatively impact sustainable consumer behaviors—unsustainable actions such as driving gas-powered automobiles are linked to positive affective benefits (Steg 2005). 23

Meanwhile, feelings of affinity towards nature predict sustainable attitudes and intentions

(Kals, Schumacher, and Montada 1999). Studies demonstrated positive sustainable actions in response to “cute” appeals (e.g., communications featuring cute animals), particularly when the consumer exhibits “approach” motivational tendencies (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, and Patrick 2017).

This is driven by increased feelings of tenderness in response to such appeals.

The role of specific positive emotions such as pride in determining sustainable consumer behaviors is also relevant (Bissing-Olson, Fielding, and Iyer 2016). Pride is a self-conscious and moral emotion stemming from a sense of responsibility for a positive outcome (Lerner and Keltner

2000). Those who feel a sense of pride have been shown to be more likely to subsequently engage in sustainable behaviors, in part because pride enhances feelings of effectiveness (Antonetti and

Maklan 2014). Finally, positive environmental actions can lead to feelings of hope, which can increase climate activism and sustainable behaviors (Feldman and Hart 2018; Smith and

Leiserowitz 2014). Feelings of hope can be augmented by framing climate change as a health issue, as opposed to an environmental issue (Myers et al. 2012).

Information, learning, and knowledge. One basic means of persuading consumers to engage in eco-friendly actions is to present information that relays desired (and undesired) behaviors and their consequences (McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Some have lamented that people’s dearth of knowledge—due to lack of exposure to information (Gifford 2011), information overload (Horne 2009; Neumann, Roberts, and Cauvin 2012), and confusion (Chen and Chang

2013)—can contribute to low uptake of sustainable behaviors. Moreover, intelligence (Aspara,

Luo, and Dhar 2017), education (Gifford and Nilsson 2014), and knowledge (Levine and Strube

2012) are linked to greater responsiveness to environmental appeals and engaging in eco-friendly behaviors. In many ways, knowledge is relevant across all of our SHIFT factors. The consumer 24 must have knowledge of the social norm, must be aware of and understand the prompt or feedback, must comprehend information related to self-values, self-benefits, self-efficacy, etc.

Information via appeals that highlight why the desired behavior or product is sustainable can be effective in giving consumers the initial knowledge they need regarding actions and consequences (Peattie and Peattie 2009; Sussman and O’Brien 2016). Indeed, one is unlikely to engage in more deliberate forms of sustainable behavior change if one is not informed about the problem, potential positive actions, and possible consequences (Gifford and Nilsson 2014). Meta- analytic reviews suggest that information has a significant albeit modest influence on pro- environmental actions (Delmas et al. 2013; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). However, research also reveals that interventions providing information only are often not enough to spur long-term sustainable changes (Abrahamse et al. 2005; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). Because of this, combining information with other tactics can be more effective (Kahan et al. 2012; McKenzie-

Mohr 2011; Peattie and Peattie 2009; Stern 1999). Some work even suggests that detailed knowledge can backfire. Those with the highest levels of science literacy displayed more ideology-reinforcing bias than their counterparts, which was attributed to their science knowledge making them better able to support their own pre-existing viewpoints (Kahan et al. 2012).

Eco-labeling. Eco-labeling is one means of conveying information about the sustainable attributes of a product (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau, and Larceneux 2011). Labels that are attention- grabbing, easily understandable, and consistent across categories can enable consumers to make better informed eco-friendly decisions (Borin, Cerf, and Krishnan 2011; Taufique, Vocino, and

Polonsky 2017; Thøgersen 2000). It has been suggested that eco-labels would be more impactful if they were contrasted against negative labels that highlight products with environmentally harmful attributes (Borin et al. 2011). Eco-labeling can seem more transparent and unbiased if it is certified by a third party that validates the sustainability claims (Manget, Roche, and Münnich 2009). 25

However, it is important to note that some work suggests that eco-labels do not play a strong role in predicting consumer food selections (Grunert, Hieke, and Wills 2014).

Framing. Marketers can strategically choose message framing to encourage sustainable choices (Ungemach et al. 2017). Because consumers care more about future losses than about future gains (Hardisty and Weber 2009), labels on energy-efficient appliances should compare energy costs rather than savings (Bull 2012; Min et al. 2014). Further, information can be aggregated to make a bigger impact: using lifetime (vs. annual) energy costs for appliances

(Kallbekken, Sælen, and Hermansen 2013) and cost-per-100,000-miles labeling to promote sales of efficient cars (Camilleri and Larrick 2014). Loss-framed information is especially effective when combined with concrete information on how to engage in the behavior—for example, to improve the quantity and accuracy of residential recycling (White et al. 2011). Framing can have differential effects. In the USA, framing a carbon price as a carbon offset (vs. a tax) has a strong effect on Republicans but has little impact on Democrats and a moderate impact on Independents

(Hardisty, Johnson, and Weber 2010). In another example, framing an appeal in terms of binding moral values (e.g., duty, authority, and consistency with ingroup norms) leads to more positive recycling intentions and behaviors among Republicans, whereas appealing to individualizing moral values (e.g., fairness, empathy, and individuality) leads to more positive reactions among

Democrats (Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty 2013). Notably, such matching effects in message framing are often driven by perceptions of fluency, or the ease of processing and comprehending the meaning of stimuli (Kidwell et al. 2013; White et al. 2011).

Tangibility

One unique facet of sustainable consumption is that eco-friendly actions and outcomes can seem abstract, vague, and distant from the self (Reczek, Trudel, and White 2018). Most sustainable consumer behaviors involve putting aside more immediate and proximal individual 26 interests to prioritize behaviors with ill-defined consequences that are focused on others, and only realized in the future (Amel et al. 2017; Spence, Poortinga, and Pidgeon 2012). Moreover, consumers are not likely to act on issues that are impalpable in nature (Griskevicius et al. 2012).

Pro-environmental outcomes are difficult to track and measure because changes emerge slowly over time, and uncertainty surrounds problems and their solutions ( Carette et al. 2012; Gifford

2011; Pindyck 2007; Weber 2010). Uncertainty also can emerge due to firm actions such as greenwashing (Chen and Chang 2013). Next, we outline some solutions to the tangibility problem.

Matching temporal focus. While sustainability is naturally future-focused, consumers are often present-focused. Moreover, when a future environmental payoff is judged to be distant, it becomes less desirable in the present (Hardisty and Weber 2009; Vugt et al. 2014). One solution to this mismatch is to encourage the consumer to think more abstractly and/or to focus on future benefits of the sustainable action (Reczek et al. 2018). Those who have a greater focus on the future engage in more pro-environmental behaviors (Arnocky, Milfont, and Nicol 2014; Joireman,

Van Lange, and Van Vugt 2004). Asking individuals to focus on future generations can reduce present-focused biases (Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel, and Bazerman 1997), and prompting the consideration of legacy increases sustainable choices (Zaval, Markowitz, and Weber 2015).

Communicate local and proximal impacts. Communications that relate the more immediate consequences of pro-environmental behaviors for a given city, region, or neighborhood can make environmental actions and outcomes seem more tangible and relevant (Leiserowitz 2006; Scannell and Gifford 2013). Drawing on people’s attachments to a specific place (Devine-Wright and

Howes 2010; Gifford 2014), emphasizing personal experiences with climate-change impacts

(Weber 2010), and using current issues such as extreme weather events can lead to more sustainability-oriented beliefs and actions (Li, Johnson, and Zaval 2011). 27

Concrete communications. Another way to tackle intangibility is to make sustainability issues more relevant and concrete for the self (Akerlof et al. 2013; Arnocky et al. 2014; Li et al.

2011; Reczek et al. 2018; Spence et al. 2012). This can be done by communicating the immediate impacts of environmental problems such as climate change (Paswan, Guzmán, and Lewin 2017) and outlining clear steps to make a difference (White et al. 2011). Communications can make the consequences of inaction (or action) clear by using techniques such as vivid imagery, analogies, and narratives (Marx et al. 2007).

Encourage the desire for intangibles. A challenge for sustainable behaviors is that consumers often have a desire for ownership of material goods. One means of moving towards more sustainable consumption is to promote dematerialization (Csikszentmihalyi 2000), wherein consumers decrease emphasis on the possession of tangible goods. This could include consumption of experiences (Van Boven 2005), digital products (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018;

Belk 2013), or services (Lovelock 1983). This is consistent with the notion that marketing is evolving to be more focused on the provision of services, intangible resources, and the co-creation of value (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Trends such as the “sharing economy” with its ideal of collaborative consumption of idle resources (Donnelly et al. 2017) and “voluntary simplicity” wherein consumers simplify their lifestyles rather than focus on the possessions (Cherrier 2009) indicate that needs can be fulfilled without the possession of tangible products being a focal goal.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In our literature review, we identified five routes to sustainable behavior change, while delineating specific behavior-change strategies within each route. The focus of the review portion of this manuscript has been to identify what the main drivers of sustainable consumer behavior are, according to existing research. In this next section, we will go further to highlight a set of theoretical propositions regarding when and why each of the routes to sustainable behavior change 28

(i.e., the SHIFT factors) will be most relevant. We do so by outlining a set of key challenges that make sustainable consumption distinct from typical consumer behaviors—the self-other trade-off, the long time horizon, the requirement of collective action, the problem of abstractness, and the need to replace automatic with controlled processes. We examine each of these challenges to sustainable consumer behavior change via the lens of our SHIFT framework and outline key theoretical propositions and directions for future research.

The Self-Other Trade-Off. Our first challenge to sustainable consumer behavior is that such actions are often perceived as having some cost to the self, be it increased effort, increased cost, inferior quality, or inferior aesthetics (Luchs and Kumar 2017). At the same time, sustainable consumer behaviors make positive environmental and social impacts that are external to the self

(Campbell and Winterich 2018). Thus, while the traditional view of consumer behavior holds that consumers will choose and use products and services in ways that satisfy their own wants and needs (Solomon, White, and Dahl 2017), views of sustainable consumer behaviors often imply putting aside wants that are relevant to the self and prioritizing and valuing entities that are outside of the self (e.g., other people, the environment, future generations).

The self-other trade-off has implications for how social influence might operate in the context of encouraging sustainable consumer behaviors. Although sustainable consumption often comes at some cost to the self, we suggest that identity signaling can be a self-relevant positive repercussion that can outweigh the costs of sustainable action. This assertion is supported by work showing that consumers are more likely to select sustainable options when the setting is public or status motives are activated (Green and Peloza 2014; Griskevicius et al. 2010). A novel proposition building on this work is that product symbolism might have more impact on consumer attitudes and choices when a product is positioned on sustainable versus traditional attributes. By the term “symbolic,” we refer to the notion that some products are better able to convey important 29 information about the self to others (Berger and Heath 2007; White and Argo 2011). The marketer could highlight either symbolic benefits (i.e., convey relevant information about the self to others) or functional aspects (i.e., information about satisfying practical needs) linked to a product (Bhat and Reddy 1998). Because there may be less direct self-benefits related to a sustainable action, linking a sustainable options with symbolic benefits could be a fruitful strategy.

P1: When a given behavior or product is positioned on the basis of its symbolic attributes (vs. functional attributes), consumers may exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviors if the option is framed in terms of being sustainable versus a traditional product.

Another way of overcoming the self-other trade-off is to consider the individual self

(Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee 1999). In particular, how the individual views his or her own self- concept might predict sustainable consumer behaviors. While some individuals tend to have a more independent view of the self (i.e., the self is separate and distinct from others), some have a more interdependent self-construal (i.e., the self is connected with others; Markus and Kitayama

1991). One possibility is that those who think of the self in terms of an interdependent self- construal (both as a measured individual difference and as a primed mindset; White, Argo, and

Sengupta 2012) might be more inclined to engage in sustainable behaviors (Arnocky, Stroink, and

DeCicco 2007), particularly when actions assist ingroup members (Duclos and Barasch 2014).

Moreover, work could examine how to activate even broader, more transcendent construals of the self, encompassing not only the self and close others but also other species and the biosphere.

Encouraging such transcendent self-views might effectively increase eco-friendly actions.

P2: Encouraging the self-concept to be seen as broader than the self (either interdependent or transcendent) will lead to increases in sustainable behaviors.

At the same time, a specific focus on the individual self might be linked to sustainable actions in a way that overcomes uncertainty and is motivating. Giving the self a sense of agency

(i.e., perceiving oneself as the causal agent of behavioral outcomes) offers the individual a 30 perception of empowerment and the ability to actually effect change. This might be done via priming of agency and the motivation to achieve a given sustainable goal (van der Weiden, Aarts, and Ruys 2013). Because outcomes of sustainable actions are often abstract and uncertain, agency priming might be a relevant motivational tool in the domain of sustainable behavior change. Thus:

P3: Agency primes will lead to an increased tendency to engage in sustainable behaviors.

Work on the individual self in prosocial contexts also highlights the potential importance of moral identity in overcoming the self-other trade-off. Moral identity refers to a cognitive schema around moral traits, goals, and values (Aquino and Reed 2002). The strength of moral identity can vary as an individual difference (e.g., moral identity centrality), and it can be activated by situational priming (Aquino et al. 2009). Moral identity predicts altruistic and ethical behaviors

(Aquino and Reed 2002), and those higher in moral identity appear have an expansive “circle of moral regard” that includes entities further from the self, such as outgroup members (Reed and

Aquino 2003). Because of this, individuals who are high in moral identity or who have moral identity primed in some way might be more likely to take some costs to the self to contribute to a greater good. While work has looked at moral identity in the domain of prosocial behaviors (Reed,

Aquino, and Levy 2007), to our knowledge no prior work has examined whether sustainable behaviors are viewed as moral obligations that are predicted by moral identity.

P4: Both individual differences in moral identity and moral-identity primes will increase sustainable consumer behaviors.

The self-other trade-off also is linked to how consumers perceive the costs and benefits of sustainable consumption. The literature lacks sufficient work examining the positive consumer associations with sustainability. While there are a number of studies on the negative associations of sustainable consumption, there are very few explicitly examining the positive associations of sustainability. For example, sustainability might be linked to positive feelings about design when 31 it is in the context of innovative, out-of-the-box thinking; Tesla, for example, capitalizes on such associations. Further, it seems likely that sustainability has positive associations with health, with local and fresh food, and with the outdoors and nature. Sustainable options that connect to growing trends such as healthy and vibrant living, being a “foodie,” and being an outdoor enthusiast might do well. While some research shows that the concept of “organic” is linked to positive associations around health and even being lower in calories (Schuldt and Schwarz 2010), more work could certainly examine implicit positive associations of sustainability.

P5: Sustainable options and behaviors might have unique positive associations when compared to traditional options, including being more innovative, more healthy, and linked to the outdoors and nature.

The self-other trade-off highlights a heavier research emphasis on the role of negative self- related emotions such as guilt and fear. Future work might look further at the role of positive feeling states that are related to entities outside of the self in influencing sustainable consumption.

For example, research has examined the impact of awe—a sense of wonder we feel in the presence of something vast that transcends the individual self—on prosocial behaviors more generally (Piff et al. 2015). However, to our knowledge no work looks at how awe impacts sustainable behaviors.

Extant work does show that empathy might be linked to prosocial behaviors \(Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011). While empathy is defined in different ways, it is often conceptualized as an affective state “that stems from the apprehension of another's emotional state or condition, and that is congruent with it” (Eisenberg and Miller 1987, p. 91). Moreover, outwardly focused emotions such as moral elevation might also predict sustainable actions. Moral elevation refers to feelings of warmth and expansion that are linked to admiration and affection in response to seeing exemplary behavior on the part of another individual (Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Haidt 2003).

Examining emotions like awe, empathy, and moral elevation are all directions for future research. 32

P6: Outwardly focused positive emotions such as awe, empathy, and moral elevation will predict positive sustainable consumer behaviors.

Another possibility, linked to focusing on the self versus others, is to examine the role of aspirational social influence in sustainable consumer behavior change. Is it possible to make the sustainable option or behavior socially desirable to the self by connecting it to aspirational role models such as celebrities and athletes? While research covers the motivational roles of both ingroup members (Goldstein et al. 2008) and dissociative outgroup others (White and Simpson

2013), there is a paucity of research on the impact of aspirational others in influencing sustainable behaviors. One possibility is that aspirational branding could be harnessed to create positive, socially approved associations around the notion of sustainable lifestyles. This could be done by linking sustainable actions to aspirational others in a way that fosters a sense of desirability, luxury, and value linked to sustainable products and behaviors.

P7: Connecting sustainable products and behaviors to aspirational role models in a way that cultivates a sense of inspiration and luxury might increase sustainable behaviors.

Long Time Horizon. Our second challenge to sustainability involves the reality that sustainable behaviors require a long time horizon for outcomes to be realized. Invariably, asking individuals to engage in a pro-environmental behavior means that some of the consequences will be achieved only at a future point in time (Amel et al. 2017). As we have seen, consumers view payoffs to be less desirable the further off they are in the future (Hardisty and Weber 2009).

Relative to sustainable behaviors, most traditional consumer behaviors have consequences that are more immediate. Many payoffs linked to sustainability are so far off in the future that they will not even be observed in the consumer’s own lifetime. We call this challenge the long time horizon.

The notion of the long time horizon is related to the individual self in that it is linked to self-control. Indeed, self-regulation research demonstrates that people have a difficult time regulating the self to forgo benefits in the present for longer-term payoffs in the future (Muraven 33 and Baumeister 2000). Sustainable behaviors present a unique self-regulation dilemma. While most self-regulatory acts involve holding off on some positive reward now in order to receive a later payoff that reflects a self-relevant goal (e.g., not eating ice cream in the present so one can fit into a favorite dress on an upcoming vacation), sustainable behaviors involve putting off something positive now for a future positive outcome that is not only temporally distant but broader than the self (not purchasing that sporty car to reduce carbon emissions, the effects of which will only be realized in the future and will benefit the environment and other people). While one would think that the self-control literature has much to say about sustainable behavior change, little work has explicitly looked at the role of self-regulation in determining sustainable actions.

Existing work shows that those who have their regulatory resources depleted are more susceptible to temptations and impulse buying (Baumeister 2002). Given that many sustainable behaviors require an effortful cost to the self in the short term for an uncertain future payoff, examining the dynamics of self-control in this domain could be productive. It’s possible that sustainable behaviors require even more self-control than other self-control behaviors. For example, the same action (e.g., being vegan) could be positioned in terms of sustainability versus health goals, and it may be that self-regulation is more likely to fail for sustainability reasons given that such behaviors have less clear future implications for the self. Work might examine this and consider how to enhance self-regulation in the sustainability domain. One idea is interventions to make the natural world part of the extended self, thereby transforming future environmental benefits into self-benefits, which could improve self-regulation.

P8: Those whose regulatory resources are somehow limited will be more likely to lapse in terms of engaging in sustainable behaviors (vs. other types self-control behaviors).

The long time horizon associated with sustainable behavior is related to feelings in that people often have to undergo hedonic costs to the self now in order to maximize some positive 34 sustainable outcome in the future. Needless to say, this is often difficult, as people are usually hesitant to give up their own affective benefits. However, acting in a manner that helps others has been shown to provide positive affect, sometimes termed the “warm glow” effect (Giebelhausen et al. 2016). Focusing on how sustainable behaviors can create positive affect in the present might increase sustainable behaviors. We propose that:

P9: Sustainable behaviors that provide greater immediate (vs. long-term) warm-glow feelings or positive affect will lead to decreased perceptions of long time horizon and increase the likelihood of sustainable actions.

The long time horizon is linked to tangibility as well. Although people generally care less about future outcomes, this varies across individuals. People with higher “discount rates” care less about future outcomes (Hardisty and Weber 2009). Likewise, people with lower consideration of future consequences (Strathman et al. 1994) express weaker pro-environmental intentions

(Joireman et al. 2001). Therefore, tangibility interventions (such as communicating local and proximal impacts) may be especially effective for these individuals. In contrast, those with low discount rates and high consideration of future consequences are already attuned to future outcomes and may be less influenced by tangibility interventions. Thus:

P10: Individuals with higher discount rates and low consideration of future consequences might be more sensitive to heightening the tangibility of environmental outcomes.

In addition, the long time horizon and self-other trade-off are both linked to how tangibility could play a role in determining sustainable consumer behaviors. Environmental impacts are not likely to be observed until the future, most likely among future generations. As such, interventions that increase the tangibility of the effects of acting (or not acting) sustainably on future generations might encourage more sustainable actions. One possibility is perspective- taking interventions (Maner et al. 2002) that encourage the consumer to adopt the viewpoint of future generations. Thus, we propose that: 35

P11: Individuals will be more motivated to engage in sustainable consumer behaviors when they either dispositionally or situationally take the perspective of future generations.

A final implication of the long time horizon is linked to all of the SHIFT factors. One striking facet of the current review is that most of the existing research involves surveys or experiments taking place at a single point in time (Iyer and Reczek 2017). Future research could profitably examine the longitudinal effects of different interventions on sustainable behaviors.

Moreover, a dichotomy that is highlighted by our framework is short-term versus long-term focus of the different behavior-change strategies. While some of the constructs are driven by the immediate context and lead to short-term behavior change, other constructs lead to more enduring behavior change over the long term. For example, while habit-formation tools and feelings and cognition tools that focus on in-the-moment behavior shaping can be effective in the current context, once they are removed, sustainable actions can disappear. It may be optimal to ensure a balance of in-the-moment behavior-shaping tools (e.g., incentives, penalties, making it easy) with ways of making these behaviors last over time (e.g., relating the actions to the consumer’s morals, values, self-concept, self-consistency, etc.). Future research could test this possibility.

P12: Sustainable consumer behaviors may be best promoted over the long term by using a combination of in-the-moment tools and lasting-change tools.

The Challenge of Collective Action. Sustainable behaviors often require collective as opposed to individual action (Bamberg, Rees, and Seebauer 2015). In order for the benefits of sustainable behaviors to be fully realized, they must be undertaken by a large group of people.

This differs from traditional consumer behaviors, where the outcome is realized if the individual engages in the action alone. This is also distinct from other behaviors with a long time horizon like health-promotion behaviors (exercising and eating healthy) because these can be enacted at the individual level with observable results. 36

The challenge of collective action is relevant to how social influence might operate when considering sustainable (vs. conventional) actions. When people observe others engaging in an action, this may increase perceptions of collective efficacy or “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura 1997, p. 477). Although collective efficacy has received little attention in the sustainability domain, it has been examined in the contexts of organizational leadership

(Chen and Bliese 2002) and political action (Velasquez and LaRose 2015). Drawing on this work, we suggest that collective efficacy can be a compelling motivator of sustainable consumer behavior. In fact, because sustainable outcomes require that actions be undertaken on a very large scale, it may be that collective action is more motivational in the domain of sustainability than other positive-behavior domains. This is an open question for future research to examine. Thus:

P13: Messages communicating both the behaviors of others (collective action) and collective efficacy will increase the tendency to engage in sustainable actions.

The consideration of feelings has potential implications for how to overcome the challenge of collective action. While some research has looked at the role of collective emotions (i.e., feelings that are widely shared by group members as group-level goals are pursued or thwarted;

Sullivan 2015), the types of emotions studied in this domain have been limited to past group actions resulting in guilt or pride (Antonetti and Maklan 2014; Bissing-Olson et al. 2016).

Meanwhile, sustainable actions might be better fostered using other types of collective emotions.

For example, collective feelings of anger and hope have been shown to predict collective action

(Wlodarczyk et al. 2017). Thus, we propose:

P14: Collective, future-oriented emotions such as anger and hope might foster sustainable consumer behaviors.

In a similar vein, cognitions about collective actions might also facilitate sustainable behaviors. Because sustainable behaviors have the unique property of requiring collective action, 37 one possibility is that communicating collective-level outcomes such as climate justice could be impactful in encouraging such behaviors. While thoughts about perceived ability to restore justice have been shown to lead to actions such as selecting fair-trade products (White, MacDonnell, and

Ellard 2012), it might be the case that conveying collective notions of justice (e.g., communicating information about collective impacts and consequences of unjust, unsustainable actions) would be impactful in the domain of encouraging sustainable consumer behaviors. In particular, communication about inequitable distributions of negative environmental risks and how these are felt by communities that are the most vulnerable might be a compelling message (Lazarus 1994).

P15: Communicating information about climate justice might motivate sustainable consumer behavior change.

Collective action is also linked to tangibility. Anecdotally, a popular technique for motivating green behavior is to advertise the collective impact, such as “If everyone in the United

States washed their clothes with cold water instead of hot, we would save around 30 million tons of CO2 per year” (“Snappy Living” 2011). Despite the popularity of this type of messaging to promote green behavior in an applied context, to the best of our knowledge it has not been tested in the academic literature. We predict that this type of messaging has differential impacts for tangible versus intangible outcomes, due to two opposing forces. On the one hand, collective- impact framing highlights the collective-action problem (e.g., “There's no way everyone in the

U.S. would do this!”), which might decrease sustainable action. On the other hand, it scales up the perceived size of the impact, which could increase sustainable behavior (Camilleri and Larrick

2014). Because people are often insensitive to large numeric changes in environmental outcomes

(Schkade and Payne 1994), such that “3 million” tons of CO2 would be treated the same as “300 million,” it may be more effective to use tangible representations featuring visual images and analogies (such as “a garbage heap the size of the Empire State Building”). 38

P16: Tangible (vs. intangible) collective-impact framing increases pro-environmental behavior.

The Need to Replace Automatic with Controlled Processes. We note that many unsustainable behaviors have become learned in ways that make them automatic rather than controlled in nature. Engaging in sustainable consumption thus often means (at least initially) replacing relatively automatic behavioral responses with more effortful new responses (like carrying one’s own shopping bag). This challenge can be related to habit formation. Recall that one means of influencing habitual change is by leveraging discontinuity, or the notion that major life-change events can allow for other forms of habit change to occur. It is also possible that a certain mindset (beyond rare major life changes) can lead to habit change (Price et al. 2017).

Individuals who have a “fresh start” mindset exhibit more positive attitudes towards products that allow for a fresh start and hold more positive intentions to donate to charities focused on giving recipients a new beginning (Price et al. 2017). The authors define a fresh-start mindset as “a belief that people can make a new start, get a new beginning, and chart a new course in life, regardless of their past or present circumstances,” and they show that it can be both measured and manipulated.

A fresh-start mindset might be applicable in terms of habit formation. Taking a “fresh start” view of a new behavior might serve as a form of discontinuity and make habit change more likely.

P17: Those in a fresh-start mindset (measured or manipulated) will be more inclined to change to sustainable consumer behavior habits.

While the adoption of sustainable behavior often requires overriding an automatic habit with a controlled one, this may be short-circuited by tangibility. Because tangible outcomes are more vivid and immediate, they may provoke more experiential (rather than analytic) processing

(Chaiken and Trope 1999), leading people to base their decisions more on emotions and heuristics.

Therefore, tangibility may increase the effectiveness of heuristic-based interventions (such as defaults or framing) and decrease the effectiveness of calculation-based interventions (such as 39 attribute scaling; Camilleri and Larrick 2014). For example, when buying a car online, representing the fuel efficiency as cost per 100,000 miles may be more effective, while when buying a car in person, a personal anecdote from the salesman about rarely needing to fill up the tank might be more effective. Thus, we propose:

P18: Tangibility interventions shift people from analytic to experiential processing, and will therefore moderate the effectiveness of other interventions.

The Problem of Abstractness. Our last challenge to encouraging sustainable consumer behaviors is that such actions are often characterized as being abstract, uncertain, and difficult for the consumer to grasp (Reczek et al. 2018). Furthermore, the consequences of sustainable actions can involve uncertain and fuzzy outcomes (Weber 2010). While distant future outcomes are usually abstract, immediate and local environmental outcomes are also frequently abstract (e.g., energy efficiency, air quality, biodiversity, etc.). Although traditional consumer behaviors can carry different elements of risk and uncertainty, the outcomes of choices in traditional consumer contexts are usually more clear and certain when compared to sustainable consumer behaviors.

The problem of abstractness can be addressed by considering social influence. One reason why people are influenced by social factors is because we often look to the expectations and behaviors of others when the situation is uncertain (Cialdini 2007). There is evidence, for example, that unfamiliar behaviors are more likely to be influenced by norms than are more familiar behaviors (White and Simpson 2011). Thus, when the sustainable consumer behavior is in some way ambiguous (“Exactly what is the most sustainable option for baby diapers?”) or uncertain (“Will engaging in this behavior really have the desired impact?”), people may be more influenced by social factors. Those who are high in individual differences in uncertainty avoidance

(Hofstede 2001) might be more influenced by social factors when abstractness is high. Thus:

P19: When the sustainable action or the outcome is ambiguous, uncertain, or new in some way (vs. being clear, certain, and well-established), social factors such as the presence of, 40

behaviors of, and/or expectations of others will be more influential in determining behavior. This might be pronounced among those high in uncertainty avoidance.

Habit formation can also be relevant in tackling the problem of abstractness. Climate change and other issues are serious, nebulous, and can have large-scale consequences, making the acts carried out by individuals seem small and inconsequential. This can lead to green fatigue, or demotivation that is the result of information overload and lack of hope for meaningful change

(Strother and Fazal 2011), and such hopelessness can be demotivating to consumers (Guyader,

Ottosson, and Witell 2017). One solution may be to celebrate small and concrete wins that can positively reinforce further sustainable actions and keep consumers engaged.

P20: Rewarding small milestones will encourage consumers to continue engaging in environmentally friendly behaviors and help avoid green fatigue.

The problem of abstractness also relates to the individual self. In fact, one way to combat the problem of abstract and uncertain outcomes might be to consider directly how they could impact the individual self. As we have seen, making sustainable impacts and outcomes seem local and relevant to the self can encourage sustainable consumer behaviors. However, future research might consider other means of connecting sustainable outcomes more clearly to the self. For example, Hershfield and his colleagues (2011) manipulated a focus on the future self by showing people a digital image of what their future self might look like. These researchers found that increasing connectedness to the future self increases willingness to invest in retirement savings

(Hershfield et al. 2011). It’s possible that manipulations that create a connection between the current and future self will lead to increases in sustainable consumer behaviors.

P21: Those consumers who are encouraged to focus on the future self will be more likely to engage in sustainable consumer behaviors.

Sustainable behaviors can also be made to feel less abstract by making the current emotional benefits and costs more concrete. Future work might examine which different 41 communication modes are most appropriate for making individuals feel emotions linked to sustainable behaviors. Images are known to activate emotions more readily in contexts such as communicating about intergroup conflicts (Brantner, Lobinger, and Wetzstein 2011). Visual information may be best to communicate how others will be affected in order to elicit concrete emotions, an effect that is potentially enhanced for those who are visualizers (Richardson 1977).

P22: Visual communications (vs. text) will be effective at eliciting other-focused emotions such as love and empathy and lead to greater participation in sustainable actions. This effect will be enhanced for individuals who are visualizers.

The problem of abstractness can be related to feelings. Allowing consumers to understand the impact of their actions might help facilitate relevant emotions and reduce perceived abstractness. In the domain of charitable giving, highlighting the impact has been shown to lead to greater emotional rewards attached to the behavior (Aknin et al. 2013). Previous work, however, did not look at the specific emotions tied to impact in sustainable consumer behaviors. For example, making the potential impact clear and concrete may be more likely to lead to anticipatory pride (vs. other anticipatory states) linked to the sustainable action.

P23: Making the positive impact of sustainable behavior more certain in the present will result in greater pride and lead to greater likelihood of carrying out such behaviors.

Feelings might also be linked to the problem of abstractness in another way. The ubiquity of social media and sharing exposes consumers to others who might communicate their actions linked to sustainability. For instance, people may share pictures of their commute by bike or by carpool, along with how they are feeling during the journey. Experiencing positive emotions leads to greater feelings of closeness (Van Boven et al. 2010; Waugh and Fredrickson 2006), and we tend to feel greater empathy for and thus experience the emotions of close others more (Escalas and Stern 2003). Thus, when close others share emotions involved in carrying out sustainable 42 behaviors it should be more effective at reducing abstractness by increasing the strength of the emotions we expect to feel when we engage in the behavior.

P24: Social distance will lead to emotional contagion when emotional responses to sustainable behaviors are shared with others, such that close (vs. distant) others sharing how they experience positive emotions when carrying out sustainable behavior will make the benefits of the behavior seem more concrete.

Finally, the problem of abstractness is linked to tangibility. One possible way to increase tangibility of actions and outcomes (and to make information less abstract) is to employ analogies.

Because sustainability is an abstract and intangible concept, comparing a sustainable action or outcome to a familiar but disparate experience or example might facilitate greater connection of the consumer with the concept of sustainability. Thus, future work might examine the following:

P25: When the action or behavior is sustainable (vs. traditional), analogies will be more likely to encourage consumer behavior change.

HOW TO USE THE SHIFT FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE

Our SHIFT framework points to different tactics that can be used to influence sustainable consumer behaviors (Web Appendix A). We note that no single route to behavior change identified by the framework works “best.” Rather, we suggest that practitioners should understand the specific behavior, the context in which the behavior will occur, the intended target of the intervention, and the barriers (and benefits) associated with the behavior (Appendix B; also for more detailed information on how to think about the relevant factors to encourage behavior change see McKenzie-Mohr 2000; Peattie 2001; Schultz 2014; Schultz and Fielding 2014). We note that oftentimes there are multiple barriers to sustainable behavior change, and therefore combining strategies can be impactful (Osterhus 1997; Stern 2011).

While our framework highlights the different drivers of sustainable behavior change, it can also be used to think about potential barriers to sustainable action. In particular, one way to use the framework is to consider the primary and secondary barriers to engaging in the desired behavior 43 and then select relevant tactics to overcome these. A primary barrier refers to one that exerts the strongest avoidance response, while a secondary barrier is the factor that exerts the next strongest avoidance response on the part of the target consumer. Thinking about barriers in terms of the

SHIFT factors—e.g., a barrier can be linked to social influence (the sustainable action is seen as socially undesirable) and habit (the existing unsustainable action is highly habitual)—can help the practitioner draw connections to what tools within the framework might facilitate change. We provide examples of possible focal consumer behaviors in Appendix C and potential strategies drawn from our framework based on the primary and secondary barriers to action in Appendix D.

In one example of identifying primary and secondary barriers that explicitly relied upon the SHIFT framework, White and Simpson (2013) gathered data on the motives of residents who were hesitant to engage in grasscycling (i.e., composting grass by allowing it to decompose naturally). They discovered that this was due to barriers related to social norms (the primary barrier: the norm was that nobody was engaging in the behavior and that it did not seem approved of) and individual factors (the secondary barrier: the behavior was perceived to be costly to the self). The authors developed and tested two different solutions that addressed the key barriers, and they did so by using strategies related to social norms and the individual self. These researchers created messages that were delivered to residents on door hangers and tracked residential grasscycling practices over time (both before and after the intervention). First, when the individual was prompted to think of the collective self (“Think about how we as a community can make a difference”), descriptive norms (“Your neighbors are grasscycling—you can too”) and injunctive norms (“Your neighbors want you to grasscycle”) were most effective. Second, when the person was prompted to think about the individual self (“Think about how you as an individual can make a difference”), highlighting relevant self-benefits worked best (“Grasscycling improves your lawn 44 quality”). By tackling the key barriers linked to social influence and the individual self, the authors increased sustainable behaviors in a large-scale field study.

In another example, Our Horizon is a non-profit (ourhorizon.org) with a mandate to discourage gasoline consumption from driving automobiles. Two focal barriers to decreasing gasoline usage are social factors (it is both socially normative and socially desirable to drive) and tangibility (consumers report uncertainty about the impacts of driving less). Our Horizon has responded by developing a strategy to target both social norms and tangibility. Our Horizon encourages local governments to implement warning labels on gas pumps, similar to the way many nations now place warning labels on tobacco packaging. The labels that the organization plans to implement serve to both a) help communicate what is normatively approved of and b) describe concrete and personally relevant local impacts (Appendix F). While we offer examples to illustrate the SHIFT principles in practice, it is important to recognize that different behaviors and segments will have unique barriers and benefits to behavior change. We include more examples of using barriers to identify tactics based on our Framework in Appendix E.

As we have seen, thinking about the primary and secondary barriers to pro-environmental behavior change is one means by which marketers, policy makers, and non-profits can use the

SHIFT framework. However, there is one important nuance: The practitioner should make sure that the tools employed are complementary rather than oppositional to each another. In one example, in the grasscycling study described above, messaging that reflected the individual self along with social norms was less effective than communicating about the individual self and self- benefits (or the collective self and social norms), because consistent messaging leads to goal- compatible outcomes (White and Simpson 2013). In another example, highlighting the extrinsic benefits of engaging in a sustainable action along with intrinsic benefits can be less impactful than 45 communicating intrinsic benefits alone, because extrinsic motives are not compatible with intrinsic motives (Bolderdijk et al. 2012; Edinger-Schons et al. 2018).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

A question with practical and theoretical implications is whether our framework can be applied to other behaviors such as prosocial actions or health behaviors, or if the factors are unique to sustainable behaviors. We conjecture that many of the facets of our framework may apply to the other positive behaviors as well. However, we note that there are some elements that may be unique to sustainable consumption. For example, health behaviors are not subject to the challenge of collective versus individual action to the same degree that sustainable behaviors are. While health-behavior change can collectively have positive economic and societal benefits (WHO

2015), health-behavior change also undeniably primarily has individual benefits (OECD and

WHO 2015). While health and prosocial behaviors (e.g., charitable giving) both carry problems of tangibility, sustainable behaviors and outcomes are likely perceived as being even less tangible than health and prosocial behaviors. This is an open question for future research to explore, and applying the framework in other domains certainly has theoretical and practical potential.

In sum, we have reviewed and categorized the behavioral-science literature, uncovering five broad psychological routes to encouraging sustainable consumer behavior change: Social influence, Habit, the Individual self, Feelings and cognition, and Tangibility. We anticipate that this SHIFT framework will be helpful in guiding practitioners interested in fostering sustainable consumer behavior. Moreover, we hope that this framework will assist researchers in conceptualizing different means of influencing sustainable consumer behavior and spur further research in this essential domain. At the end of the day, we hope that our framework will help stimulate sustainable consumer behavior change and allow firms wishing to operate in a sustainable manner in ways that can maximize both their sustainability and strategic goals. 46

REFERENCES Abrahamse, Wokje and Linda Steg (2013), “Social Influence Approaches to Encourage Resource Conservation: A Meta-Analysis,” Global Environmental Change, 23 (6), 1773–1785.

Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Talib Rothengatter (2005), “A Review of Intervention Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (3), 273–291.

Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Talib Rothengatter (2007), “The Effect of Tailored Information, Goal Setting and Feedback on Household Energy Use, Energy Related Behaviors and Behavioral Determinants,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (4), 265–276.

Akerlof, Karen, Edward W. Maibach, Dennis Fitzgerald, Andrew Y. Cedeno, and Amanda Neuman (2013), “Do People ‘Personally Experience’ Global Warming, and If so How, and Does It Matter?,” Global Environmental Change, 23 (1), 81–91.

Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, Ashley V. Whillans, Adam M. Grant, and Michael I. Norton (2013), “Making a Difference Matters: Impact Unlocks the Emotional Benefits of Prosocial Spending,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 90–95.

Alwitt, Linda F. and Robert E. Pitts (1996), “Predicting Purchase Intentions For an Environmentally Sensitive Product,” Journal of consumer psychology, 5 (1), 49–64.

Amel, Elise, Christie Manning, Britain Scott, and Susan Koger (2017), “Beyond the Roots of Human Inaction: Fostering Collective Effort Toward Ecosystem Conservation,” Science, 356 (6335), 275–279.

Anderson, W. Thomas and William H. Cunningham (1972), “The Socially Conscious Consumer,” The Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), 23–31.

Antonetti, Paolo and Stan Maklan (2014), “Feelings That Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices,” Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 117–134.

Aquino, Karl, Dan Freeman, Americus Reed, Vivien K. G. Lim, and Will Felps (2009), “Testing a Social-Cognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and Moral Identity Centrality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 123–141.

Aquino, Karl, Brent McFerran, and Marjorie Laven (2011), “Moral Identity and the Experience of Moral Elevation in Response to Acts of Uncommon Goodness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (4), 703.

Aquino, Karl and I. I. Reed (2002), “The Self-Importance of Moral Identity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1423.

Armitage, Christopher J. and Mark Conner (2001), “Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (4), 471–499. 47

Arnocky, Steven, Taciano L. Milfont, and Jeffrey R. Nicol (2014), “Time Perspective and Sustainable Behaviour: Evidence for the Distinction Between Consideration of Immediate and Future Consequences,” Environment and Behaviour, 46 (5), 556–582.

Arnocky, Steven, Mirella Stroink, and Teresa DeCicco (2007), “Self-Construal Predicts Environmental Concern, Cooperation, and Conservation,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (4), 255–264.

Aspara, Jaakko, Xueming Luo, and Ravi Dhar (2017), “Effect of Intelligence on Consumers’ Responsiveness to a Pro-Environmental Tax: Evidence from Large-Scale Data on Car Acquisitions of Male Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (4), 448–455.

Atasoy, Ozgun and Carey K. Morewedge (2018), “Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, in press.

Auger, Pat and Timothy M. Devinney (2007), “Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions,” Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (4), 361–383.

Austin, John, David B. Hatfield, Angelica C. Grindle, and Jon S. Bailey (1993), “Increasing Recycling in Office Environments: The Effects of Specific, Informative Cues,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26 (2), 247–253.

Baca-Motes, Katie, Amber Brown, Ayelet Gneezy, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Leif D. Nelson (2012), “Commitment and Behavior Change: Evidence from the Field,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 1070–1084.

Bahl, Shalini, George R. Milne, Spencer M. Ross, David Glen Mick, Sonya A. Grier, Sunaina K. Chugani, Steven S. Chan, Stephen Gould, Yoon-Na Cho, and Joshua D. Dorsey (2016), “Mindfulness: Its Transformative Potential for Consumer, Societal, and Environmental Well- Being,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35 (2), 198–210.

Balderjahn, Ingo, Mathias Peyer, Barbara Seegebarth, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, and Anja Weber (2018), “The Many Faces of Sustainability-Conscious Consumers: A Category-Independent Typology,” Journal of Business Research, 91, 83–93.

Baltes, Margret M. and Scott C. Hayward (1976), “Application and Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Pollution: Behavioral Control of Littering in a Football Stadium.,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (4), 501.

Bamberg, Sebastian (2006), “Is a Residential Relocation a Good Opportunity to Change People’s Travel Behavior? Results from a Theory-Driven Intervention Study,” Environment and Behavior, 38 (6), 820–840.

Bamberg, Sebastian, Marcel Hunecke, and Anke Blöbaum (2007), “Social Context, Personal Norms and the Use of Public Transportation: Two Field Studies,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (3), 190–203. 48

Bamberg, Sebastian, Jonas Rees, and Sebastian Seebauer (2015), “Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155–165.

Bandura, Albert (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191.

Bandura, Albert (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby, Easwar S. Iyer, and Rajiv K. Kashyap (2003), “Corporate Environmentalism: Antecedents and Influence of Industry Type,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 106–122.

Banerjee, Subhabrata, Charles S. Gulas, and Easwar Iyer (1995), “Shades of Green: A Multidimensional Analysis of Environmental Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 21–31.

Barber, Nelson A. and Cynthia Deale (2014), “Tapping Mindfulness to Shape Hotel Guests’ Sustainable Behavior,” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55 (1), 100–114.

Bartels, Jos and Karen Hoogendam (2011), “The role of social identity and attitudes toward sustainability brands in buying behaviors for organic products,” Journal of Brand Management, 18 (9), 697–708.

Bartels, Jos and Marleen C. Onwezen (2014), “Consumers’ Willingness to Buy Products with Environmental and Ethical Claims: The Roles of Social Representations and Social Identity,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38 (1), 82–89.

Baumeister, Roy F. (2002), “Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 670–676.

Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice (1998), “Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (5), 1252.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–168.

Belk, Russell W. (2013), “Extended Self in a Digital World,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 477–500.

Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121–134.

Bhat, Subodh and Srinivas K. Reddy (1998), “Symbolic and functional positioning of brands,” Journal of consumer marketing, 15 (1), 32–43. 49

Bissing-Olson, Megan J., Kelly S. Fielding, and Aarti Iyer (2016), “Experiences of Pride, Not Guilt, Predict Pro-Environmental Behavior When Pro-Environmental Descriptive Norms Are More Positive,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45 (Supplement C), 145–153.

Bodur, H. Onur, Kimberly M. Duval, and Bianca Grohmann (2015), “Will You Purchase Environmentally Friendly Products? Using Prediction Requests to Increase Choice of Sustainable Products,” Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (1), 59–75.

Bolderdijk, J. W., P. K. Lehman, and E. S. Geller (2012), “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour with Rewards and Penalties,” Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, 233–242.

Bolderdijk, Jan Willem and Linda Steg (2015), “Promoting Sustainable Consumption: The Risks of Using Financial Incentives,” Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 328–342.

Bollinger, Bryan and Kenneth Gillingham (2012), “Peer Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” Marketing Science, 31, 900–912.

Borin, Norm, Douglas C. Cerf, and Ragi Krishnan (2011), “Consumer Effects of Environmental Impact in Product Labeling,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28 (1), 76–86.

Bowles, Samuel (2008), “Policies Designed for Self-Interested Citizens May Undermine ‘The Moral Sentiments’: Evidence from Economic Experiments,” Science, 320 (5883), 1605–1609.

Brantner, Cornelia, Katharina Lobinger, and Irmgard Wetzstein (2011), “Effects of visual framing on emotional responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88 (3), 523–540.

Brothers, Kevin J., Patricia J. Krantz, and Lynn E. McClannahan (1994), “Office Paper Recycling: A Function of Container Proximity,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (1), 153–160.

Brough, Aaron R., James E. B. Wilkie, Jingjing Ma, Mathew S. Isaac, and David Gal (2016), “Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 567–582.

Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” The Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68–84.

Bull, Joe (2012), “Loads of Green Washing—Can Behavioural Economics Increase Willingness- to-Pay for Efficient Washing Machines in the UK?,” Energy Policy, 50, 242–252.

Burn, Shawn M. and Stuart Oskamp (1986), “Increasing Community Recycling with Persuasive Communication and Public Commitment,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 (1), 29–41.

Cairns, S., C. Newson, and A. Davis (2010), “Understanding Successful Workplace Travel Initiatives in the UK,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44 (7), 473–494.

Camilleri, Adrian R. and Richard P. Larrick (2014), “Metric and Scale Design as Choice Architecture Tools,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33 (1), 108–125. 50

Campbell, Margaret C. and Karen Page Winterich (2018), “A Framework for the Consumer Psychology of Morality in the Marketplace,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (2), 167–179.

Carrete, L., Castaño, R., Felix, R., Centeno, E., & González, E. (2012). Green Consumer Behavior in an Emerging Economy: Confusion, Credibility, and Compatibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(7), 470-481. Carrus, Giuseppe, Paola Passafaro, and Mirilia Bonnes (2008), “Emotions, Habits and Rational Choices in Ecological Behaviours: The Case of Recycling and Use of Public Transportation,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (1), 51–62.

Catlin, Jesse R. and Yitong Wang (2013), “Recycling Gone Bad: When the Option to Recycle Increases Resource Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1), 122–127.

Chaiken, Shelly and Yaacov Trope (1999), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, Guilford Press.

Chang, Chingching (2011), “Feeling Ambivalent About Going Green,” Journal of Advertising, 40 (4), 19–32.

Chen, Gilad and Paul D. Bliese (2002), “The Role of Different Levels of Leadership in Predicting Self- and Collective Efficacy: Evidence for Discontinuity,” The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 549–556.

Chen, Yu-Shan and Ching-Hsun Chang (2013), “Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk,” Journal of Business Ethics, 114 (3), 489–500.

Chernev, Alexander and Sean Blair (2015), “Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1412–1425.

Cherrier, Helene (2009), “Anti-Consumption Discourses and Consumer-Resistant Identities,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 181–190.

Chiang, Teresa, Gokhan Mevlevioglu, Sukumar Natarajan, Julian Padget, and Ian Walker (2014), “Inducing [Sub] Conscious Energy Behaviour Through Visually Displayed Energy Information: A Case Study in University Accommodation,” Energy and Buildings, 70, 507–515.

Cialdini, Robert B. (2003), “Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (4), 105–109.

Cialdini, Robert B. (2007), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Harper Collins.

Cialdini, Robert B., Linda J. Demaine, Brad J. Sagarin, Daniel W. Barrett, Kelton Rhoads, and Patricia L. Winter (2006), “Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact,” Social Influence, 1 (1), 3–15. 51

Cialdini, Robert B., Raymond R. Reno, and Carl A. Kallgren (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.

Cleveland, Mark, Maria Kalamas, and Michel Laroche (2005), “Shades of Green: Linking Environmental Locus of Control and Pro-Environmental Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22 (4), 198–212.

Cornelissen, Gert, Mario Pandelaere, Luk Warlop, and Siegfried Dewitte (2008), “Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (1), 46–55.

Corral-Verdugo, Víctor, Mirilia Bonnes, César Tapia-Fonllem, Blanca Fraijo-Sing, Martha Frías- Armenta, and Giuseppe Carrus (2009), “Correlates of Pro-Sustainability Orientation: The Affinity Towards Diversity,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (1), 34–43.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2000), “The Costs and Benefits of Consuming,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 267–272.

Daamen, Dancker D. L., Henk Staats, Henk A. M. Wilke, and Mirjam Engelen (2001), “Improving Environmental Behavior in Companies: The Effectiveness of Tailored Versus Nontailored Interventions,” Environment and Behavior, 33 (2), 229–248.

De Leon, Iser G. and R. Wayne Fuqua (1995), “The Effects of Public Commitment and Group Feedback on Curbside Recycling,” Environment and Behavior, 27 (2), 233–250.

Delmas, Magali A., Miriam Fischlein, and Omar I. Asensio (2013), “Information Strategies and Energy Conservation Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies from 1975 to 2012,” Energy Policy, 61, 729–739.

Devezer, Berna, David E. Sprott, Eric R. Spangenberg, and Sandor Czellar (2014), “Consumer Well-Being: Effects of Subgoal Failures and Goal Importance,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 118–134.

Devine-Wright, Patrick and Yuko Howes (2010), “Disruption to Place Attachment and the Protection of Restorative Environments: A Wind Energy Case Study,” Journal of environmental psychology, 30 (3), 271–280.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Greg M. Bohlen (2003), “Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (6), 465–480.

Diamond, William D. and Ben Z. Loewy (1991), “Effects of Probabilistic Rewards on Recycling Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (19), 1590–1607.

Dickerson, Chris Ann, Ruth Thibodeau, Elliot Aronson, and Dayna Miller (1992), “Using Cognitive Dissonance to Encourage Water Conservation,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (11), 841–854. 52

Dickinson, Janis (2009), “The People Paradox: Self-Esteem Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change,” Ecology and Society, 14 (1), 34.

Dietz, Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Paul C. Stern (2002), “Gender, Values, and Environmentalism,” Social Science Quarterly, 83 (1), 353–364.

Donald, I. J., S. R. Cooper, and S. M. Conchie (2014), “An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model of the Psychological Factors Affecting Commuters’ Transport Mode Use,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 39–48.

Donnelly, Grant E., Cait Lamberton, Rebecca Walker Reczek, and Michael I. Norton (2017), “Social Recycling Transforms Unwanted Goods into Happiness,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (1), 48–63.

Dowd, Kylie and Karena J. Burke (2013), “The Influence of Ethical Values and Food Choice Motivations on Intentions to Purchase Sustainably Sourced Foods,” Appetite, 69, 137–144.

Duclos, Rod and Alixandra Barasch (2014), “Prosocial Behavior in Intergroup Relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 93–108.

Dunning, David (2007), “Self-Image Motives and Consumer Behavior: How Sacrosanct Self- Beliefs Sway Preferences in the Marketplace,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (4), 237–249.

Dwyer, Patrick C., Alexander Maki, and Alexander J. Rothman (2015), “Promoting Energy Conservation Behavior in Public Settings: The Influence of Social Norms and Personal Responsibility,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 30–34.

Eagly, Alice H. (2009), “The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An Examination of the Social Psychology of Gender,” American Psychologist, 64 (8), 644–658.

Edinger-Schons, Laura, Jenni Sipilä, Sankar Sen, Gina Mende, and Jan Wieseke (2018), “Are Two Reasons Better Than One? The Role of Appeal Type in Consumer Responses to Sustainable Products,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, (in press).

Eisenberg, Nancy and Paul A. Miller (1987), “The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors.,” Psychological bulletin, 101 (1), 91.

Ellen, Pam Scholder, Joshua Lyle Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren (1991), “The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviours,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (2), 102–117.

Epstein, Seymour (2003), “Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory of Personality,” in Handbook of Psychology, American Cancer Society, 159–184.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson and Barbara B. Stern (2003), “Sympathy and Empathy: Emotional Responses to Advertising Dramas,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 566–578. 53

Evans, Laurel, Gregory R. Maio, Adam Corner, Carl J. Hodgetts, Sameera Ahmed, and Ulrike Hahn (2013), “Self-Interest and Pro-Environmental Behaviour,” Nature Climate Change, 3, 122– 125.

Everett, Peter B., Scott C. Hayward, and Andrew W. Meyers (1974), “The Effects of a Token Reinforcement Procedure on Bus Ridership,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7 (1), 1–9.

Feldman, Lauren and P. Sol Hart (2018), “Is There Any Hope? How Climate Change News Imagery and Text Influence Audience Emotions and Support for Climate Mitigation Policies,” Risk Analysis, 38 (3).

Fennis, Bob M., Marieke A. Adriaanse, Wolfgang Stroebe, and Bert Pol (2011), “Bridging the Intention–Behavior Gap: Inducing Implementation Intentions Through Persuasive Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (3), 302–311.

Ferguson, Mark A., Nyla R. Branscombe, and Katherine J. Reynolds (2011), “The Effect of Intergroup Comparison on Willingness to Perform Sustainable Behavior,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31 (4), 275–281.

Feygina, Irina, John T. Jost, and Rachel E. Goldsmith (2010), “System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of ‘System-Sanctioned Change,’” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (3), 326–338.

Fielding, Kelly S., Deborah J. Terry, Barbara M. Masser, and Michael A. Hogg (2008), “Integrating Social Identity Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explain Decisions to Engage in Sustainable Agricultural Practices,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 47 (1), 23– 48.

Fischer, Corinna (2008), “Feedback on Household Electricity Consumption: A Tool for Saving Energy?,” Energy Efficiency, 1 (1), 79–104.

Fornara, Ferdinando, Giuseppe Carrus, Paola Passafaro, and Mirilia Bonnes (2011), “Distinguishing the Sources of Normative Influence on Proenvironmental Behaviors: The Role of Local Norms in Household Waste Recycling,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14 (5), 623–635.

Fraj, Elena and Eva Martinez (2006), “Influence of personality on ecological consumer behaviour,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5 (3), 167–181.

Frederiks, Elisha R., Karen Stenner, and and Elizabeth V. Hobman (2015), ““Household Energy Use: Applying Behavioural Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1385–1394.

Fullerton, Don and Thomas C. Kinnaman (1995), “Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29 (1), 78–91.

Gamba, Raymond J. and Stuart Oskamp (1994), “Factors Influencing Community Residents’ Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs,” Environment and Behavior, 26 (5), 587–612. 54

Gardner, Wendi L., Shira Gabriel, and Angela Y. Lee (1999), “‘I’ Value Freedom, But ‘we’ Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment,” Psychological Science, 10 (4), 321–326.

Garvey, Aaron M. and Lisa E. Bolton (2017), “Eco-Product Choice Cuts Both Ways: How Pro- Environmental Licensing versus Reinforcement is Contingent upon Environmental Consciousness,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36 (2), 284–298.

Gatersleben, Birgitta, Linda Steg, and Charles Vlek (2002), “Measurement and Determinants of Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior,” Environment and behavior, 34 (3), 335–362.

Geller, E. Scott, R. B. Bechtel, and A. Churchman (2002), “The Challenge of Increasing Proenvironmental Behavior,” Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 2, 525–540.

Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2014), “What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97– 110.

Giebelhausen, Michael, HaeEun Helen Chun, J. Joseph Cronin Jr, and G. Tomas M. Hult (2016), “Adjusting the Warm-Glow Thermostat: How Incentivizing Participation in Voluntary Green Programs Moderates Their Impact on Service Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (4), 56–71.

Gifford, Robert (2011), “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation,” American Psychologist, 66 (4), 290.

Gifford, Robert (2014), “Environmental Psychology Matters,” Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 541–579.

Gifford, Robert and Andreas Nilsson (2014), “Personal and Social Factors that Influence Pro- Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review,” International Journal of Psychology, 49 (3), 141–157.

Gilg, Andrew, Stewart Barr, and Nicholas Ford (2005), “Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles? Identifying the Sustainable Consumer,” Futures, 37 (6), 481–504.

Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr (2013), “Against the Green: A Multi-Method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44–61.

Goldstein, Noah J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius (2008), “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472–82.

Gonzales, Marti Hope, Elliot Aronson, and Mark A. Costanzo (1988), “Using Social Cognition and Persuasion to Promote Energy Conservation: A Quasi‐Experiment,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18 (12), 1049–1066. 55

Granzin, Kent L. and Janeen E. Olsen (1991), “Characterizing Participants in Activities Protecting the Environment: A Focus on Donating, Recycling, and Conservation Behaviors,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 1–27.

Green, Todd and John Peloza (2014), “Finding the Right Shade of Green: The Effect of Advertising Appeal Type on Environmentally Friendly Consumption,” Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 128–141.

Grinstein, Amir and Udi Nisan (2009), “Demarketing, Minorities, and National Attachment,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 105–122.

Griskevicius, Vladas, Stephanie M. Cantú, and Mark van Vugt (2012), “The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behavior: Implications for Marketing, Policy, and Social Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31 (1), 115–128.

Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur, and Bram Van den Bergh (2010), “Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (3), 392–404.

Grob, Alexander (1995), “A Structural Model of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 (3), 209–220.

Grolleau, Gilles, Lisette Ibanez, and Naoufel Mzoughi (2009), “Too Much of a Good Thing? Why Altruism Can Harm the Environment,” Ecological Economics, 68 (7), 2145–2149.

Gromet, Dena M., Howard Kunreuther, and Richard P. Larrick (2013), “Political Ideology Affects Energy-Efficiency Attitudes and Choices,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (23), 9314–9319.

Grunert, Klaus G., Sophie Hieke, and Josephine Wills (2014), “Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use,” Food Policy, 44, 177–189.

Guagnano, Gregory A., Thomas Dietz, and Paul C. Stern (1994), “Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Test of the Contribution Model,” Psychological Science, 5 (6), 411–415.

Guagnano, Gregory A., Paul C. Stern, and Thomas Dietz (1995), “Influences on Attitude- Behavior Relationships: A Natural Experiment with Curbside Recycling,” Environment and Behavior, 27 (5), 699–718.

Gupta, Shruti and Denise T. Ogden (2009), “To Buy or Not to Buy? A Social Dilemma Perspective on Green Buying,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (6), 376–391.

Guyader, Hugo, Mikael Ottosson, and Lars Witell (2017), “You can’t buy what you can’t see: Retailer practices to increase the green premium,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 319–325.

Haidt, Jonathan (2003), “The moral emotions,” Handbook of affective sciences, 11 (2003), 852– 870. 56

Han, Tae-Im and Leslie Stoel (2017), “Explaining Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29 (2), 91–103.

Handgraaf, Michel JJ, Margriet A. Van Lidth de Jeude, and Kirstin C. Appelt (2013), “Public Praise Vs. Private Pay: Effects of Rewards on Energy Conservation in the Workplace,” Ecological Economics, 86, 86–92.

Hardcastle, Jessica Lyons (2013), “Nike, Starbucks: Climate Change Policy Is ‘Economic Opportunity,’” Environmental Leader.

Hardisty, David J., Eric J. Johnson, and Elke U. Weber (2010), “A Dirty Word or a Dirty World? Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory,” Psychological Science, 21 (1), 86–92.

Hardisty, David J. and Elke U. Weber (2009), “Discounting Future Green: Money versus the Environment,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 329.

Harland, Paul, Henk Staats, and Henk A.M. Wilke (1999), “Explaining Proenvironmental Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (12), 2505–2528.

Hart, P. Sol and Erik C. Nisbet (2012), “Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies,” Communication Research, 39 (6), 701–723.

Heath, Yuko and Robert Gifford (2002), “Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting the Use of Public Transportation,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (10), 2154–2189.

Hershfield, Hal E., Daniel G. Goldstein, William F. Sharpe, Jesse Fox, Leo Yeykelis, Laura L. Carstensen, and Jeremy N. Bailenson (2011), “Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (SPL), S23–S37.

Hofstede, Geert (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, SAGE Publications.

Holland, Rob W., Henk Aarts, and Daan Langendam (2006), “Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42 (6), 776–783.

Hopkins, Michael S., Andrew Townend, Zayna Khayat, Balu Balagopal, Martin Reeves, and Maurice Berns (2009), “The Business of Sustainability: What It Means to Managers Now,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 51 (1), 20.

Horne, Ralph E. (2009), “Limits to Labels: The Role of Eco-Labels in the Assessment of Product Sustainability and Routes to Sustainable Consumption,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (2), 175–182. 57

Houten, Ron Van, Paul A. Nau, and Michael Merrigan (1981), “Reducing Elevator Energy Use: A Comparison of Posted Feedback and Reduced Elevator Convenience,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14 (4), 377–387.

Hughner, Renée Shaw, Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero, Clifford J. Shultz, and Julie Stanton (2007), “Who Are Organic Food Consumers? A Compilation and Review of Why People Purchase Organic Food,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6 (2), 94–110.

Hutton, R Bruce and Dennis L. McNeill (1981), “The Value of Incentives in Stimulating Energy Conservation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (3), 291–298.

Iyer, Easwar S. and Rebecca Walker Reczek (2017), “The Intersection of Sustainability, Marketing, and Public Policy: Introduction to the Special Section on Sustainability,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36 (2), 246–254.

Jachimowicz, Jon M., Oliver P. Hauser, Julia D. O’Brien, Erin Sherman, and Adam D. Galinsky (2018), “The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation,” Nature Human Behaviour, 2 (10), 757.

Jansson, Johan, Agneta Marell, and Annika Nordlund (2010), “Green Consumer Behaviour: Determinants of Curtailment and Eco-Innovation Adoption,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (4), 358–370.

Jiménez, Marissa and Kenneth C. C. Yang (2008), “How Guilt Level Affects Green Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Creative Communications, 3 (3), 231–254.

Johnstone, Micael-Lee and Lay Tan (2015), “Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour,” Journal of Business Ethics, 132 (2), 311–328.

Joireman, Jeffrey A., Terell P. Lasane, Jennifer Bennett, Diana Richards, and Salma Solaimani (2001), “Integrating Social Value Orientation and the Consideration of Future Consequences Within the Extended Norm Activation Model of Proenvironmental Behaviour,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (1), 133–155.

Joireman, Jeffrey A., Paul A. M. Van Lange, and Mark Van Vugt (2004), “Who Cares About the Environmental Impact of Cars? Those with an Eye Toward the Future,” Environment and Behavior, 36 (2), 187–206.

Juhl, Hans Jørn, Morten HJ Fenger, and John Thøgersen (2017), “Will the Consistent Organic Food Consumer Step Forward? An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (3), 519–535.

Kahan, Dan M., Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, and Gregory Mandel (2012), “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks,” Nature Climate Change, 2 (10), 732–735.

Kahneman, Daniel (2003), “A Psychological Perspective on Economics,” American Economic Review, 93 (2), 162–168. 58

Kahneman, Daniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York, NY, US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaiser, Florian G. (2006), “A Moral Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior: Norms and Anticipated Feelings of Regret in Conservationism,” Personality and Individual Differences, 41 (1), 71–81.

Kaiser, Florian G. and Todd A. Shimoda (1999), “Responsibility as a Predictor of Ecological Behaviour,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (3), 243–253.

Kallbekken, Steffen, Hæakon Sælen, and Erlend AT Hermansen (2013), “Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 36 (1), 1–16.

Kals, Elisabeth, Daniel Schumacher, and Leo Montada (1999), “Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature,” Environment and Behavior, 31 (2), 178–202.

Karjalainen, Sami (2011), “Consumer Preferences for Feedback on Household Electricity Consumption,” Energy and Buildings, 43 (2), 458–467.

Karmarkar, Uma R. and Bryan Bollinger (2015), “BYOB: How Bringing Your Own Shopping Bags Leads to Treating Yourself and the Environment,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 1–15.

Katzev, Richard D. and Theodore R. Johnson (1984), “Comparing the Effects of Monetary Incentives and Foot-in-the-Door Strategies in Promoting Residential Electricity Conservation,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14 (1), 12–27.

Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer, and David M. Hardesty (2013), “Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 350–367.

Kilbourne, William E. and Suzanne C. Beckmann (1998), “Review and Critical Assessment of Research on Marketing and the Environment,” Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (6), 513– 532.

Kinnear, Thomas C., James R. Taylor, and Sadrudin A. Ahmed (1974), “Ecologically Concerned Consumers: Who Are They?,” The Journal of Marketing, 20–24.

Kollmuss, Anja and Julian Agyeman (2002), “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior?,” Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239–260.

Kotler, Philip (2011), “Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 132–135.

Kotler, Philip, Hermawan Kartajaya, and Iwan Setiawan (2010), Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit, John Wiley & Sons. 59

Kraft-Todd, Gordon T., Bryan Bollinger, Kenneth Gillingham, Stefan Lamp, and David G. Rand (2018), “Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods,” Nature.

Krause, Rachel M. (2009), “Developing Conditions for Environmentally Sustainable Consumption: Drawing Insight from Anti-Smoking Policy,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (3), 285–292.

Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012), “Go Green! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive?,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 95–102.

Kurz, Tim, Benjamin Gardner, Bas Verplanken, and Charles Abraham (2014), “Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate-relevant actions,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6 (1), 113–128.

Lanzini, Pietro and John Thøgersen (2014), “Behavioural Spillover in the Environmental Domain: An Intervention Study,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 381–390.

Laroche, Michel, Jasmin Bergeron, and Guido Barbaro-Forleo (2001), “Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (6), 503–520.

Lazarus, Richard J. (1994), “The Meaning and Promotion of Environmental Justice,” Maryland Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 5 (1), 1–12.

Lehman, Philip K. and E. Scott Geller (2004), “Behavior Analysis and Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Potential for More,” Behavior and Social Issues, 13 (1), 13.

Leiserowitz, Anthony (2006), “Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values,” Climatic Change, 77 (1), 45–72.

Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1981), “Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (3), 243–252.

Lerner, Jennifer S. and Dacher Keltner (2000), “Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion- Specific Influences on Judgement and Choice,” Cognition & Emotion, 14 (4), 473–493.

Levine, Debra Siegel and Michael J. Strube (2012), “Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students,” The Journal of social psychology, 152 (3), 308– 326.

Li, Shu-Chu Sarrina (2014), “Fear Appeals and College Students’ Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions Toward Global Warming,” The Journal of Environmental Education, 45 (4), 243–257.

Li, Ye, Eric J. Johnson, and Lisa Zaval (2011), “Local Warming: Daily Temperature Change Influences Belief in Global Warming,” Psychological Science, 22 (4), 454–459.

Lin, Ying-Ching and Chiu-chi Angela Chang (2012), “Double Standard: The Role of Environmental Consciousness in Green Product Usage,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 125–134. 60

Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Carol Werner, Henk Staats, Eric van Dijk, and Jeff L. Gale (2013), “Commitment and Behaviour Change: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of Commitment- Making Strategies in Environmental Research,” Environment and Behaviour, 45 (1), 3–34.

Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights,” The Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 9–20.

Lowe, Thomas, Katrina Brown, Suraje Dessai, Miguel de França Doria, Kat Haynes, and Katharine Vincent (2006), “Does Tomorrow Ever Come? Disaster Narrative and Public Perceptions of Climate Change,” Public Understanding of Science, 15 (4), 435–457.

Luchs, Michael G., Jacob Brower, and Ravindra Chitturi (2012), “Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Emotion-Laden Trade-Off Between Sustainability and Functional Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29 (6), 903–916.

Luchs, Michael G. and Minu Kumar (2017), “Yes, But This Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How Do Consumers Respond to Trade-Offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?,” Journal of Business Ethics, 140 (3), 567–584.

Luchs, Michael G. and Todd A. Mooradian (2012), “Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 35 (1), 127–144.

Luchs, Michael G., Rebecca Walker Naylor, Julie R. Irwin, and Rajagopal Raghunathan (2010), “The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 18–31.

Ludwig, Timothy D., Timothy W. Gray, and Allison Rowell (1998), “Increasing Recycling in Academic Buildings: A Systematic Replication,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31 (4), 683–686.

Luo, Xueming and Chitra Bhanu Bhattacharya (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 1–18.

Mainieri, Tina, Elaine G. Barnett, Trisha R. Valdero, John B. Unipan, and Stuart Oskamp (1997), “Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 137 (2), 189–204.

Mallett, Robyn K. (2012), “Eco-Guilt Motivates Eco-Friendly Behavior,” Ecopsychology, 4 (3), 223–231.

Mallett, Robyn K., Kala J. Melchiori, and Theresa Strickroth (2013), “Self-Confrontation via a Carbon Footprint Calculator Increases Guilt and Support for a Proenvironmental Group,” Ecopsychology, 5 (1), 9–16.

Maner, Jon K., Carol L. Luce, Steven L. Neuberg, Robert B. Cialdini, Stephanie Brown, and Brad J. Sagarin (2002), “The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism,” Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28 (11), 1601–1610. 61

Manget, Joe, Catherine Roche, and Felix Münnich (2009), “Capturing the Green Advantage for Consumer Companies,” The Boston Consulting Group, 13.

Mannetti, Lucia, Antonio Pierro, and Stefano Livi (2004), “Recycling: Planned and Self- Expressive Behavior,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 227–236.

Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), “Cultural variation in the self-concept,” in The self: Interdisciplinary approaches, Springer, 18–48.

Marx, Sabine M., Elke U. Weber, Benjamin S. Orlove, Anthony Leiserowitz, David H. Krantz, Carla Roncoli, and Jennifer Phillips (2007), “Communication and Mental Processes: Experiential and Analytic Processing of Uncertain Climate Information,” Global Environmental Change, 17 (1), 47–58.

Mazar, Nina and Chen-Bo Zhong (2010), “Do Green Products Make Us Better People?,” Psychological Science, 21 (4), 494–498.

McDonald, Seonaidh, Caroline J. Oates, C. William Young, and Kumju Hwang (2006), “Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers,” Psychology & Marketing, 23 (6), 515–534.

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart (2002), “Design for the Triple Top Line: New Tools for Sustainable Commerce,” Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (3), 251–258.

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug (2000), “New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 543–554.

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug (2011), Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community- based social marketing, New society publishers.

Meng, Matthew D. and Remi Trudel (2017), “Using Emoticons to Encourage Students to Recycle,” The Journal of Environmental Education, 48 (3), 196–204.

Menon, Ajay and Anil Menon (1997), “Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as Market Strategy,” The Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 51–67.

Mick, David G. (2006), “Meaning and Mattering Through Transformative Consumer Research,” Advances in Consumer Research, 33 (1), 1–4.

Min, Jihoon, Inês L. Azevedo, Jeremy Michalek, and Wändi Bruine de Bruin (2014), “Labeling Energy Cost on Light Bulbs Lowers Implicit Discount Rates,” Ecological Economics, 97, 42–50.

Minson, Julia A. and Benoît Monin (2012), “Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3 (2), 200–207.

Mont, Oksana and Eva Heiskanen (2015), “Breaking the Stalemate of Sustainable Consumption with Industrial Ecology and a Circular Economy,” in Handbook of Research on Sustainable 62

Consumption. L. Reisch and J. Thøgersen, eds. Cheltenham, U. K. Edward Elgar Publishing, 33– 47.

Muralidharan, Sidharth and Kim Sheehan (2018), “The Role of Guilt in Influencing Sustainable Pro-Environmental Behaviors among Shoppers Differences in Response by Gender To Messaging about England’s Plastic-Bag Levy,” Journal of Advertising Research, 58 (3), 349–362.

Muraven, Mark and Roy F. Baumeister (2000), “Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?,” Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 247.

Murphy, Pe, N. Kangun, and Wb Locander (1978), “Environmentally Concerned Consumers- Racial Variations,” Journal of Marketing, 42 (4), 61–66.

Murtagh, Niamh, Birgitta Gatersleben, Laura Cowen, and David Uzzell (2015), “Does Perception of Automation Undermine Pro-Environmental Behaviour? Findings from Three Everyday Settings,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42 (Supplement C), 139–148.

Myers, Teresa A., Matthew C. Nisbet, Edward W. Maibach, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz (2012), “A Public Health Frame Arouses Hopeful Emotions About Climate Change,” Climatic Change, 113 (3–4), 1105–1112.

Neumann, Bruce R., Michael L. Roberts, and Eric Cauvin (2012), “Management Control Systems Dilemma: Reconciling Sustainability with Information Overload,” in Advances in Management Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1–28.

Newman, George E., Margarita Gorlin, and Ravi Dhar (2014), “When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 823–839.

Nielson (2015), “Consumer-Goods’ Brands That Demonstrate Commitment to Sustainability Outperform Those That Don’t,” (accessed January 7, 2018), [available at http://www.nielsen.com/ca/en/press-room/2015/consumer-goods-brands-that-demonstrate- commitment-to-sustainability-outperform.html].

Nisbet, Elizabeth K., John M. Zelenski, and Steven A. Murphy (2009), “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior,” Environment and Behavior, 41 (5), 715–740.

Nolan, Jessica M., P.Wesley Schultz, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius (2008), “Normative Social Influence Is Underdetected,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (7), 913–923.

Norman, Wayne and Chris MacDonald (2004), “Getting to the Bottom of ‘Triple Bottom Line,’” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14 (2), 243–262.

OECD and WHO (2015), Promoting Health, Preventing Disease The Economic Case: The Economic Case, OECD Publishing. 63

Ölander, Folke and John Thøgersen (2014), “Informing versus Nudging in Environmental Policy,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 37 (3), 341–356.

Olsen, Mitchell C., Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, and Sandeep R. Chandukala (2014), “Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New Products Change Brand Attitude,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 119–137.

Olson, Jenny G., Brent McFerran, Andrea C. Morales, and Darren W. Dahl (2016), “Wealth and Welfare: Divergent Moral Reactions to Ethical Consumer Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 879–896.

O’Neill, Saffron and Sophie Nicholson-Cole (2009), “‘Fear Won’t Do It’: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations,” Science Communication, 30 (3), 355–379.

Onwezen, Marleen C., Gerrit Antonides, and Jos Bartels (2013), “The Norm Activation Model: An Exploration of the Functions of Anticipated Pride and Guilt in Pro-Environmental Behaviour,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141–153.

Osbaldiston, Richard and John Paul Schott (2012), “Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral Science: Meta-Analysis of Proenvironmental Behavior Experiments,” Environment and Behavior, 44 (2), 257–299.

Osbaldiston, Richard and Kennon M. Sheldon (2002), “Social Dilemmas and Sustainability: Promoting Peoples’ Motivation to ‘Cooperate with the Future,’” in Psychology of Sustainable Development. Schmuck, Peter, and Wesley P. Schultz, eds., Springer Science & Business Media, 37–58.

Oskamp, Stuart, Maura J. Harrington, Todd C. Edwards, Deborah L. Sherwood, Shawn M. Okuda, and Deborah C. Swanson (1991), “Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior,” Environment and Behavior, 23 (4), 494–519.

Osterhus, Thomas L. (1997), “Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do They Work?,” The Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 16–29.

Paavola, Jouni (2001), “Towards Sustainable Consumption: Economics and Ethical Concerns for the Environment in Consumer Choices,” Review of Social Economy, 59 (2), 227–248.

Panno, Angelo, Mauro Giacomantonio, Giuseppe Carrus, Fridanna Maricchiolo, Sabine Pirchio, and Lucia Mannetti (2018), “Mindfulness, Pro-environmental Behavior, and Belief in Climate Change: The Mediating Role of Social Dominance,” Environment and Behavior, 50 (8), 864–888.

Parguel, Béatrice, Florence Benoît-Moreau, and Fabrice Larceneux (2011), “How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (1), 15.

Paswan, Audhesh, Francisco Guzmán, and Jeffrey Lewin (2017), “Attitudinal Determinants of Environmentally Sustainable Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34 (5), 414–426. 64

Paul, Justin, Ashwin Modi, and Jayesh Patel (2016), “Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134.

Peattie, Ken (1999), “Trappings versus Substance in the Greening of Marketing Planning,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7 (2), 131–148.

Peattie, Ken (2001), “Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the Green Consumer,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 10 (4), 187–199.

Peattie, Ken (2010), “Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35 (1), 195–228.

Peattie, Ken and Sue Peattie (2009), “Social Marketing: A Pathway to Consumption Reduction?,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 260–268.

Peloza, John, Katherine White, and Jingzhi Shang (2013), “Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self- Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 104–119.

Peter, Paula C. and Heather Honea (2012), “Targeting Social Messages with Emotions of Change: The Call for Optimism,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31 (2), 269–283.

Phipps, Marcus, Lucie K. Ozanne, Michael G. Luchs, Saroja Subrahmanyan, Sommer Kapitan, Jesse R. Catlin, Roland Gau, Rebecca Walker Naylor, Randall L. Rose, Bonnie Simpson, and Todd Weaver (2013), “Understanding the Inherent Complexity of Sustainable Consumption: A Social Cognitive Framework,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (8), 1227–1234.

Pichert, Daniel and Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos (2008), “Green Defaults: Information Presentation and Pro-Environmental Behaviour,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (1), 63–73.

Pickett-Baker, Josephine and Ritsuko Ozaki (2008), “Pro-Environmental Products: Marketing Influence on Consumer Purchase Decision,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (5), 281–293.

Piff, Paul K., Matthew Feinberg, Pia Dietze, Daniel M. Stancato, and Dacher Keltner (2015), “Awe, the Small Self, and Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 108 (6), 883–899.

Price, Linda L., Robin A. Coulter, Yuliya Strizhakova, and Ainslie Schultz (2017), “The Fresh Start Mindset: Transforming Consumers’ Lives,” Journal of Consumer Research.

Prooijen, Anne-Marie and Paul Sparks (2014), “Attenuating Initial Beliefs: Increasing the Acceptance of Anthropogenic Climate Change Information by Reflecting on Values,” Risk Analysis, 34 (5), 929–936.

Prothero, Andrea, Susan Dobscha, Jim Freund, William E. Kilbourne, Michael G. Luchs, Lucie K. Ozanne, and John Thøgersen (2011), “Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 31–38. 65

Rabinovich, Anna, Thomas A. Morton, Tom Postmes, and Bas Verplanken (2012), “Collective Self and Individual Choice: The Effects of Inter-Group Comparative Context on Environmental Values and Behaviour,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (4), 551–569.

Reczek, Rebecca, Remi Trudel, and Katherine White (2018), “Focusing on the Forest or the Trees: How Abstract versus Concrete Construal Level Predicts Responses to Eco-Friendly Products,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 87–98.

Reed, Americus, Karl Aquino, and Eric Levy (2007), “Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 178–193.

Reed, I. I. and Karl F. Aquino (2003), “Moral Identity and the Expanding Circle of Moral Regard Toward Out-Groups.,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 84 (6), 1270.

Reno, Raymond R., Robert B. Cialdini, and Carl A. Kallgren (1993), “The Transsituational Influence of Social Norms.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (1), 104.

Rezvani, Zeinab, Johan Jansson, and Maria Bengtsson (2017), “Cause I’ll Feel Good! An Investigation into the Effects of Anticipated Emotions and Personal Moral Norms on Consumer Pro-Environmental Behavior,” Journal of Promotion Management, 23 (1), 163–183.

Richardson, Alan (1977), “Verbalizer-Visualizer: A Cognitive Style Dimension.,” Journal of mental imagery.

Roberts, James A. (1993), “Sex Differences in Socially Responsible Consumers’ Behavior,” Psychological Reports, 73 (1), 139–148.

Sachdeva, Sonya, Jennifer Jordan, and Nina Mazar (2015), “Green Consumerism: Moral Motivations to a Sustainable Future,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 60–65.

Sadalla, Edward K. and Jennifer L. Krull (1995), “Self-Presentational Barriers to Resource Conservation,” Environment and Behavior, 27 (3), 328–353.

Savitz, Andrew and Karl Weber (2013), The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success-and How You Can Too, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Scannell, Leila and Robert Gifford (2013), “Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local versus Global Message Framing in Engagement,” Environment and Behavior, 45 (1), 60–85.

Schkade, David A. and John W. Payne (1994), “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26 (1), 88–109.

Schuitema, Geertje and Judith IM Groot (2015), “Green Consumerism: The Influence of Product Attributes and Values on Purchasing Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14 (1), 57–69. 66

Schuldt, Jonathon P. and Norbert Schwarz (2010), “The" organic" path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations,” Judgment and Decision making, 5 (3), 144.

Schultz, P (1999), “Changing Behavior with Normative Feedback Interventions: A Field Experiment on Curbside Recycling,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21 (1).

Schultz, P. Wesley (2014), “Strategies for Promoting Proenvironmental Behavior,” European Psychologist, 19 (2), 107–117.

Schultz, P. Wesley, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius (2007), “The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms,” Psychological Science, 18 (5), 429–434.

Schultz, P. Wesley, Stuart Oskamp, and Tina Mainieri (1995), “Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 (2), 105– 121.

Schultz, Tracy and Kelly Fielding (2014), “The Common in-Group Identity Model Enhances Communication About Recycled Water,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 296–305.

Schwartz, Daniel, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Baruch Fischhoff, and Lester Lave (2015), “Advertising Energy Saving Programs: The Potential Environmental Cost of Emphasizing Monetary Savings,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21 (2), 158–166.

Schwartz, Daniel and George Loewenstein (2017), “The Chill of the Moment: Emotions and Pro- Environmental Behavior,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36 (2), 255–268.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1977), “Normative Influences on Altruism,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.

Schwepker Jr, Charles H. and T. Bettina Cornwell (1991), “An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 77–101.

Semenza, Jan C., David E. Hall, Daniel J. Wilson, Brian D. Bontempo, David J. Sailor, and Linda A. George (2008), “Public Perception of Climate Change: Voluntary Mitigation and Barriers to Behavior Change,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (5), 479–487.

Sen, Sankar and Chitra Bhanu Bhattacharya (2001), “Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 225–243.

Sevillano, Verónica, Juan I. Aragonés, and P. Wesley Schultz (2007), “Perspective Taking, Environmental Concern, and the Moderating Role of Dispositional Empathy,” Environment and Behavior, 39 (5), 685–705. 67

Shang, Jingzhi and John Peloza (2016), “Can ‘Real’ Men Consume Ethically? How Ethical Consumption Leads to Unintended Observer Inference,” Journal of Business Ethics, 139 (1), 129– 145.

Sheth, Jagdish N., Nirmal K. Sethia, and Shanthi Srinivas (2011), “Mindful Consumption: A Customer-Centric Approach to Sustainability,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (1), 21–39.

Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 278–292.

Siero, Frans W., Arnold B. Bakker, Gerda B. Dekker, and Marcel TC Van Den Burg (1996), “Changing Organizational Energy Consumption Behaviour Through Comparative Feedback,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 (3), 235–246.

Slavin, Robert E., John S. Wodarski, and Bernard L. Blackburn (1981), “A Group Contingency for Electricity Conservation in Master-Metered Apartments,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14 (3), 357–363.

Small, Kenneth A. and Kurt Van Dender (2007), “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect.,” The Energy Journal, 28 (1), 25–51.

Smith, Nicholas and Anthony Leiserowitz (2014), “The Role of Emotion in Global Warming Policy Support and Opposition,” Risk Analysis, 34 (5), 937–948.

“Snappy Living” (2011), Snappy Living, (accessed June 18, 2018), [available at https://snappyliving.com/cold-water-for-laundry/].

Solomon, Michael R., Katherine White, and Dahren William Dahl (2017), Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being, Pearson Boston, MA, USA:

Sorrell, Steve, John Dimitropoulos, and Matt Sommerville (2009), “Empirical Estimates of the Direct Rebound Effect: A Review,” Energy Policy, 37 (4), 1356–1371.

Sparks, Paul, Donna C. Jessop, James Chapman, and Katherine Holmes (2010), “Pro- Environmental Actions, Climate Change, and Defensiveness: Do Self-Affirmations Make a Difference to People’s Motives and Beliefs About Making a Difference?,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 49 (3), 553–568.

Spence, Alexa, Wouter Poortinga, and Nick Pidgeon (2012), “The Psychological Distance of Climate Change,” Risk analysis, 32 (6), 957–972.

Steenhaut, Sarah and Patrick Van Kenhove (2006), “The Mediating Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers’ Ethical Decision-Making,” Journal of Business Ethics, 69 (3), 269–288.

Steg, Linda (2005), “Car Use: Lust and Must. Instrumental, Symbolic and Affective Motives for Car Use,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39 (2), 147–162. 68

Steg, Linda (2015), “Environmental Psychology and Sustainable Consumption,” Handbook of Research in Sustainable Consumption, 70–83.

Steg, Linda, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Kees Keizer, and Goda Perlaviciute (2014), “An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: The Role of Values, Situational Factors and Goals,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.

Steg, Linda and Charles Vlek (2009), “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (3), 309–317.

Stern, Paul C. (1999), “Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior.,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 22 (4), 461–478.

Stern, Paul C. (2000), “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407–424.

Stern, Paul C. (2011), “Contributions of Psychology to Limiting Climate Change,” American Psychologist, 66 (4), 303–314.

Stern, Paul C. and Thomas Dietz (1994), “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern,” Journal of Social Issues, 50 (3), 65–84.

Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof (1993), “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern,” Environment and Behavior, 25 (5), 322–348.

Strathman, Alan, Faith Gleicher, David S. Boninger, and C. Scott Edwards (1994), “The Consideration of Future Consequences: Weighing Immediate and Distant Outcomes of Behavior.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (4), 742.

Strother, J. B. and Z. Fazal (2011), “Can green fatigue hamper sustainability communication efforts?,” in 2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 1–6.

Sullivan, Gavin Brent (2015), “Collective emotions,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9 (8), 383–393.

Sun, Monic and Remi Trudel (2017), “The Effect of Recycling Versus Trashing on Consumption: Theory and Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (2), 293–305.

Sussman, Abigail B. and Rourke L. O’Brien (2016), “Knowing When to Spend: Unintended Financial Consequences of Earmarking to Encourage Savings,” American Marketing Association.

Swim, Janet K., Susan Clayton, and George S. Howard (2011), “Human Behavioral Contributions to Climate Change: Psychological and Contextual Drivers,” American Psychologist, 66 (4), 251.

Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner (1986), The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. 69

Taufique, Khan Md Raziuddin, Andrea Vocino, and Michael Jay Polonsky (2017), “The Influence of Eco-Label Knowledge and Trust on Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in an Emerging Market,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25 (7), 511–529.

Teng, Yi-Man, Kun-Shan Wu, and Hsiao-Hui Liu (2015), “Integrating Altruism and the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Patronage Intention of a Green Hotel,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39 (3), 299–315.

Theotokis, Aristeidis and Emmanouela Manganari (2015), “The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt,” Journal of Business Ethics, 131 (2), 423– 437.

Thøgersen, John (2000), “Psychological Determinants of Paying Attention to Eco-Labels in Purchase Decisions: Model Development and Multinational Validation,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 23 (3), 285–313.

Thøgersen, John (2012), “The Importance of Timing for Breaking Commuters’ Car Driving Habits,” Working Paper.

Tiefenbeck, Verena, Lorenz Goette, Kathrin Degen, Vojkan Tasic, Elgar Fleisch, Rafael Lalive, and Thorsten Staake (2016), “Overcoming salience bias: how real-time feedback fosters resource conservation,” Management science, 64 (3), 1458–1476.

Tiefenbeck, Verena, Thorsten Staake, Kurt Roth, and Olga Sachs (2013), “For Better or for Worse? Empirical Evidence of Moral Licensing in a Behavioral Energy Conservation Campaign,” Energy Policy, 57, 160–171.

Trudel, Remi, Jennifer J. Argo, and Matthew D. Meng (2016), “The Recycled Self: Consumers’ Disposal Decisions of Identity-Linked Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (2), 246– 264.

Trudel, Remi and June Cotte (2009), “Does It Pay to Be Good?,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 50 (2), 61.

Truelove, Heather Barnes, Amanda R. Carrico, Elke U. Weber, Kaitlin Toner Raimi, and Michael P. Vandenbergh (2014), “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework,” Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138.

Ungemach, Christoph, Adrian R. Camilleri, Eric J. Johnson, Richard P. Larrick, and Elke U. Weber (2017), “Translated Attributes as Choice Architecture: Aligning Objectives and Choices Through Decision Signposts,” Management Science, Articles in Advance, 1–15.

Van Boven, Leaf (2005), “Experientialism, Materialism, and the Pursuit of Happiness.,” Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 132.

Van Boven, Leaf, Joanne Kane, A. Peter McGraw, and Jeannette Dale (2010), “Feeling close: emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance.,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 98 (6), 872. 70

Van der Werff, Ellen, Linda Steg, and Kees Keizer (2013), “The Value of Environmental Self- Identity: The Relationship Between Biospheric Values, Environmental Self-Identity and Environmental Preferences, Intentions and Behaviour,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63.

Van der Werff, Ellen, Linda Steg, and Kees Keizer (2014), “I Am What I Am, by Looking Past the Present: The Influence of Biospheric Values and Past Behavior on Environmental Self- Identity,” Environment and Behavior, 46 (5), 626–657.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17.

Velasquez, Alcides and Robert LaRose (2015), “Youth collective activism through social media: The role of collective efficacy,” New Media & Society, 17 (6), 899–918.

Verhaert, Griet A. and Dirk Van den Poel (2011), “Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior,” Journal of Business Research, 64 (12), 1288–1295.

Verplanken, Bas (2011), “Old Habits and New Routes to Sustainable Behaviour,” in Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication, UK: Taylor and Francis, 17–30.

Verplanken, Bas and Rob W. Holland (2002), “Motivated Decision Making: Effects of Activation and Self-Centrality of Values on Choices and Behavior.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 434.

Verplanken, Bas and Deborah Roy (2016), “Empowering Interventions to Promote Sustainable Lifestyles: Testing the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis in a Field Experiment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45 (Supplement C), 127–134.

Verplanken, Bas, Ian Walker, Adrian Davis, and Michaela Jurasek (2008), “Context Change and Travel Mode Choice: Combining the Habit Discontinuity and Self-Activation Hypotheses,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2), 121–127.

Vugt, Mark, Vladas Griskevicius, and P. Schultz (2014), “Naturally Green: Harnessing Stone Age Psychological Biases to Foster Environmental Behavior,” Social Issues and Policy Review, 8 (1), 1–32.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., A. E. Tenbrunsel, and M. H. Bazerman (1997), “Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness as an Obstacle to the Resolution of Environmental Conflict,” Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 189–208.

Walker, Ian, Gregory O. Thomas, and Bas Verplanken (2015), “Old Habits Die Hard: Travel Habit Formation and Decay During an Office Relocation,” Environment and Behavior, 47 (10), 1089–1106.

Wang, Tingting, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, and Vanessa M. Patrick (2017), “Getting Consumers to Recycle NOW! When and Why Cuteness Appeals Influence Prosocial and Sustainable Behavior,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36 (2), 269–283. 71

Wang, Wenbo, Aradhna Krishna, and Brent McFerran (2016), “Turning Off the Lights: Consumers’ Environmental Efforts Depend on Visible Efforts of Firms,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (3), 478–494.

Waugh, Christian E. and Barbara L. Fredrickson (2006), “Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1 (2), 93–106.

Weber, Elke U. (2010), “What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change?,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (3), 332–342. van der Weiden, Anouk, Henk Aarts, and Kirsten Ruys (2013), “On The Nature of Experiencing Self-Agency: The Role of Goals and Primes in Inferring Oneself as the Cause of Behavior,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (12), 888–904.

Welsch, Heinz and Jan Kühling (2009), “Determinants of Pro-Environmental Consumption: The Role of Reference Groups and Routine Behavior.,” Ecological Economics, 69 (1), 166–176.

Werner, Carol M., Mark U. Rhodes, and Kimberly K. Partain (1998), “Designing Effective Instructional Signs with Schema Theory: Case Studies of Polystyrene Recycling,” Environment and Behavior, 30 (5), 709–735.

White, Katherine and Jennifer J. Argo (2011), “When Imitation Doesn’t Flatter: The Role of Consumer Distinctiveness in Responses to Mimicry,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 667– 680.

White, Katherine, Jennifer J. Argo, and Jaideep Sengupta (2012), “Dissociative versus associative responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 704–719.

White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and Darren W. Dahl (2011), “It’s the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 472–485.

White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), “Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103– 118.

White, Katherine and Bonnie Simpson (2013), “When Do (and Don’t) Normative Appeals Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors?,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 78–95.

White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), “The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433–447.

Wiidegren, Örjan (1998), “The New Environmental Paradigm and Personal Norms,” Environment and Behavior, 30 (1), 75–100. 72

Wilhite, Harold and Rich Ling (1995), “Measured Energy Savings from a More Informative Energy Bill,” Energy and Buildings, 22 (2), 145–155.

Winterich, Karen P., Rebecca Walker Reczek, and Julie R. Irwin (2017), “Keeping the Memory but Not the Possession: Memory Preservation Mitigates Identity Loss from Product Disposition,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (5), 104–120.

Wlodarczyk, Anna, Nekane Basabe, Darío Páez, and Larraitz Zumeta (2017), “Hope and anger as mediators between collective action frames and participation in collective mobilization: The case of 15-M,” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5 (1), 200–223.

Young, William, Kumju Hwang, Seonaidh McDonald, and Caroline J. Oates (2010), “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour When Purchasing Products,” Sustainable Development, 18 (1), 20–31.

Zane, Daniel M., Julie R. Irwin, and Rebecca Walker Reczek (2015), “Do Less Ethical Consumers Denigrate More Ethical Consumers? The Effect of Willful Ignorance on Judgments of Others,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (3), 337–349.

Zaval, Lisa, Ezra M. Markowitz, and Elke U. Weber (2015), “How Will I Be Remembered? Conserving the Environment for the Sake of One’s Legacy,” Psychological Science, 26 (2), 231– 236.

73

Web Appendix A: Examples of Tools for Sustainable Consumer Behavior Change

Barrier to Sustainable Behavior Tools to Overcome the Barrier Change Social  Prime or remind people of relevant descriptive and injunctive social norms  Show others engaging in the desired sustainable behavior

 Link the desired sustainable consumer behavior to relevant ingroups  Foster healthy competition between groups to encourage sustainable actions  Highlight that the behavior is observable/increase observability  Make the behavior socially desirable  Encourage consumers to make public and meaningful commitments  Associate the sustainable consumer behavior with an ingroup the consumer identifies with

Habit  Utilize discontinuity (life/routine changes) to break bad habits  Use penalties if you can monitor and enforce the program  Use implementation intentions to transition from undesired to desired behaviors  Make the sustainable consumer behavior easy to do  Make the sustainable choice the default option  Use prompts to create positive habits  Use incentives such as gifts or larger monetary incentives to encourage sustainable behaviors  Give individual and comparative feedback

Individual  Ensure that the behavior you wish to encourage is positive/ not threatening to the self-concept  Link the behavior, product, or service to the self-concept  Encourage consumers to be consistent with their own values  Encourage individual commitments to behavior change  Appeal to consumer self-interest  Increase self-efficacy  Appeal to those with strong personal norms related to sustainability  Prime or remind people of their personal norms  Take into account individual differences and target those who will be receptive to your message

Feelings  Consider activating feelings of guilt, but do so in subtle ways and  Communicate in ways that activate some negative affect, but that also communicate self-efficacy Cognition  Encourage feelings of pride as a result of engaging in sustainable behaviors  Consider providing relevant information to consumers, but do so in combination with other strategies  Utilize eco-labeling and third-party certifications  Communicate in terms of loss framing, particularly in combination with concrete messaging 74

Tangibility  Make consumers more future-focused, to match the future focus of sustainability  Communicate sustainable actions and outcomes in ways that convey proximal and local effects  Communicate the specific steps consumers can take, as well as what the precise outcomes will be  Use tangibility interventions such as vivid imagery, analogies, statistics, to communicate to consumers  Encourage the desire for intangibles 75

Web Appendix B: Steps to Using the SHIFT Framework

1. Step One. Clarify the Context: The first step in using this framework involves being very clear in terms of what focal behavior the practitioner wishes to influence. Be very precise when thinking about what your higher-level goals are. Next, think about the characteristics of the context in which the behavior is likely to be enacted. What elements of the context are important in terms of implementing a behavior-change plan?

2. Step Two. Identify the Target Segment: The second step involves identifying the specific group of individuals that the practitioner wishes to influence. What segment will lead to the most impactful sustainable behavior change? What segment is more likely to be receptive to your intervention strategy?

3. Step 3. Determine the Details: The third step involves building on what has been uncovered in the previous steps to really understand the motives, preferences, barriers, and benefits of the target market in terms of engaging in the desired sustainable behavior. The practitioner might first look at existing research to answer this question. After this, the practitioner should conduct research on the specific group of interest. Different techniques including qualitative research, surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups could be employed here.

4. Step 4. Select and Apply the Tools: After the first three steps have been completed, the marketer can think about which strategies might be most relevant. A strategy should be carefully selected based on the behavior and the context, the target market, and the barriers and benefits associated with behavior change. We outline one way to do this by considering the primary and secondary barriers, which we provide more detail on in Appendices C, D, and E.

5. Step 5. Test Your Strategy: In a fifth step the marketer can do a small pilot test of the selected behavior-change strategies. The marketer can use the results of the test to either move ahead with a larger-scale intervention or to go back and think about revising the strategy.

6. Step 6. Implement and Evaluate Outcomes: The sixth step involves implementing the behavior-change strategy at a larger scale, once a successful strategy has been identified. The practitioner can monitor and measure the outcomes of the intervention and consider using alternative tools if the objectives have not been met.

*see also: McKenzie-Mohr 2000, Peattie 1999, Peattie and Peattie 2004, for general steps in the social marketing process.

76

Web Appendix C: Examples of Desired Behaviors as a Function of Primary and Secondary Behavioral Barriers

Primary Secondary Behavioral Barrier Behavioral (I)ndividual (F)eelings and (S)ocial (H)abit (T)angibility Barrier Self Cognition Recycling Composting Decreasing air Decreasing (driven by social (driven by travel (driven by driving * norms and habit) social norms spending time frequency (S)ocial and with family and (driven by social inconvenience positive feeling desirability and to the self) of the original tangibility of action) outcomes) Using a reusable Car sharing vs. Driving more Turning down coffee cup (driven purchasing efficiently the thermostat * by habits and social (driven by habit (driven by habit (driven by habit (H)abit norms) and barriers to and feelings and clarity of self-interest) associated with outcomes) driving inefficiently) Eating less meat Purchasing an Purchasing an Purchase offsets (driven by energy efficient electric car when traveling * individual appliance (driven by (driven by preferences/ and (driven by perceived costs to personal norms to (I)ndividual what family and perceived cost to self and by self and Self friends do/approve self and feelings of perceptions of of) incentives) autonomy clear outcomes) associated with driving) Using a reusable Riding bike to Washing Choosing a shopping bag work (driven by laundry in cold green energy * (driven by feeling of negative feelings water (driven provider (driven (F)eelings guilt and social such as fear and by cognitions by cognitions and norms) by habit) about about attributes Cognition effectiveness and clarity of and benefits to outcomes) the individual self) 77

Purchasing Purchasing Switching to Purchasing sustainable/used sustainable/fair- washable organic food * clothing (driven by trade products diapers (driven (driven by clarity clarity of outcomes (driven by clarity by clarity of of effectiveness (T)angibility and what other of outcomes and effectiveness and cognitions people will think) habit) and beliefs about health and about self- sustainability) benefits)

Web Appendix D: Examples of Selected Strategies Based on the SHIFT Framework

Primary Secondary Behavioral Barrier Behavioral (I)ndividual (F)eelings and (S)ocial (H)abit (T)angibility Barrier Self Cognition S: Show others S: S: Communicate S: engaging in the Communicate new ways/norms Communicate * desired about relevant around spending new descriptive sustainable descriptive and time with family and injunctive behavior in injunctive social + norms around public settings norms F: Show that driving (S)ocial + + special automobiles H: Give I: Prime moments/positive + individual or individuals to emotions can T: Make comparative think of the self occur on behaviors and peer feedback as part of a “staycations” too outcomes very on performance collective tangible and clear H: Shape positive H: Use H: Shape H: Use behaviors using discontinuity to positive prompts and * rewards break bad habits behaviors with feedback to + + rewards and shape habits S: Make the action I: Bundle feedback + (H)abit positive and observable incentives with + T: Make to others behavior F: Subtly activate behaviors and feelings of guilt outcomes very tangible and clear I: Make the action less I: Increase I: Decrease I: Activate (I)ndividual difficult for the self convenience to perceived costs to personal norm Self * + the self the self and values 78

S: Create social + + + occasions/communicate H: Use F: Create T: positive norms around incentives and positive feelings Communicate the behavior prompts to around the new clear and shape the option/behavior tangible desired outcomes behavior F: Subtly activate guilt F: Resolve F: Create F: Create by activating self negative cognitions by cognitions via * standards emotions like educating on education (F)eelings fear effectiveness and S: Show others T: Cognition engaging in the H: Use rewards I: Highlight the Communicate behavior to shape self-benefits the clear and desired behavior tangible behaviors outcomes T: Communicate clear T: T: T: Communicate and tangible outcomes Communicate Communicate clear and tangible * + clear and tangible outcomes S: Communicate tangible benefits (e.g. + positive social norms outcomes through third F: Create + party relevant (T)angibility H: Use rewards certifications cognitions about to shape + attributes positive I: Highlight behaviors ease of use and convenience to the self

79

Web Appendix E: Examples of Using the SHIFT Framework in Practice

As we note, identifying primary and secondary barriers is key to utilizing the SHIFT framework. The practitioner should consider their goals, the situations in which the behavior is performed, as well as the social elements in the context, factors linked to habit, characteristics of those who will enact the behavior, feelings and thoughts associated with the behavior, and the degree of certainty and clarity around the behavior. Thinking thoroughly about the behavior in terms of the SHIFT factors can help to understand which barriers need to be overcome and which psychological drivers might best shift people towards sustainable change. One way to do this is to consider the primary and secondary barriers to engaging in the behavior and then selecting relevant tactics to overcome these barriers. A primary barrier refers to a barrier that exerts the strongest avoidance response, while a secondary barrier is the factor that exerts the next strongest avoidance response on the part of the target consumer.

In this section, we provide examples of how to encourage different sustainable consumer behaviors by considering the barriers and benefits to the action. We have done so by focusing on five examples. We have selected these examples by drawing upon what researchers have identified as the being the top five behavior change challenges that will lead to the most positive environmental impacts: energy conservation, transportation choices, food choices, waste disposal, and material purchases (see Gifford 2014; Stern 2000). Each of these major behavioral domains encompasses several sub-behaviors that that can be addressed using the behavior change strategies we have outlined in the paper. For example, the broader behavioral domain of energy conservation can involve many different specific sub-behaviors such as space heating, air conditioning, water heating, lighting, etc. (Gardner and Stern 2008). We next select one behavior from each of these 80 five domains and then show how the factors from the SHIFT framework can be mapped on to these different behaviors to facilitate sustainable change.

Energy Conservation: Washing Clothes in Cold Water (Cognition and Individual Self)

Multinational companies like Unilever and Procter & Gamble have embraced the difficult challenge of changing consumers' washing behavior (Rowley 2011). Estimates show that around

80% of the energy required to wash a load of laundry is that which is required to simply heat the water. Tide, from Procter & Gamble has set out to create a cold water detergent that works just as well as traditional detergents in hot water, but once they had launched it they realized there were still barriers to changing consumer behavior (Martin and Rosenthal 2011). The primary barrier in this case is cognition, as consumers have lay beliefs that hot water is more effective at removing stains and are reluctant to switch to cold water cycles for this reason. This can be tackled by providing information about how the cold water detergents work and that they can be effective in removing stains and washing clothes. However, simply providing this information alone may not work for everyone and secondary barrier is that people see little personal benefit, as cost savings from this behavior change can be negligible. This secondary barrier thus relates to the individual self. Appealing to consumer' self-interest by focusing on factors that benefit them will help to tackle this barrier and encourage them to wash clothes with cold water and thus save energy. Tide has begun to do this by showing that washing with cold water saves time, as the water does not need to be heated up, and it also prevents colors from fading and clothes from shrinking. These benefits to the self can further break down barriers to saving energy by washing clothes in cold water.

Transportation: Riding a Bike to Work (Feelings and Habit) 81

Car and truck usage releases approximately 20% of all greenhouse gases in the United

States and a shift to cycling can cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 11% by 2050 (Mason,

Fulton, and McDonald 2015). Encouraging people to cycle, however, is not an easy task and this can be related to the barriers of feelings and habit. One study in Australia identifies feelings of fear related to perceptions of safety as one of the main barriers to cycling for both current riders and non-riders (Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2012). This can be tackled by setting up dedicated bike lanes or making it easier to find safe paths for cyclists with easy to use maps. The secondary barrier for many potential riders is related to habit. One way to form a new habit is to think about incentivizing the consumer for different milestones related to the desired sustainable behavior.

One possibility is that the consumer can reward the self (e.g., a piece of cheese cake on the weekend) after completing a small, achievable goal (e.g., riding to work three times that week). Or the individual might consider “temptation bundling” where they concurrently combine a pleasant, desired reward with the behavior they feel they ought to engage in (Milkman, Minson, and Volpp

2013). For example, the consumer might save listening to a guilty pleasure (e.g., the Hunger

Games audio-book) for their ride to work. A second possibility is that employers could incentivize the sustainable behavior of cycling to work. The company Acato is a digital agency that has developed an app to track the commutes of employees so that employers can track and award employees for cycling to work (Peters 2017).

Waste Disposal: Switching to Washable Diapers (Tangibility and Individual Self)

There is a certain level of uncertainty involved in using washable diapers as the sustainability benefits of cloth diapers over disposable diapers are not clear. While disposable diapers use more raw materials and end up in the landfill, washable diapers have been criticized for using energy and detergent in the washing process (“Diaper Decisions” 2017). Because there is 82 conflicting information in the marketplace about what type of diapers is best in terms of sustainability, there is a lot of uncertainty around behavior change and how effective it might be.

Thus, tangibility is the main barrier in switching to washable diapers. Moreover, changing to options touted as being more eco-friendly, such as cloth diapers, can be perceived as being very inconvenient to the individual self. Thus, those wanting to encourage a switch from disposable to washable diapers would do well to tackle the first barrier of tangibility by communicating in very concrete and tangible ways about the sustainable benefits of the product. One company that does this is “Gdiapers” (gDiapers 2018), a brand of washable and reusable diapers which claims that they are just as convenient and easy to use as regular disposable diapers. They verify their sustainable attributes by using several third party certifications, such as the Eco Excellence

Award, being listed as a B-Corporation, and being certified silver by Cradle-to-Cradle (gDiapers

2018). Providing information regarding third-party certifications and on the specific ways in which the product makes a difference increases clarity and tangibility outcomes. In addition, they combine a disposable insert (which is both compostable and flushable) with a reusable outer pant to ensure parents can continue to have convenience, which appeals to the individual self. In addition, the brand appeals to the individual self, by stating how the product is “true to you” – the consumer can pick the style that suits their needs and individual tastes. In creating this product, gDiapers makes sure that the positive outcomes are tangible while still allowing consumers to choose and use the diapers in ways that reflect positively on the individual self in terms of convenience and individuality.

Food Choices: Eating Less Meat (Individual Self and Social Influence)

The Food and Agricultural Organization defines a sustainable diet as those with a low environmental impact, as well as being nutritionally adequate, safe, and healthy (Burlingame and 83

Dernini 2012). The environmental impact of plant-based diets is usually far less than meat-based ones, with eleven times greater energy required to produce animal protein than plant based proteins (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003). Additionally, the production of red meat has been shown to release about 150% more greenhouse gases than either chicken or fish. Because of this, cutting down on the consumption of red meat can tackle emissions more effectively than buying local or organic food (Weber and Matthews 2008). The main barrier to reducing or cutting out meat consumption is related to the individual self because consumers do not want to give up something they enjoy eating. In order to encourage consumers to eat less meat, one possibility is that the goal can be phrased as the more attainable goal of reducing consumption, rather than the more extreme goal of ceasing consumption entirely. One way that has seen some success is the idea of meatless

Mondays which allows consumers to explore recipes and alternatives to eating meat such as eggs, cheese, beans or various meat substitutes like tempeh and tofu for one day a week. This can appeal to the consumer’s own individual preferences, while still giving them a sense of self-efficacy in that small actions can add up to make a difference (David Suzuki Foundation 2018). This concept can also help overcome the secondary barrier of social influence by creating a day of the week where more people including family, friends and colleagues are engaging in meatless consumption. This makes it easier to make plans for eating outside as well as in the home and can increase the social desirability of the meat free options. Another way to leverage social influence is to show positive referents engaging in the desired behavior. For example, PETA shows notable celebrities in ads (including Paul McCartney, Olivia Munn, Dave Navarro, and Pamela Anderson) who are known vegans (“PETA celebrity ads” 2018).

Material Purchases: Car Sharing as Opposed to Purchasing a Car (Habit and Individual Self) 84

People often buy things they do not need and will hardly ever use. This leads to a large amount of material purchases for items that could more efficiently and sustainably be shared. For example, car sharing is one way of more effectively using resources (Sundararajan 2016). One of the main barriers to car sharing is habit and the secondary barrier is related to the individual self.

First, people have developed habits that involve taking their own car everywhere they go and they see no reason to change such habits. One way to think about tackling this problem is to consider addressing those who have yet to develop these habits, such as young people who have not bought their first car, people who move from one area to another, or those that live in dense walkable cities. These individuals might be more open to adopting positive habits. Further, car sharing companies that can increase ease of use, making it easy to locate and access a car, will be more likely to be able to foster sustainable habits. Ease of use also relates to the individual self. For many people, switching to car sharing is seen largely as a cost to the individual self, so highlighting how car sharing can save money (with a calculator that helps to show the costs of owning versus sharing a vehicle). It is also worth considering highlighting car pooling, along with car sharing because one of the benefits of this is the ability to drive in the High Occupancy

Vehicle lane, which offers the benefit of saving time to the consumer.

85

References for Web Appendix E Burlingame, Barbara and Sandro Dernini (2012), “Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action,” in Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger., FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 3–5.

David Suzuki Foundation (2018), “Food and climate change,” David Suzuki Foundation, (accessed June 29, 2018), [available at https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/food-climate- change/].

“Diaper Decisions: Cloth Diapers Vs. Disposable” (2017), The Bump, (accessed June 29, 2018), [available at https://www.thebump.com/a/cloth-diapers-vs-disposable].

Fishman, Elliot, Simon Washington, and Narelle L. Haworth (2012), “Understanding the fear of bicycle riding in Australia,” Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 23 (3), 19–27. gDiapers (2018), “Cradle to Cradle,” gDiapers, (accessed January 13, 2018), [available at https://www.gdiapers.com/pages/cradle-to-cradle].

Gifford, Robert (2014), “Environmental Psychology Matters,” Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 541–579.

Martin, Andrew and Elizabeth Rosenthal (2011), “Cold-Water Detergents Get a Cold Shoulder,” The New York Times.

Mason, Jacob, Lee Fulton, and Zane McDonald (2015), “A Global High Shift Cycling Scenario: The Potential for Dramatically Increasing Bicycle and E-bike Use in Cities Around the World, with Estimated Energy, CO2, and Cost Impacts,” Institute for Transportation & Development Policy and University of California, Davis.

Milkman, Katherine L., Julia A. Minson, and Kevin G. M. Volpp (2013), “Holding the Hunger Games Hostage at the Gym: An Evaluation of Temptation Bundling,” Management Science, 60 (2), 283–299.

“PETA celebrity ads” (2018), PETA, (accessed June 29, 2018), [available at https://www.peta.org/search/celebrity+ads/].

Peters, Adele (2017), “This App Lets Your Company Pay You To Bike To Work,” Fast Company, News, , (accessed June 29, 2018), [available at https://www.fastcompany.com/3069271/this-app- lets-your-company-pay-you-to-bike-to-work].

Pimentel, David and Marcia Pimentel (2003), “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 (3), 660S–663S.

Rowley, Sylvia (2011), “Changing the world one wash at a time,” The Guardian.

Stern, Paul C. (2000), “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407–424. 86

Sundararajan, Arun (2016), The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism, MIT Press.

Weber, Christopher L. and H. Scott Matthews (2008), “Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States,” Environmental Science & Technology, 42 (10), 3508–3513.

Web Appendix F: Examples of Climate Labels from Our Horizon

87

Web Appendix G - Master Table

Table summarizing papers on each of the five principles for sustainable consumer behavior. Highlighted articles cover multiple principles.  Field study (*)  Review paper or meta-analysis (R) with the letters for sections it covers after a colon (e.g., R:SFT if it also covers Social, Feelings & cognition, and Tangibility.  Chapter or conceptual paper (C)

Social Influence Authors Independent Variable(s) Dependent Variable(s) Moderators & Mediators Abrahamse and Steg Different social influence Resource Conservation Visibility of social 2013 (R) approaches (social norms, social influences, group networks, public commitment identity making, modelling, social comparison, feedback) Baca-Motes, Brown, Lapel pin to symbolize Commitment to practice Specific or general Gneezy, Keenan, commitment (pin or no pin) environmentally commitment, no and Nelson 2012* sustainable decisions manipulation, message during hotel stay (towel only, pin only hanging) Bartels and Social Identification with certain Brand knowledge, brand Hoogendam 2011 green consumer groups attitude, buying behaviour Bartels and Social representations, consumers Intentions to buy products Adherence to natural Onwezen 2014 identification with organic food that make environmental foods or technology, and ethical claims. Perception of food as a necessity

Bollinger and Social interaction or peer effects Diffusion of Gillingham 2012* (causal peer effects or social environmentally friendly spillovers) technologies (solar photovoltaic panels)

Brough, Wilkie, Ma, Green behaviour, green vs. Non- Femininity index, self- Eco-friendly index Isaac, and Gal 2016 green manipulation reported femininity Burn and Oskamp Persuasive communication, Household recycling A written persuasive 1986 public commitment communication, public commitment, both, or no persuasion Cialdini, Demaine, Descriptive norms or Injunctive Theft of petrified wood Sagarin, Barrett, et norms al. 2006 Cialdini, Reno, and Norm salience/proximity of norm Littering intention Injunctive Norms Kallgren 1990 message Dowd and Burke Theory of Planned Behaviour Intention to purchase Measures of positive 2013 scales of attitude, subjective sustainably sourced food moral attitude and norms, perceived behavioural ethical self identity; and control and intention food choice motives. 88

Dwyer, Maki, and Descriptive norms (the light Pro-environmental Personal responsibility Rothman 2015 status, demonstrated by behaviour (energy confederate) conservation behavior in public bathrooms) Ferguson, Intergroup comparison Willingness to perform Sustainable beliefs Branscombe, and (comparison between current sustainable behavior Reynolds 2011 students with past or future students) Fielding, Terry, Questionnaire about past Engagement in Group norms, intergroup Masser, and Hogg behaviour, attitudes, and sustainable agricultural perceptions, group 2008 behavioural control practices (riparian zone identification management) Fornara, Carrus, Social norms Pro-environmental Injunctive and Passafaro, and behaviors, such as descriptive norms Bonnes 2011 household waste recycling Goldstein, Cialdini, Descriptive norms vs. Traditional Environment Normative appeals and Griskevicius appeal conservation in hotels 2008 (reusing towels) Gonzales, Aronson, Auditor’s specific training in Effectiveness of a Home and Costanzo 1988 social-psychological principles Energy Audit Program Green and Peloza Consumer benefits vs. Societal Environmentally Friendly Multiple samples, 2014 benefits Consumption product categories, and consumption and decision-making contexts. Grinstein and Nisan Government pro-environmental Deconsumption behavior National attachment 2009 demarketing campaign of minority groups and levels, education levels the majority population (household-level data on actual behavior of consumers) Griskevicius, Tybur, Activating status motives Desire to purchase green Private vs. Public and Bergh 2010 products shopping, cost of green products Grolleau, Ibanez, Private vs. Public attributes Success of eco-labelling Egoist vs. altruist and Mzoughi 2009 signalled by product label schemes consumer, products, countries Gupta and Ogden Green vs. non-green buyers Green buyer decision 2009 (using trust, in‐group identity, making (purchasing expectation of others' cooperation environmentally friendly and perceived efficacy) products) Han and Stoel 2017 Theory of Planned Behaviour Behavioural intentions constructs Harland, Staats, and Personal norms, Theory of Participation in a Wilke 1999 planned behaviour behavioral change intervention program on environmental behavior Jachimowicz, Descriptive norms, injunctive Energy conservation first-order personal Hauser, O’Brien, norms beliefs vs second-order beliefs 89

Sherman, & Galinsky 2018 (R) Kronrod, Grinstein, Perceived importance of the issue Persuasiveness of and Wathieu 2012* at hand assertive language, various environmental contexts (i.e., economizing water, recycling plastic containers, reducing air and sea pollution) Mannetti, Pierro, Theory of planned behaviour, Household recycling Similarity between and Livi 2004 self-identity dimensions personal identity and typical recycler identity Minson and Monin Meat-eaters perspective on what Reaction of meat-eaters 2012 vegetarians think about them to vegetarians (before or after) Nolan, Schultz, Normative social influence Energy conservation Cialdini, Goldstein, behaviour and Griskevicius 2008 Olson, McFerran, Government assistance Perception of moral Income level, Price Morales, and Dahl judgements of consumer 2016 based on income Oskamp, Recycling behavior, attitudes, and Household recycling Demographic variables Harrington, knowledge behaviour Edwards, Sherwood, et al. 1991 Peattie 2010 (R:HI) Consumer values, norms, and Environmental habits sustainable consumption Peloza, White, and Self-accountability Preference for products Mediator: Desire to Shang 2013 Discrepancy between a person's that promoted ethical avoid anticipated guilt internal standards and actual attributes behavior Self-accountability priming Presence (vs. absence) of others Rabinovich, Morton, Inter-group comparative context Changes in priority of Perceived in‐group Postmes, and personal environmental stereotypes Verplanken 2012 values, strength of Self-stereotype environmental intentions and willingness to engage in sustainability‐related actions Reno, Cialdini, and Injunctive vs. Social norms Littering behaviour Salience, clean or Kallgren 1993 littered environment Sadalla and Krull Type of conservation behaviour Perceived status of the 1995 performer Schultz and Fielding Common in-group identity model Perception of recycled Super-ordinate identity 2014 (means of communicating drinking water of scientist information about recycled (acceptance, perceived drinking water) knowledge, positive emotion, risk perceptions) 90

Schultz, Nolan, Normative messages about Energy savings (either Existing energy Cialdini, Goldstein, household recycling (and desirable or undesirable consumption rate of and Griskevicius Injunctive messages) boomerang effect) households 2007 Shang and Peloza Ethical consumption Degree of masculinity or Self-benefit/ other 2016 femininity, degree of benefit appeals and socially responsible descriptive norms identity Teng, Wu, and Liu Individual characteristics of the Traveler intention to visit Altruism construct, 2015 Theory of Planned Behaviour green hotels Affective component model that motivates behavioral intention Van der Werff, Steg, Biosphere values and Environmental and Keizer 2013 environmental self-identity preferences, intentions, and behaviour Vugt, Griskevicius, 5 different biases Environmental problems and Schultz 2014 (resource depletion, restrain wasteful consumption, curb overpopulation, and foster green choices) Welsch and Kühling Reference groups and routine Pro-environmental Economic and cognitive 2009 behaviour consumption factors, consumption (Subscription to green- patterns electricity programs and buying organic food) White and Simpson Injunctive appeals, descriptive Grass cycling or Individual or collective 2013 appeals, benefit appeals composting self White, Simpson, and Public or private setting, Positive consumption Group or self- Argo 2014 perspective of dissociative out- behaviors affirmation groups

Habit Authors Independent Variable(s) Dependent Variable(s) Moderators & Mediators

Abrahamse, Steg, Antecedent strategies (i.e. Energy consumption Vlek, and commitment, goal setting, Rothengatter 2005 information, modeling) vs. (R:FC) consequence strategies (i.e. Feedback, rewards)

Abrahamse, Steg, Combining tailored information, Energy consumption Group vs. Individual Vlek, and goal setting (5%) and tailored (direct - gas, electricity goals and feedback Rothengatter 2007 feedback and fuel and indirect - included in consumer 91

goods), knowledge levels.

Austin, Hatfield, Prompt proximity Recycling Grindle, and Bailey 1993

Baltes and Hayward Positive reinforcement, positive Littering 1976 vs. Negative prompts

Bamberg 2006 Context/Life changes (residential Public transportation use Intention to change, relocation) and incentive (free public transport quality ticket) and schedule information

Bolderdijk, Lehman, Biospheric (e.g. reduce carbon Tire check Endorsement of and Geller 2012* emissions) vs. economic (e.g. biospheric values lower electricity bills) appeals Mediator: anticipated affect

Bolderdijk and Steg Economic (financial) incentives Sustainable behavior Cognitive impact of 2015 (C) money

Bowles 2008 (R:FC) Economic incentives Prosocial behavior

Brothers, Krantz, Container proximity (desktop vs. Recycling paper (long and McClannahan Central) term) 1994

Cairns, Newson, and Travel planning (better bus Public transportation use Davis 2010 services, access to cycles and (reducing commuter walking), monetary incentive for driving to work) car-sharing (waiving parking charges)

Chiang, Visual feedback (numerical, Energy consumption Peer-ranking Mevlevioglu, analogue, and emotional faces) information (group Natarajan, Padget, comparison) and Walker 2014

De Leon and Fuqua Group feedback Recycling Commitment 1995*

Delmas, Fischlein, Individualized feedback via audits Energy consumption Pecuniary feedback and and Asensio 2013 and consulting incentives increases use (R) 92

Diamond and Incentives (lottery vs. Cash) Recycling Loewy 1991

Donald, Cooper, and Repeated car use (habit) and Transportation choices Theory of planned Conchie 2014 intentions behavior constructs

Everett, Hayward, Incentive token reinforcement Transportation choices and Meyers 1974 (bus ridership)

Fennis, Adriaanse, Indirect persuasive appeals for Sustainable product Vividness Stroebe, and Pol implementation intentions purchase 2011 Mediator: mental simulation

Fischer 2008 Feedback Energy consumption Frequency, duration, content, breakdown, medium and presentation mode, comparisons, and combination with other instruments

Frederiks, Stenner, Social norms, heuristics and Energy consumption and Hobman 2015 biases, penalties, and incentives (R:SC)

Fullerton and Penalty - fees Waste disposal Illicit burning or Kinnaman 1995 (recycling) dumping is an option

Gamba and Oskamp Knowledge and concern for the Recycling Personal inconvenience 1994 environment

Geller, Bechtel, and Interventions Pro-environmental Churchman 2002 behavior (C)

Handgraaf, de Social vs. monetary rewards Energy consumption Public vs. private Jeude, and Appelt 2013*

Holland, Aarts, and Implementation intentions vs. Recycling Langendam 2006* eye-catching facility

Hutton and McNeill Incentive - low cost/no cost Energy consumption 1981*

Karjalainen 2011 Feedback presentation Energy consumption 93

Katzev and Johnson Incentive vs. Commitment Change in residential Short-term vs. long-term 1984* electricity consumption

Krause 2009 (C) Penalties (taxes and tariffs, Reducing Relates to anti-smoking information), social norms environmentally policy unsustainable consumption

Kurz, Gardner, Social psychological and social Water and energy use, Verplanken, and practice on habitual behaviour food consumption, Abraham 2014 (R) transportation

Lehman and Geller Antecedent, behavior, and Air pollution, climate Curtailment vs. 2004 (R:SIFT) consequence strategies change, water pollution efficiency, maintenance and depletion, solid and permanent waste, soil erosion and interventions contamination, loss of green space and species diversity

Ludwig, Gray, and Placement of recycling bins - Percentage of cans Rowell 1998 central vs. classroom recycled, percentage of cans in trash

McKenzie-Mohr Community-based social Water usage; Purchasing 2000 (C) marketing strategy - commitment, products with recycled prompts content

Osbaldiston and Cognitive dissonance, goal Recycling, conserving Schott 2012 (R:FC) setting, social modeling, and gasoline and home energy prompts consumption

Pichert and Default: green vs. grey energy Electrical energy source Katsikopoulos 2008*

Schultz 1999* Group feedback - Frequency of participation in recycling Plea vs. plea plus information vs. program; total amount of plea plus neighborhood feedback recycled material ; vs. plea plus individual household contamination feedback

Schultz, Nolan, Descriptive vs. Injunctive norm - Change in energy Initial levels of Cialdini, Goldstein, group feedback consumption consumption (high vs. and Griskevicius Low) 2007 94

Schultz, Oskamp, Personal variables (personality, Recycling and Mainieri 1995 demographics, and attitudes of (R:SIFC) environmental concern) and situational variables (prompts, public commitment, normative influence, goal setting, removing barriers, providing rewards, and feedback)

Siero, Bakker, Individual vs. Comparative Energy consumption Length of time Dekker, and Van feedback Den Burg 1996

Slavin, Wodarski, Resident meeting, letters, Electricity consumption; Timing of reduction in and Blackburn comparison with predicted energy cost savings energy use; percentage 1981* amount of energy use of savings passed onto residents

Steg and Vlek 2009 Environmental psychology - costs Pro environmental (R:S) and benefits, moral and normative behavior concerns and affect

Theotokis and Opt out vs. opt in default policies; Green service use (e.g. Environmental Manganari 2015 forced choice Hotel towel reuse, consciousness; replacing bank statements Negotiated (reciprocal) with electronic ones cooperation strategy

Mediator: anticipated guilt

Thøgersen 2012* Context/Life changes (e.g., a Reducing driving; using recent move); Free travel card public transport

Tiefenbeck, Goette, Real time, specific feedback vs. Water usage while Degen, Tasic, et al. Broader feedback showering 2016*

Verplanken 2011 Changing unsustainable (C) habits

Verplanken and Roy Context/life changes - recent Change in 25 Timing of window of 2016* move; intervention promoting environment related opportunity; controlling sustainable behaviors vs. Control behaviours for past behaviour, habit strength, intentions, perceived control, biospheric values, 95

personal norms, and personal involvement.

Verplanken, Walker, Context/life changes (e.g., a Frequency of car usage Environmental concern Davis, and Jurasek recent move); importance of 2008 values

Walker, Thomas, Context/life changes (e.g., a Car usage, public Travel mode change and Verplanken recent move - office relocation) transport use 2015

Werner, Rhodes, Schema sensitive signs Change in volume of bins and Partain 1998 recycled per day; Cleanliness; Increases in cafeteria patrons' knowledge about polystyrene recycling.

Wilhite and Ling Informative energy bill Energy consumption; Frequency of bill 1995* discussing the bill

Individual Self Authors Independent Dependent Variable(s) Moderators & Mediators Variable(s) Abrahamse, Steg, Combining tailored Energy consumption Group vs. individual goals and Vlek, and information, goal setting (direct - gas, electricity feedback Rothengatter 2007 (5%) and tailored and fuel and indirect - feedback included in consumer goods), knowledge levels. Alwitt and Pitts General environmental Purchase intentions for Product specific attitudes about 1996 concern disposable diapers consequences of its use product’s environmental attributes Anderson and Being a socially Discriminating social Demographic variables Cunningham 1972 responsible consumer degree of consciousness Socio-psychological variables

Bahl, Milne, Ross, Mindfulness Consumption process Attention to inner and outer stimuli Mick, et al. 2016 acceptance of inner and outer stimuli Balderjahn, Peyer, Sustainability concern Sustainable purchases Expectations, attitudes, and values Seegebarth, Wiedmann, and Weber 2018 Bamberg, Hunecke, Personal norms Decision to use public Anticipated feelings of guilt and Blöbaum 2007 transportation Perceived social norms Bandura 1977 Psychological Self-efficacy Expectations of personal efficacy procedures 96

Amount of effort expended Length of time sustained in face of obstacles Barber and Deale Mindfulness Awareness of hotels’ Demographic characteristics 2014 sustainable practices, Concern for society responsiveness to hotels’ Preference for mindful services sustainable practices Benefits sought Bodur, Duval, and Text only prediction Preference for Self construal Grohmann 2015 environmentally friendly products Brough, Wilkie, Green feminine Adopting green behavior Gender identity maintenance Ma, Isaac, and Gal stereotype 2016 Catlin and Wang Option to recycle Resource usage (paper) 2013 Chang 2011 Green product claims Attitudes towards green Level of green effort (Low, products, believability of moderate, high) ad and green claim Cleveland, Environmental Locus of Pro-environmental Kalamas, and Control - external behavior Laroche 2005 (biospheric‐altruism and corporate skepticism) and internal (economic motivation and individual recycling efforts)

Cornelissen, Positive cueing Self-perception, Choice Pandelaere, of environmentally Warlop, and friendly products Dewitte 2008 Daamen, Staats, Tailored vs. nontailored Pro-environmental Additional information (did not Wilke, and Engelen message behavior of garage have an effect) 2001 employees, accuracy of knowledge Devezer, Sprott, Sub-goal performance Environmental end goal Spangenberg, and (environmental IQ test) commitment, Czellar 2014 environmental sub-goal intentions Diamantopoulos, Socio-demographic Ability to profile green Measures of environmental Schlegelmilch, variables consumers consciousness Sinkovics, and Bohlen 2003 Dickerson, Dissonance induction - Length of shower Public commitment Thibodeau, Reminder of past to shorter showers Aronson, and hypocritical behavior Miller 1992 Dickinson 2009 (C) Immorality projects Human response to Cultural world views on climate change materialism, spirituality, politics & society 97

Dietz, Kalof, and Gender Environmental concern Altruism, self-interest, Stern 2002 traditionalism, openness to change Donnelly, Social recycling (vs. Consumer happiness Lamberton, trash, recycling and Reczek, and Norton donating to non-profits) 2017 Dunning 2007 (R) Personal belief. positive Consumer behavior, Self‐image motives (endowment, self-views purchase decisions compensation, affirmation, and licensing effects). Eagly 2009 Gender Prosocial behavior Mediator: social expectations EdingerSchons, Intrinsic appeal, Purchase intention for Involvement with sustainable Sipilä, Sen, Mende, extrinsic appeal, socially responsible consumption and Wieseke 2018 joint appeal goods Ellen, Wiener, and Perceived consumer Pro-environmental Demographics, CobbWalgren 1991 effectiveness behavior political affiliation Evans, Maio, Self-interested vs. self- Recycling rates Self-interest reasons Corner, Hodgetts, transcending reasons (for self transcendent reasons et al. 2013 car-sharing) Feygina, Jost, and System justification Pro-environmental Political conservatism, Goldsmith 2010 tendencies action, Denial of national identification, environmental realities gender

Fraj and Martinez Personality Ecological behavior Agreeableness 2006 extroversion conscientiousness openness neuroticism

Garvey and Bolton Eco-product choice Downstream Environmental consciousness 2017 environmentally goal satiation responsible behavior prosocial self perceptions Gifford and Nilsson Social influences Pro-environmental Personal factors 2014 Personal influences concern social factors Gilg, Barr, and Sustainable Lifestyle Household green Demographic factors Ford 2005 consumption Gleim, Smith, Individual/purchase Consumers’ evaluations Informational product cues Andrews, and barriers of green products in Cronin Jr 2013 retail stores Granzin and Olsen Individual characteristics Donating items for reuse, 1991 including demographics, Walking, personal values, Recycling newspapers information, knowledge, interpersonal influences, helping related motivations

Green and Peloza Consumer benefit Preference for Public accountability 2014 Appeals environmentally friendly private setting Societal benefit Appeals products 98

Griskevicius, Adaptive tendencies Modern environmental Cantú, and Vugt (Self-interest, motivation problems 2012 for relative status, Social problems proclivity to unconsciously copy others, short sightedness, proneness to disregard impalpable concerns) Gromet, Political affiliation and Individual adoption of Mediator: psychological value Kunreuther, and ideology energy-efficient Larrick 2013 technology Guagnano, Dietz, Egoistic considerations Willingness to pay for and Stern 1994 Altruistic considerations environmental quality Guagnano, Stern, Possessing a recycling Recycling behavior Strength of external conditions and Dietz 1995 bin Strength of attitudes Perceived Costs Hart and Nisbet Political partisanship Support for climate Social identity 2012 change motivated reasoning persuasion Hughner, Demographics Organic food McDonagh, Beliefs, motivations, consumption Prothero, Shultz, perceptions, and attitude and Stanton 2007 (R) Jansson, Marell, Personal norms Curtailment behaviors Attitudinal factors and Nordlund 2010 Beliefs Consumer adoptions of previous adoption Norms eco-innovations Habit Strength Johnstone and Tan Green perception Purchase of green Green stigma 2015 products green reservations, Green attitude behavior gap Juhl, Fenger, and Purchase of organic Organic food Thøgersen 2017 products consumption across categories Karmarkar and Using a reusable grocery Purchasing of indulgent Competing goals Bollinger 2015 bag foods, Purchasing of store policies organic foods Katzev and Monetary Incentives and Electrical energy Commitment Johnson 1984 Foot-in-the-Door conservation Strategies Kinnear, Taylor, Personality Ecological concern Perceived consumer effectiveness and Ahmed 1974 characteristics Socioeconomic characteristics Lanzini and Monetary inducements Behavioral spillover in Monetary inducements Thøgersen 2014* and verbal praise the environmental verbal praise domain Laroche, Bergeron, Consumers who Willingness to pay more Demographic profile, attitudes, and BarbaroForleo purchased eco-friendly for environmentally Values, knowledge, behavioral 2001 products friendly products profile

99

Lokhorst, Werner, Commitment making Pro-environmental Psychological constructs Staats, van Dijk, behaviors and Gale 2013 Luchs and Kumar Effect of trade off Sustainable product Product type 2017 (hedonic or utilitarian) choice Luchs and Sex Sustainable consumer Personality Mooradian 2012 behavior Luchs, Naylor, Gentleness product Consumer preferences, Type of benefit consumers’ value Irwin, and attributes and strength Consumer perception of Raghunathan 2010 product attributes product ethicality Mainieri, Barnett, Environmental concern Green buying Awareness of environmental Valdero, Unipan, Environmental concern impact, environmental beliefs and Oskamp 1997 Consumer beliefs environmental attitudes demographic variables pro-environmental behaviors Mazar and Zhong Consumption of Green Social behaviors Exposure to green products 2010 Products Ethical behaviors purchasing of green products Minson and Monin Salience of Moral Evaluation of Judged valence 2012 Reproach vegetarians Murphy, Kangun, Race Reaction to ecological Environmentally less destructive and Locander 1978 information about alternatives household products importance of ecological information

Murtagh, Technology ‘Green’ behavior Automation Gatersleben, Cowen, and Uzzell 2015 Newman, Gorlin, Firm intentions, Evaluation of product and Dhar 2014 Resource allocation and firm Nisbet, Zelenski, Nature relatedness scale Environmental concern Affective, and Murphy 2009 Environmental behavior cognitive and experiential aspects Nolan, Schultz, Descriptive Norms Energy consumption Cialdini, Goldstein, and Griskevicius 2008 Ölander and Mental Shortcuts - Energy saving behavior Personal involvement Thøgersen 2014 anchoring, default and norms Paavola 2001 Utilitarian vs. Individual action Self values Nonutilitarian welfare values Environmental Information Panno et al. 2018 Need for cognitive Pro-environmental Political ideology closure behavior, Belief in climate change Paul, Modi, and Environmental concern Green product purchase Consumer attitude Patel 2016 intention perceived behavioral control 100

Peattie 2001 (C) Degree of confidence, Green consumption, degree of compromise identifying green consumers Peattie 1999 (C) Philosophy of The degree of change sustainability, strategic made by companies marketing planning towards sustainability processes Peloza, White, and Self-accountability Preference for products Awareness of the discrepancy Shang 2013 (heightened by that promoted ethical between a person's internal situational factors) attributes standards and actual behavior, self- accountability priming, and the presence of others in the decision context. Desire to avoid anticipated guilt Phipps, Ozanne, Reciprocal determinism Sustainable consumption Personal, Luchs, environmental and behavioral Subrahmanyan, et factors al. 2013 (C) Prooijen and Initial beliefs Acceptance of Self affirmation Sparks 2014 anthropogenic climate self-reflection change evidence Roberts 1993 Gender Socially Responsible Education Consumer Behavior Scale Sachdeva, Jordan, Structural, Green consumerism, and Mazar 2015 exogenous and positive and negative (R) endogenous factors spillover Schuitema and Product attributes Purchase intentions Biospheric values Groot 2015 Schwartz, Bruine Advertisements Willingness to enroll in de Bruin, emphasizing intrinsic vs. energy-saving programs Fischhoff, and extrinsic vs. both Lave 2015 benefits Schwepker Jr and Attitude toward Willingness to purchase Cornwell 1991 ecologically conscious ecologically packaged living and littering, locus materials of control, perception of pollution as a problem Semenza, Hall, Concern about climate Energy usage, gasoline Wilson, Bontempo, change, demographics consumption, and et al. 2008 recycling self report Sheth, Sethia, and Mindful consumption Reduce acquisitive, Srinivas 2011 (C) repetitive and aspirational consumption Small and Dender Rebound effect Travel total Income 2007 fuel prices Sorrell, Cheaper energy services Household energy Dimitropoulos, and Consumption Sommerville 2009 (R:FC) 101

Sparks, Jessop, Self affirmation Level of denial Threatening information, Chapman, and manipulation Perception of personal recycling information Holmes 2010 involvement, Intentions to increase recycling behavior Steg 2015 (C) Individual, Social and Sustainable consumption Situational cues Steg, Bolderdijk, Normative goals Pro-environmental Values, situational factors Keizer, and actions Perlaviciute 2014 (C) Stern and Dietz Value orientation Environmental concern 1994 Beliefs Stern, Dietz, and Value orientation Willingness to take Gender Kalof 1993 (egoistic, social- political action and pay altruistic, or biospheric), through taxes

Tiefenbeck, Staake, Water conservation Electricity consumption Moral licensing Roth, and Sachs campaign 2013 Trudel, Argo, and Consumers’ identity Disposal behavior, Consumer linked product Meng 2016 Recycling behavior Truelove, Carrico, Internal vs. External Performance of a pro- Characteristics of and similarity of Weber, Raimi, and motivator vs. environmental behavior initial and subsequent pro- Vandenbergh 2014 Decision mode after an initial pro- environmental behaviors environmental behavior (spillover effect) Van der Werff, Biospheric values Environmental self- Past environmental behavior Steg, and Keizer identity 2014 Verplanken and Values Environmentally friendly Self concept Holland 2002 consumer choices value activation Wang, Krishna, and Perception of the Firm as Consumers’ Firm requests to consumers’ to McFerran 2016 green conservation behavior conserve, commitment and price image White, Framing (loss vs. Gain) Recycling intentions and Construal level; temporal construal MacDonnell, and behaviors Dahl 2011 White and Simpson Injunctive vs. Engagement in Collective vs. 2013 Descriptive vs. unfamiliar sustainable individual self activation Benefit appeal behaviors Wiidegren 1998 Personal norms Self-reported pro- New environmental environmental behavior, paradigm scale Willingness to pay higher prices for eco- friendly food Winterich, Reczek, Memory preservation, Donations and Irwin 2017 perceived identity loss Zane, Irwin, and Negative social Denigration of ethical Second opportunity to act ethically, Reczek 2015 comparison others, commitment to justification ethical values 102

Feelings and Cognition Authors Independent Dependent Variable(s) Moderators & Mediators Variable(s) Antonetti and Pride and guilt Perceived consumer Causal attributions and Maklan 2014 effectiveness, agency, rationalizations sustainable consumption choices Aspara, Luo, and Intelligence Responsiveness to a pro- Numeric intelligence vs. Verbal Dhar 2017* environmental tax and spatial logic intelligence

Banerjee, Gulas, Content analysis Sponsor type (for-profit and Iyer 1995 vs. Non-profit), ad focus (advertiser vs. Consumer), and depth of ad Bissing-Olson, Pride vs. Guilt Recycling & disposal, Descriptive norms Fielding, and Iyer water conservation, 2016 saving electricity, reusing paper and containers, taking public transportation Borin, Cerf, and Environmental Consumer perception of Krishnan 2011 information vs. No product quality, value, information, positive vs. and purchase intentions Negative information

Bull 2012 Labels with or without: Willingness-to-pay for monetisation of efficient washing efficiency, carbon machines emissions, operational life impacts, losses vs. Savings

Camilleri and Metric (consumption of Preference for fuel Larrick 2014 gas vs. Cost of gas), efficient vehicles scale (100 miles vs. 100,000 miles) Carrus, Passafaro, Anticipated emotions, Intentions to use public and Bonnes 2008 attitudes, subjective transportation and to norms, perceived recycle household waste control, past behaviour and desire

Chen and Chang Green-washing Green trust, green 2013 consumer confusion and green perceived risk 103

Corral-Verdugo, Affinity towards Collecting and recycling Bonnes, Tapia- biological and socio- used paper, buying Fonllem, Fraijo- cultural diversity products in refillable Sing, et al. 2009 packages, and turning down the air conditioning when leaving home Feldman and Hart News articles about Hope, fear, anger, support Political ideology 2018 causes and impacts of for climate mitigation climate change vs. policies mitigation actions

Ferguson, Comparison with future Sustainable transport Branscombe, and vs. past groups choices, energy and water Reynolds 2011 conservation, and advocacy Giebelhausen, Voluntary participation Satisfaction with service Incentives for self, others, both, or Chun, Cronin Jr, (vs. non-participation) in experience none and Hult 2016 a green program Gifford 2011 (R:SI) Seven barriers (limited Greenhouse-gas cognition, ideological mitigation behavior worldviews, comparisons with key other people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discredence toward experts, perceived risks, and positive but inadequate behavior change) Gifford and Nilsson Personal and social Pro‐environmental 2014 (R:SI) influences concern and behaviour Grob 1995 Environmental attitudes 21 items including Personal-philosophical values and transportation, separation emotions vs. Factual knowledge of household refuse, and amount of energy used Grunert, Hieke, and Consumer motivation Sustainability label use Environmental vs. Ethical labels, Wills 2014 and understanding food products vs. Other products Hardisty, Johnson, Carbon tax vs. Offset Choice of product with Political affiliation, thought order and Weber 2010 framing vs. Without carbon fee, political support Hardisty and Weber Gain vs. Loss, Discount rates 2009 environmental vs. Financial vs. Health domain

Horne 2009 (R) Eco-label types Sustainable product Behavioural, social practice, choices institutional and infrastructure factors 104

Jiménez and Yang Low vs. high guilt Attitude towards the Angry-irritated emotion and self- 2008 appeal levels advertisement and the conscious emotion brand

Kaiser 2006 Anticipated guilt Intention to act in a pro- feelings, self-interest environmental manner (48 different behaviors)

Kaiser and Moral vs. conventional 38 ecological behaviors Shimoda 1999 responsibility feelings Kallbekken, Sælen, Lifetime energy cost Energy efficient product Fridge-freezers vs. tumble driers and Hermansen labels (vs. no label), choices 2013* staff training (vs. no training)

Kals, Schumacher, Emotional affinity Commitments to nature- and Montada 1999 toward nature, protective behavior indignation and interest in nature Kidwell, Farmer, Individualizing vs. Recycling, CFL purchase, Political ideology and Hardesty 2013 Binding appeals water conservation Kollmuss and Environmental Pro-environmental Agyeman 2002 (R) knowledge and behavior environmental awareness, demographic factors, external factors and internal factors

Levine and Strube Knowledge about the Recycling, using public Gender, age 2012 environment, explicit transportation, and attitudes turning off lights and electrical appliances when not in use Li 2014 High vs. low threat Attitudes and behavioral High vs. low efficacy messages messages intentions toward global warming Lowe, Brown, Viewing (vs. not) Likelihood judgments, Science fact from dramatized Dessai, de França concern, motivation, and science fiction Doria, et al. 2006 responsibility for global climate change

Luchs and Gender, agreeableness, Environmental attitudes, Mooradian 2012 and openness shoe choice Mallett 2012 Eco-guilt Recycling, buying a fuel- Personal vs. societal standards efficient car

Mallett, Melchiori, Carbon-footprint larger Guilt, support for a pro- and Strickroth 2013 vs. Smaller than average environmental group

Manget, Roche, and Product category, Consumer demand for Münnich 2009 perceived benefits, green products country 105

McKenzie-Mohr Commitments, social Sustainable behavior 2011 (R:SH) norms, social diffusion, prompts, communication, incentives, convenience McKenzie-Mohr Community‐based social Backyard composting, 2000 marketing Water efficiency

Meng and Trudel Negative emoticons Recycling proportion 2017* Min, Azevedo, Operating cost labeling, Efficient light bulb Michalek, and de political ideology choice, implicit discount Bruin 2014 rate Muralidharan and Levels of guilt, egotistic Reusable bag use Gender Sheehan 2018 vs. Biospheric concerns Myers, Nisbet, Climate framing (risks Emotional reactions, Audience segments already Maibach, and to the environment, support for climate doubtful or dismissive of the issue Leiserowitz 2012 public health, or change mitigation and national security) adaptation Neumann, Roberts, Information overload Evaluation of subordinate and Cauvin 2012 performance, evaluation (C) of firm performance O’Neill and Fearful messages (visual Attention to climate Nicholson-Cole and iconic change, personal 2009 representations) engagement

Onwezen, Anticipated pride and Buying environmentally Antonides, and guilt, personal norms friendly products and Bartels 2013 travelling in environmentally friendly ways Osbaldiston and Different treatments Pro-environmental Different behaviors (recycling, Schott 2012 (R) (e.g., cognitive behavior conserving gasoline, energy dissonance, goal setting, conservation) social modeling)

Osbaldiston and Internalized motivation Future Intentions to Sheldon 2002 (C) Perform Goals (such as taking shorter showers or turning off lights) Parguel, Benoît- Independent Responses to CSR Negative vs. positive ratings Moreau, and sustainability ratings communication Larceneux 2011 Peattie and Peattie Social marketing Case study of tobacco use 2009 (R:S) 106

Peloza, White, and Self-accountability, guilt Preference for ethical Awareness of discrepancy, self- Shang 2013 appeals product attributes (e.g., accountability priming, the recycled material, lower presence of others carbon emissions, less packaging) Peter and Honea Guilt, hope, pride, and Disposable plastic bottled 2012 optimism water consumption

Rezvani, Jansson, Anticipated emotions, and Bengtsson personal moral norms 2017 Schwartz and Affective (sadness) vs. Time devoted to an Loewenstein 2017 Non-affective videos energy-footprint calculator and donations to an environmental organization Sevillano, Images of animals Biospheric and egotistic Dispositional empathy, empathic Aragonés, and (harmed vs. In nature), environmental concerns dimension of personal distress, Schultz 2007 perspective taking instructions (vs. Objective instructions or instructions)

Smith and Discrete emotions Climate policy support Leiserowitz 2014 (worry, interest, and hope) vs. Cultural worldviews, negative affect, image associations, and socio- demographic variables Steenhaut and Anticipation of guilt, Ethical intentions (to Kenhove 2006 salience of interpersonal return overpayment) consequences Steg 2005 Instrumental, symbolic Car use Driving frequency, car attitudes, and affective functions gender, age Stern 1999 Personal factors Energy efficiency (information) vs. behavior (audits, loans, Contextual factors rebates) (material incentives) Sun and Trudel Type of disposal Materials use (cups, gift Costs of recycling (financial, 2017 (recycling vs. Garbage) wrapping, packaging, physical, and mental) scrap paper)

Taufique, Vocino, Environmental and eco- Choosing recycling, lower and Polonsky 2017 label knowledge, pollution, reusable, positive environmental energy efficiency attitudes, trust in eco- labels

Thøgersen 2000 Environmental goals, Attention towards eco- beliefs, knowledge, labels trust, availability 107

Ungemach, Attribute translation Fuel efficient car choice Environmental values, tutorial Camilleri, Johnson, (fuel cost in "dollars" vs. presented (or not) Larrick, and Weber "CO2"), environmental 2017 attribute present vs. Absent Wang, Cuteness Recycling, trying Approach motivational orientation Mukhopadhyay, products made of recycled and Patrick 2017* material, animal protection

White, Framing (loss vs. Gain) Recycling intentions and Construal level; temporal MacDonnell, and behaviors construal Dahl 2011

Tangibility Authors Independent Dependent Variable(s) Moderators & Mediators Variable(s) Akerlof, Maibach, Beliefs about global Percentage of people Fitzgerald, Cedeno, warming reporting experiencing and Neuman 2013 global warming; types of global warming experiences; historical data records; perceptions of global warming risk and policy implications Amel, Manning, Psychological factors, Ecologically responsible Scott, and Koger socio-political factors, behaviors 2017 (R:SIFT) and organizational factors

Arnocky, Milfont, Consideration of future Ecological concern and and Nicol 2014 consequences ; future ecological behavior priming motivation Atasoy and Type of good (physical Valuation Ownership status (rental vs. Morewedge 2018 vs. digital) Purchase)ris; identity relevance; need for control Mediator: perceived ownership

Belk 2013 (C) Digital consumption Impacts on the extended self-concept Carette et al. 2012 Green consumption Consumer confusion and trust Credibility and compatibility Chen and Chang Perceptions of green- Consumer confusion; 2013 washing perceived green risk; green trust

Cherrier 2009 (C) Cultural discourses Anti-consumption via voluntary simplicity and culture jamming 108

Devine-Wright and Place attachment Perceived outcomes, Howes 2010 emotional response, attitude, and behavioral response

Donnelly, Disposition method Environmental impact Lamberton, perceptions; prosocial Reczek, and Norton impact perceptions; and 2017 affective outcomes

Gifford 2014 Psychological barriers Sustainable behaviors (R:SIF)

Gifford 2011 Personal and social Environmental concern (R:SIF) factors Griskevicius, Adaptive tendencies Modern environmental Cantú, and Vugt (Self-interest, motivation problems 2012 for relative status, Social problems proclivity to unconsciously copy others, short sightedness, Hardisty and Message type (loss vs. Discounting Outcome type (environmental, Weber 2009 Gain) financial, and health) Joireman, Van Social value orientation' Pro-environmental Perceived pro-environmental Lange, and Van concern for future intentions and behaviors; consequences Vugt 2004 consequences perceived pro- environmental consequences Leiserowitz 2006 Affect, imagery, and Climate risk perceptions values and policy support Li, Johnson, and Threat (low vs. High) Attitudes and behavioral Efficacy Zaval 2011 intentions

Marx, Weber, Experiential and Understanding and Orlove, analytical processing reacting to climate Leiserowitz, et al. information 2007 (C) Paswan, Guzmán, Present time-orientation, Reports of active, and Lewin 2017 future time orientation, supportive, and lifestyle attitude towards nature, environmentally and beliefs about sustainable behaviors human-nature balance

Pindyck 2007 (C) Uncertainty Reaction to environmental issues Reczek, Trudel, Construal level Product choice; purchase Appeal type (eco-friendly vs. and White 2018 intentions; future focus Traditional); product description (detailed vs. General)

Scannell and Messages of local vs. Climate change Gifford 2013 Global impacts; place engagement attachment 109

Spence, Poortinga, Dimensions of Climate change concerns; and Pidgeon 2012 psychological distance behavioral intentions

Van Boven 2005 Experiential and Happiness (C) material purposes

Vargo and Lusch Moving the focus of 2004 (C) marketing from the exchange of tangible goods to services

Vugt, Griskevicius, Human biases Sustainable behaviors and Schultz 2014 (R:SIT)

Wade-Benzoni, Psychological biases Environmental conflict Tenbrunsel, and resolution Bazerman 1997 (R:F) Weber 2010 (R:IF) Psychological predictors Perceptions of climate change Weber 2016 (R:IF) Psychological predictors Perceptions of climate change

White, Framing (loss vs. Gain) Recycling intentions and Construal level; temporal MacDonnell, and behaviors construal Dahl 2011 Zaval, Markowitz, Legacy motivations Donations to an and Weber 2015 environmental charity, pro-environmental intentions, and climate- change beliefs.