The limited impact of positive cueing on pro-environmental choices

Kobe Millet,Guanzhong Du,Elke Cabooter,Bert Weijters

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101732

Abstract

Positive cueing (i.e., when commonly performed environmentally friendly behaviors are cued as being pro-environmental) has been proposed as a social marketing technique to promote sustainable behavior. In three studies (N = 2489), we show that the impact of positive cueing is rather limited. In two specific choice contexts, the results point to a positive spillover effect (i.e., consumers are more likely to make a sustainable choice after positive cueing). However, this effect does not generalize over different product categories and only appears if consumers have used the sustainable alternative before. As such, we question the applicability of this social influence technique to truly stimulate pro-environmental choices in real life.

Highlights

Positive cueing has been presented as a social marketing technique to promote environmentally sustainable consumer behavior: When com mon environmentally beneficial behaviors are cued as proenvironmental, consumers increasingly view themselves as concerned with the environment, which subsequently results in more environ mentally friendly choices (Cornelissen, Pandelaere, Warlop, & Dewitte, 2008)
We run a chi square test to examine if the preference for the more sustainable choice option depends on condition
People in the positive cueing condition were more likely to choose the more sustainable option over the less sustainable alternative (76.25% chose the bicycle over the car) compared to the non-cueing condition (58.14% chose the bicycle over the car; chi2(1) = 6.136, p = .013, Cramer’s V = .192; Odds Ratio = 2.312, 95% CI = [1.183, 4.517])

Summary

Introduction

Positive cueing has been presented as a social marketing technique to promote environmentally sustainable consumer behavior: When com mon environmentally beneficial behaviors (e.g., not littering, reusing grocery bags, sorting trash, turning off the light) are cued as proenvironmental, consumers increasingly view themselves as concerned with the environment, which subsequently results in more environ mentally friendly choices (Cornelissen, Pandelaere, Warlop, & Dewitte, 2008) This reasoning is in line with classic work on self-perception (Bem, 1972) and consistency (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995; Fes tinger, 1957; Freedman & Fraser, 1966). When people use (the environmentally friendly) public transport (instead of the environmentally unfriendly car) to commute to work, this choice can lead them to choose the plane (i.e., the non-sustainable choice option) over the train (i.e., the sustainable choice option) for a city trip

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion