Edited by: Daphne Kaklamanou, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Reviewed by: Goda Perlaviciute, University of Groningen, Netherlands; Stuart Capstick, Cardiff University, United Kingdom; Birgitta Gatersleben, University of Surrey, United Kingdom
This article was submitted to Environmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Studies on how one behavior affects subsequent behaviors find evidence for two opposite trends: Sometimes a first behavior increases the likelihood of engaging in additional behaviors that contribute to the same goal (positive behavioral spillover), and at other times a first behavior decreases this likelihood (negative spillover). A factor that may explain both patterns is attitude strength. A stronger (more favorable) attitude toward an issue may make the connections between related behaviors more salient and increase the motivation to work toward the underlying goal. We predicted that people with a stronger (more favorable) attitude are more likely to engage in subsequent behaviors that address an issue they care about. Two experiments tested the prediction in the contexts of pro-environmental and health behavior. Study 1 (
Many personal and societal goals can be achieved only if people repeatedly work toward them. For example, to lead a healthy life, it is not enough to eat a single healthy meal. People need to repeatedly make healthy food choices and also do other things that benefit their health, like get enough sleep and exercise regularly. Similarly, if people want to reduce their environmental footprint, they need to do more than recycle one glass bottle; they need to repeatedly recycle different types of things and engage in additional behaviors, such as using energy-efficient appliances and modes of transport. In short, in many contexts people need to engage in several successive actions to achieve their goals.
Despite the need for such consistent behavior, we know relatively little about when an action that helps achieve a goal affects subsequent actions that contribute to the same goal. In accordance with previous research, we refer to relationships between initial and subsequent behaviors as “spillover.”
Overview of how the valence and (in)consistency of successive behaviors lead to positive and negative spillover (adopted from
The literature provides compelling theoretical explanations and empirical evidence for both types of spillover (
On the other hand, other perspectives such as cognitive dissonance theory (
A crucial question that arises from these two contradictory patterns of spillover concerns why a first goal-conducive behavior sometimes increases the likelihood of further similar behaviors and why it sometimes reduces it. One explanation is that additional psychological processes may be at work (
Previous spillover research focused on behaviors with obvious links to morality, and often relied on moral processes to explain spillover effects (including behaviors connected to environmental protection, which has clear moral connotations;
The idea that personal relevance could influence the extent and type of behavioral spillover is supported by different theoretical perspectives and some empirical evidence. We take a goal-theoretical perspective to reconcile different streams of research into conceptually similar constructs (e.g., superordinate goals or identity). The central hypothesis is that the more relevant an issue is to a person, the more an initial goal-conducive act should decrease negative spillover and promote positive spillover (see
According to goal-theoretical perspectives, people pursue goals that are related to each other but vary in level of abstraction (
More abstract goals are often referred to as “superordinate” (
This understanding of superordinate goals points to similarities with functionally and conceptually related concepts. For instance, goals are often equated with values (e.g.,
There are at least two characteristics of superordinate goals that point to their possible role as moderators of spillover. First, the intrinsic importance of superordinate goals and their crucial role for the overriding sense of self (
Second, the interconnected structure of goals is likely to enhance this stabilizing effect. Superordinate goals typically include multiple concrete sub-goals that are instrumental to achieving them (
Support for this idea comes, for example, from a community field experiment that tested an intervention to save electricity (
There is also empirical evidence to support the idea that the more importance people attach to an issue or a cause, the more they tend to engage in behaviors that maintain, advance, and defend it. To illustrate, the effect of personal importance on behavior is evident in positive correlations between a broad range of environmentally friendly behaviors and concepts related to the personal importance of environmentalism, such as an
The literature also holds more direct evidence for the idea that following an initial goal-conducive act, personal importance should increase positive and reduce negative spillover. For instance, the higher people score on measures that reflect personal importance, the less likely they are to endorse the idea that they can justify or neutralize environmentally harmful behaviors with other, more environmentally friendly behaviors (
The most direct support for the idea that personal importance can explain behavioral spillover comes from three experiments that examined how a first behavior affected a second behavior. The first study found that the expression of a non-racist intention (to vote for Obama in the 2008 election) tends to lead to racist behavior (allocating more resources to Whites than Blacks), but only for those with higher racist scores (
Another study found that after imagining purchasing an environmentally friendly product, participants with a strong environmental identity tended to express pro-environmental intentions to the same extent as their counterparts who had bought a conventional product. By contrast, when participants with a weak environmental identity purchased an environmentally friendly product, they expressed lower environmentally friendly intentions than after buying the conventional product (
The third experiment (
From a methodological point of view, how to measure abstract concepts such as personal relevance, superordinate goals, values, or possible selves is not a trivial matter. It is
In this paper, we take an
An implication of this conceptualization is that the latent attitude can be inferred from a
Conceptualizing attitude as a behavior-based latent trait has several advantages: Answering questions about past actions requires a minimal amount of introspection (see
This approach of assessing latent constructs through behaviors has already been implemented in various contexts. They include environmental attitude (
The goal of the research is to examine whether personal importance – operationalized as the strength of behavior-based attitude – can shed light on when positive and negative behavioral spillover occurs. To examine the role of attitude strength as a moderator, we conducted two experiments. In both, we used an experimental paradigm that is often used in research on moral licensing (
Using this recall paradigm offers at least three advantages over other approaches. First, participants are not forced to carry out behaviors that they would not do of their own free will, which could otherwise raise ethical questions for researchers. Second, using a design in which participants are either selected because they already perform a specific behavior or are asked to adopt a specific behavior could lead to samples in which, for example, relevant individual attitudes are already very positive. Using the recall paradigm should result in more inclusive samples in which the variance in participants’ attitudes is not restricted. Third, asking participants to describe an event of their own choice guarantees that the behavior has the intended subjective meaning (see also
Study 1 provided initial evidence for the expected role of attitude strength as a moderator. However, it did not include a neutral control group and its sample (
To examine the moderating influence of attitude strength, we tested for interaction effects between the experimental conditions (recalling a behavior that was consistent vs. inconsistent with the goals to protect the environment and to be healthy) and attitude strength in the contexts of environmental protection and health. (For a similar approach, see
We predicted that participants with a strong attitude would engage in positive spillover after an initial goal-conducive behavior and in negative spillover after an initial goal-inconsistent behavior, leading to high motivation to engage in goal-conducive behaviors in both experimental conditions. These predictions were based on the following assumptions: When participants with a strong attitude carry out a behavior that is relevant to their attitude, this should (a) increase the salience of their attitude; and (b) the relationships between different attitude-relevant behaviors and how they are relevant to the underlying attitude; and (c) they would experience cognitive dissonance if behaviors were inconsistent with their attitude.
By contrast, we expected that, after recalling a goal-consistent behavior, participants with low attitude strength would feel that they had “done enough” and therefore be less motivated to engage in further behaviors than their counterparts who recalled a goal-inconsistent behavior.
Data were collected through a web-based survey tool (Qualtrics) in spring 2013.
To reduce the risk that questions about participants’ attitudes had carryover effects on either the recall manipulation or the dependent variables, we collected the data at two points in time. At time 1, respondents were asked if they wanted to participate seriously or only look at the survey. A “seriousness check” is a recommended means of reducing dropout rates and increasing data quality (
At time 2 (10–14 days later), participants were again asked if they were willing to participate seriously. They then completed one of four recall conditions, to which they were assigned randomly. After a short filler task (unscramble 12 sequences of four to eight letters into words), participants answered the questions that were used as dependent variables. Finally, participants completed a manipulation check, were thanked and debriefed.
The sample was recruited via various Swiss Internet forums (e.g., Swiss variations of Craigslist such as pinwand.ch, platforms for students such as students.ch) and social media networks. As an incentive, those who participated in both parts of the survey were entered in a raffle to win Amazon vouchers (4 × EUR 100 and 10 × EUR 10). In total, 738 participants accessed the survey at time 1. Of those, 190 were removed because they responded to fewer than 20% of the questions or because they participated more than once (in which case we discarded the second participation). Of the 548 participants who participated at time 1, 490 accessed the study at time 2. Two participants participated twice; we again excluded the answers from their second participation.
To ensure good data quality, we retained participants only (a) who in both parts passed the seriousness check (
A comparison between the 170 participants who participated at time 1 but either did not participate at time 2 or did participate but were excluded to ensure good data quality and the 378 participants who were retained for the analyses revealed that the proportion of these two groups was not associated with the experimental conditions [χ2(3) = 0.45,
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions in which they were asked to recall one of the following types of behavior carried out during the past week: (1) environmentally friendly, (2) environmentally harmful, (3) healthy, or (4) unhealthy. Participants were instructed to take 5–10 min to write down their action in detail (
To examine whether the manipulation had the intended effect, two manipulation checks were used. First, participants were asked to indicate the valence of the described deed (seven-point scale: -3 = very negative, +3 = very positive). Second, two coders who were blind to conditions rated how environmentally friendly and healthy the deeds were (seven-point scale: -3 = very environmentally harmful/very unhealthy, +3 = very environmentally friendly/very healthy) (
To test the hypothesis that the extent of positive and negative spillover is contingent on people’s attitudes, we included two behavior-based attitude scales (
To assess the extent of positive and negative spillover, we used two types of dependent variables as proxies for future goal-conducive behaviors. First, participants indicated on a seven-point scale (1 = I will not do that under any circumstances, 7 = I will certainly do that) the extent to which they intended to engage in 18 behaviors in different contexts during the next month. Of these
Descriptive statistics for behavioral intentions (I1–I5) and interest in apps (A1–A3) in the contexts of environment and health, Study 1.
I1: Composting green waste | 4.71 | 6 | 2.35 | 1–7 |
I2: Using biodegradable cleaning agents | 4.56 | 5 | 1.84 | 1–7 |
I3: Switching off electronic devices on standby completely overnight | 4.93 | 5 | 1.90 | 1–7 |
I4: Buying locally grown vegetables and fruits | 5.86 | 6 | 1.28 | 1–7 |
I5: Switching off lights when leaving a room | 6.54 | 7 | 0.84 | 2–7 |
A1: Saving energy at work | 4.38 | 4 | 1.78 | 1–7 |
A2: Saving energy at home | 5.28 | 6 | 1.58 | 1–7 |
A3: How to reduce my CO2 emissions | 4.71 | 5 | 1.79 | 1–7 |
I1: Treating myself with a high-calorie or fatty snack (e.g., chocolate bar or potato chips) (reverse-coded) | 2.32 | 2 | 1.64 | 1–7 |
I2: Taking time to relax | 5.51 | 6 | 1.42 | 1–7 |
I3: Exercising for at least 2 h per week | 5.74 | 7 | 1.70 | 1–7 |
I4: Drinking no more than one glass of alcohol per day | 4.62 | 5 | 2.24 | 1–7 |
I5: Preparing at least one fresh meal per day | 5.55 | 6 | 1.59 | 1–7 |
A1: How to maintain a healthy diet | 5.71 | 6 | 1.45 | 1–7 |
A2: Simple relaxation techniques in your spare moments | 5.02 | 5 | 1.58 | 1–7 |
A3: More physical activity in everyday life | 5.28 | 6 | 1.73 | 1–7 |
Second, we asked participants if they would be interested in using online apps that provided support and tips to better achieve goals. Of the nine apps, three were related to environmental protection and three to improving health (
We first established that the random allocation of participants to the four conditions was successful with respect to the strength of attitudes. Levels of environmental [
Manipulation checks showed that the recall manipulation had the intended effect. Participants in the environmentally friendly condition rated the recalled environmental action as more positive (
The recall manipulation had the intended effect. Participants in the healthy condition rated the recalled health behavior as more positive (
Multiple regression analyses examined the effects of the recall manipulation (environmentally friendly vs. unfriendly behavior), environmental attitude, and their interaction on pro-environmental intentions and interest in apps. We tested two models for each dependent variable. In the first step, environmental attitude and the recalled behavior were entered as predictors. In the second step, the interaction term (Recall × Attitude) was added to the model. If adding the interaction term resulted in a statistically significant improvement to the model, we used the Johnson-Neyman conditional analysis (
To test the prediction that attitude strength would influence the extent of positive and negative spillover, we first explored potential interaction effects. For two (of five) intentions, the effect of the recall manipulation depended on the strength of participants’ environmental attitude (
Direct and interactive effects of environmental attitude and recalled behavior on intentions and interest in apps, Study 1.
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | 0.91*** | [0.56, 1.26] | 0.15 | 0.47$ | [–0.02, 0.96] | 0.18 | 0.03* |
Recall manipulation | –0.64$ | [–1.28, 0.01] | –0.77* | [–1.42, –0.13] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.87* | [0.18, 1.56] | |||||
Attitude | 0.99*** | [0.74, 1.24] | 0.27 | 0.96*** | [0.60, 1.32] | 0.27 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | 0.09 | [–0.37, 0.56] | 0.08 | [–0.39, 0.56] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.07 | [–0.44, 0.57] | |||||
Attitude | 0.96*** | [0.71, 1.20] | 0.26 | 0.78*** | [0.43, 1.14] | 0.27 | 0.01 |
Recall manipulation | –0.43$ | [–0.88, 0.03] | –0.48* | [–0.94, –0.02] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.33 | [–0.16, 0.82] | |||||
Attitude | 0.54*** | [0.38, 0.71] | 0.19 | 0.44*** | [0.19, 0.68] | 0.19 | 0.01 |
Recall manipulation | –0.04 | [–0.36, 0.27] | –0.07 | [–0.39, 0.25] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.20 | [–0.14, 0.54] | |||||
Attitude | 0.25*** | [0.13, 0.38] | .09 | 0.09 | [–0.09, 0.26] | 0.12 | 0.03* |
Recall manipulation | –0.05 | [–0.28, 0.18] | –0.10 | [–0.33, 0.13] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.32* | [0.07, 0.56] | |||||
Attitude | 0.51*** | [0.25, 0.77] | 0.10 | 0.53** | [0.15, 0.90] | 0.10 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.44$ | [–0.93, 0.04] | –0.44$ | [–0.94, 0.05] | |||
Recall × attitude | –0.02 | [–0.55, 0.50] | |||||
Attitude | 0.34** | [0.12, 0.56] | 0.06 | 0.26 | [–0.06, 0.58] | 0.06 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.24 | [–0.65, 0.17] | –0.27 | [–0.69, 0.15] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.16 | [–0.29, 0.60] | |||||
Attitude | 0.61*** | [0.37, 0.86] | 0.13 | 0.56** | [0.21, 0.92] | 0.13 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.35 | [–0.80, 0.11] | –0.36 | [–0.83, 0.10] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.09 | [–0.40, 0.59] | |||||
The first interaction was found when the intention to compost green waste was used as the dependent variable (
Panels
The second interaction effect was found when participants indicated whether they intended to turn off the lights when leaving a room (
We also tested for possible interactions between the recall manipulation and environmental attitude on participants’ interest in using three pro-environmental apps. None were statistically significant.
Because the absence of statistically significant interaction effects implies that direct effects can be meaningfully interpreted, we examined whether the recall manipulation and environmental attitude had a direct influence on the dependent variables where the two predictors did not interact. Of eight dependent variables, there were no direct effects of the recall manipulation significant at the 5% level. However, it was found that the stronger participants’ level of environmental attitude, the more they were motivated to protect the environment and the more they were interested in relevant apps. This direct effect was found for all eight dependent variables.
Taken together, these results provide some support for our hypothesis. The patterns of the interactions are consistent with the prediction that participants with a weak environmental attitude would be affected by the valence of the recalled behavior such that they would be less motivated to engage in environmentally friendly behavior after recalling an environmentally friendly behavior (negative spillover). Among those with an
Following the same analytic approach, the prediction that a strong health attitude would increase the likelihood of positive spillover and reduce the likelihood of negative spillover was not confirmed. Health attitude did not moderate the effect of recalling an healthy or unhealthy behavior with respect to any of the five health intentions or interest in health-related apps (
Direct and interactive effects of health attitude and recalled behavior on intentions and interest in apps, Study 1.
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
95% CI | 95% CI | ||||||
Attitude | 0.35$ | [–0.03, 0.74] | 0.02 | 0.11 | [–0.46, 0.68] | 0.03 | 0.01 |
Recall manipulation | 0.12 | [–0.35, 0.59] | 0.06 | [–0.42, 0.54] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.45 | [–0.32, 1.22] | |||||
Attitude | 0.42* | [0.09, 0.74] | 0.03 | 0.49$ | [–0.00, 0.98] | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.04 | [–0.43, 0.35] | –0.02 | [–0.42, 0.38] | |||
Recall × attitude | –0.13 | [–0.78, 0.53] | |||||
Attitude | 0.95*** | [0.58, 1.31] | 0.12 | 0.76** | [0.22, 1.30] | 0.13 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.04 | [–0.48, 0.40] | –0.08 | [–0.53, 0.37] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.35 | [–0.38, 1.08] | |||||
Attitude | 0.26 | [–0.29, 0.81] | 0.01 | 0.31 | [–0.48, 1.10] | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | 0.10 | [–0.57, 0.76] | 0.11 | [–0.57, 0.78] | |||
Recall × attitude | –0.09 | [–1.20, 1.02] | |||||
Attitude | 0.90*** | [0.55, 1.26] | 0.12 | 0.96*** | [0.43, 1.49] | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | 0.31 | [–0.13, 0.74] | 0.32 | [–0.13, 0.76] | |||
Recall × attitude | –0.10 | [–0.83, 0.62] | |||||
Attitude | 0.69*** | [0.39, 1.00] | 0.12 | 0.63** | [0.19, 1.08] | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.36$ | [–0.73, 0.01] | –0.37$ | [–0.75, 0.00] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.11 | [–0.50, 0.72] | |||||
Attitude | 0.29 | [–0.07, 0.66] | 0.02 | 0.35 | [–0.19, 0.90] | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | 0.15 | [–0.30, 0.60] | 0.16 | [–0.30, 0.62] | |||
Recall × attitude | –0.11 | [–0.85, 0.63] | |||||
Attitude | 0.50* | [0.09, 0.90] | 0.04 | 0.34 | [–0.26, 0.94] | 0.04 | 0.00 |
Recall manipulation | –0.31 | [–0.80, 0.18] | –0.35 | [–0.85, 0.15] | |||
Recall × attitude | 0.30 | [–0.51, 1.11] | |||||
The recall manipulation again did not affect any of the dependent variables at the 5% significance level. Health attitude was, however, positively related to three behavioral intentions and interest in two apps.
Study 1 tested the hypothesis that attitude strength would moderate the effect of an initial behavior on subsequent behaviors. We expected that those with a strong (favorable) attitude would be equally motivated to engage in additional goal-conducive behaviors after recalling either a goal-consistent (environmentally friendly/healthy) or a goal-inconsistent past behavior (environmentally unfriendly/unhealthy), whereas those with a weak attitude would be less motivated to engage in further behaviors after recalling a goal-consistent compared to a goal-inconsistent behavior.
The results of Study 1 provided initial support for this prediction in two of five pro-environmental intentions but in none of the health-related intentions. One possible explanation for why the predicted interaction was not found in more dependent variables is that Study 1 did not have sufficient statistical power to detect the interaction effect. To obtain a rough estimate of the power of Study 1, we conducted a power analysis using the special
Another limitation of Study 1 was that the control condition was recalling a goal-inconsistent (unhealthy or environmentally unfriendly) behavior rather than a more neutral task. A weakness of this design is that it is impossible to conclude whether effects of the experimental conditions originate uniquely from recalling a goal-consistent behavior, a goal-inconsistent behavior, or from their combined effects (
A further limitation of Study 1 is that the sample consisted mainly of female students. Consequently, environmental and health attitudes may have been more homogeneous than in the general adult population. Without a more representative sample, the findings of Study 1 might be limited to well-educated female students.
Study 2 aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 and address its shortcomings by adding a neutral control condition and by using a larger and demographically more heterogeneous sample. We used the neutral control condition as a baseline and examined the moderating effect of attitude strength on recalling a goal-inconsistent (environmentally unfriendly/unhealthy) or goal-consistent (environmentally friendly/healthy) behavior.
We expected that participants with a strong attitude would be more motivated to engage in goal-conducive behaviors after recalling either a goal-consistent or goal-inconsistent behavior than after recalling a neutral behavior. The prediction is based on the following assumptions: when such participants carry out a behavior that is relevant to their attitude, it increases (a) the salience of the attitude and (b) the relationships between different attitude-relevant behaviors and how they are relevant to the underlying attitude; and (c) if such participants carry out a behavior inconsistent with their attitude, they experience cognitive dissonance. Regarding participants with weak attitudes, we predicted that they would feel that they had “done enough” and be less motivated to engage in further similar behaviors after recalling a goal-consistent behavior compared to a neutral behavior. For these participants, previous environmentally unfriendly or unhealthy actions are unlikely to lead to cognitive dissonance because they do not conflict with attitudes. We therefore did not expect motivation to differ after recalling a goal-inconsistent behavior relative to recalling a neutral behavior.
The general procedure was the same as Study 1. Data were again collected through Qualtrics at two points in time in 2018. At time 1, participants answered questions regarding their environmental and health attitudes and socio-demographic questions.
At time 2 (8–12 days later), participants completed one of five recall conditions, to which they were assigned randomly. After answering two sets of questions that are beyond the scope of Study 2 (i.e., relating to possible additional moral processes), participants answered the questions used as dependent variables. Finally, they were thanked and debriefed.
A power analysis using the special
The United States-based sample was recruited via Amazon Turk. Those who participated in both parts of the survey were paid US $4. In total, 1,208 participants started the survey at time 1. Of those, 26 were removed due to a missing personal identifier. Eighteen were removed because they participated more than once (in which case we discarded the participation that included more missing values, and in case of a similar amount of missing values, the second participation). A further 38 participants were removed because they responded to fewer than 20% of the questions.
Of all participants who finished the survey at time 1, 1,003 accessed the study at time 2. Ten participants participated twice; we again excluded the answers from the participation that included more missing values, and in case of a similar amount of missing values, the second participation. A further 37 participants were removed because they responded to less than 20% of the questions.
Some 174 participants were excluded as they did not take part in both parts of the study. To ensure good data quality, we again retained only participants (a) who passed the seriousness check (
A comparison of the 199 participants who either did not participate in the survey both times (
Participants were randomly assigned to one of five experimental conditions. In addition to the four conditions used in Study 1, a control condition was included in which participants were asked to recall their routine on a typical Tuesday (
To examine whether the manipulation had the intended effect, three coders blind to condition rated how environmentally friendly and healthy the recalled deeds were (seven-point scale: -3 = very environmentally harmful or unhealthy, +3 = very environmentally friendly or healthy). Interrater reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]environmentallyfriendly] = 0.88, ICChealthy = 0.89). The ratings of the coders were averaged into an environmental friendliness and a healthiness scale.
To assess the extent of positive and negative spillover, we used four types of dependent variables. First, participants indicated on a seven-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely) how likely they are to engage in 17 behaviors in the near future. Of these behavioral intentions, eight were related to the environment and nine to their personal health (
Descriptive statistics for behavioral intentions (I1–I8), petitions (P1–P6), interest in behavior tips, and donations in the contexts of environment and health, Study 2.
I1: Switching off electronic devices instead of leaving them on stand-by | 4.02 | 4 | 1.87 | 1–7 |
I2: Forego air travel and instead choose a means of transport with less negative effects on the environment | 3.85 | 4 | 1.92 | 1–7 |
I3: Buy ecologically produced food | 3.92 | 4 | 1.55 | 1–7 |
I4: Only eat seasonal produce | 3.83 | 4 | 1.68 | 1–7 |
I5: Boycott products from businesses that harm the environment | 3.71 | 4 | 1.7 | 1–7 |
I6: Buy the environmentally friendly alternative of a product | 4.52 | 5 | 1.53 | 1–7 |
I7: Always recycle plastic bottles (even in public places) | 5.35 | 6 | 1.61 | 1–7 |
I8: Join an environmental group | 2.7 | 2 | 1.59 | 1–7 |
P1: Fee for paper cups | 3.41 | 3 | 1.96 | 1–7 |
P2: Plastic bag tax | 4.17 | 5 | 2.17 | 1–7 |
P3: Ban non-sustainable palm oil | 4.32 | 5 | 1.97 | 1–7 |
P4: Ban plastic dishes | 3.87 | 4 | 2.07 | 1–7 |
P5: Invest in renewable energy | 5.2 | 6 | 1.92 | 1–7 |
P6: No drilling in arctic national wildlife refuge | 5.01 | 6 | 2.03 | 1–7 |
S1: Interest in information sheet | 0.6 | 1 | 0.49 | 0–1 |
D1: Amount environmental donation | 0.15 | 0 | 0.47 | 0–4 |
I1: Eat four to five servings of fruit/vegetables per day | 4.62 | 5 | 1.67 | 1–7 |
I2: Avoid snacks high in calories (e.g., chips, chocolate) | 4.15 | 4 | 1.79 | 1–7 |
I3: Choose lean over fatty food options | 4.81 | 5 | 1.58 | 1–7 |
I4: Regularly take the stairs instead of the elevator | 4.89 | 5 | 1.64 | 1–7 |
I5: Do 150 min/week of moderate physical activity (gentle swimming, golf, horseback riding) | 4.46 | 5 | 1.89 | 1–7 |
I6: Do 75 min/week of vigorous physical activity (joggin, cycling, aerobics, competitive tennis) | 4.33 | 5 | 1.91 | 1–7 |
I7: Have regular health check-ups (dental hygiene, gynecologist, cancer checks) | 4.96 | 5 | 1.68 | 1–7 |
I8: Drink no more than two beers or similar per week | 5.37 | 7 | 2.11 | 1–7 |
I9: Use sunscreen consistently when exposed to the sun | 4.73 | 5 | 1.86 | 1–7 |
S1: Interest in information sheet | 0.61 | 1 | 0.49 | 0–1 |
Second, participants indicated on a seven-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely) how likely they were to sign nine petitions from online sites
Third, participants indicated (yes/no) whether they were interested in receiving tips about pro-environmental or healthy behaviors. Fourth, they were given the chance to donate any part of their reimbursement to either an organization for the protection of the environment (
We did not examine any effects on support for health-related petitions or donations. This is because health attitude focuses on people’s
The random allocation of participants to the five conditions was successful with respect to the strength of the attitudes: The levels of environmental [
The manipulation check showed that the recall manipulation had the intended effect. Coders rated the recalled environmental behaviors in the three conditions differently [
The recall manipulation also had the intended effect with respect to health. Coders rated the recalled behaviors in the three conditions differently [
To examine the effects of the recall manipulation, environmental attitude, and their interaction on intentions and support for petitions, we used the same multiple linear regression approach as in Study 1. Because of the dichotomous answer format of the pro-environmental information sheet, we used a logistic regression analysis to examine effects on this dependent variable. Furthermore, only 14% of the sample donated to any organization, resulting in a high frequency of zero data points and a strongly positively skewed distribution. We therefore used negative binomial regression analyses when donations to a pro-environmental organization was the dependent variable (
For one (of six) petitions, the effect of the environmentally unfriendly recall manipulation depended on the strength of participants’ environmental attitude: The significant interaction was found when petition 6 (no drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge) was used as the dependent variable and the terms that represented the interaction between environmental attitude and participants who either recalled a typical Tuesday (control group) or an environmentally unfriendly behavior were included as predictors (
Direct and interactive effects of environmental attitude and recalled behavior on intentions, willingness to sign petitions, interest in information sheet and amount donated, Study 2.
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | 0.90*** | [0.71, 1.09] | 0.16 | 1.04*** | [0.72, 1.36] | 0.16 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.69*** | [0.34, 1.03] | 0.58* | [0.08, 1.07] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | 0.11 | [–0.24, 0.46] | –0.13 | [–0.64, 0.38] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.15 | [–0.61, 0.30] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | –0.30 | [–0.76, 0.17] | |||||
Attitude | 0.63*** | [0.43, 0.84] | 0.06 | 0.77*** | [0.42, 1.12] | 0.07 | 0.01 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.23 | [–0.16, 0.61] | –0.11 | [–0.66, 0.43] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | 0.07 | [–0.32, 0.45] | 0.11 | [–0.46, 0.67] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.44$ | [–0.94, 0.07] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.02 | [–0.49, 0.53] | |||||
Attitude | 0.92*** | [0.77, 1.08] | 0.21 | 0.86*** | [0.60, 1.11] | 0.21 | 0.01 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.24$ | [–0.04, 0.52] | 0.18 | [–0.22, 0.58] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.02 | [–0.30, 0.26] | 0.22 | [–0.19, 0.63] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.07 | [–0.44, 0.30] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.29 | [–0.09, 0.66] | |||||
Attitude | 0.66*** | [0.49, 0.84] | 0.09 | 0.57*** | [0.28, 0.87] | 0.09 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.09 | [–0.23, 0.42] | 0.15 | [–0.31, 0.61] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | 0.03 | [–0.30, 0.36] | 0.19 | [–0.28, 0.67] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | 0.08 | [–0.35, 0.51] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.21 | [–0.23, 0.64] | |||||
Attitude | 1.09*** | [0.92, 1.25] | 0.24 | 1.00*** | [0.73, 1.28] | 0.24 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.22 | [–0.08, 0.52] | 0.20 | [–0.22, 0.62] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | 0.13 | [–0.18, 0.43] | 0.36 | [–0.08, 0.80] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.02 | [–0.41, 0.38] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.29 | [–0.11, 0.69] | |||||
Attitude | 0.88*** | [0.73, 1.03] | 0.20 | 0.96*** | [0.70, 1.21] | 0.21 | 0.01* |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.37** | [0.09, 0.65] | 0.10 | [–0.30, 0.49] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.04 | [–0.32, 0.24] | 0.08 | [–0.32, 0.49] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.35$ | [–0.72, 0.01] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.13 | [–0.24, 0.50] | |||||
Attitude | 0.76*** | [0.60, 0.93] | 0.19 | 0.89*** | [0.61, 1.16] | 0.19 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.47** | [0.18, 0.77] | 0.23 | [–0.19, 0.65] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.46** | [–0.76, -0.16] | –0.48* | [–0.91, -0.04] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.32 | [–0.71, 0.07] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | –0.04 | [–0.44, 0.35] | |||||
Attitude | 0.90*** | [0.74, 1.06] | 0.18 | 1.01*** | [0.73, 1.28] | 0.18 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | –0.09 | [–0.38, 0.21] | –0.29 | [–0.71, 0.13] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.10 | [–0.41, 0.20] | –0.13 | [–0.57, 0.30] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.26 | [–0.66, 0.13] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | –0.06 | [–0.45, 0.34] | |||||
Attitude | 0.88*** | [0.67, 1.08] | 0.12 | 0.69*** | [0.35, 1.04] | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.12 | [–0.26, 0.49] | 0.22 | [–0.31, 0.76] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.18 | [–0.56, 0.20] | 0.16 | [–0.39, 0.72] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | 0.15 | [–0.34, 0.65] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.43$ | [–0.07, 0.93] | |||||
Attitude | 1.00*** | [0.78, 1.23] | 0.12 | 0.87*** | [0.49, 1.24] | 0.13 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.05 | [–0.36, 0.46] | 0.06 | [–0.52, 0.64] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.02 | [–0.44, 0.40] | 0.31 | [–0.29, 0.92] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | 0.03 | [–0.51, 0.57] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.41 | [–0.14, 0.96] | |||||
Attitude | 0.86*** | [0.65, 1.07] | 0.11 | 0.69*** | [0.33, 1.04] | 0.12 | 0.01$ |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.15 | [–0.23, 0.54] | 0.13 | [–0.42, 0.67] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.19 | [–0.58, 0.20] | 0.26 | [–0.30, 0.83] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.01 | [–0.52, 0.49] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.56* | [0.04, 1.07] | |||||
Attitude | 1.06*** | [0.85, 1.27] | 0.15 | 0.90*** | [0.55, 1.26] | 0.16 | 0.01 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.04 | [–0.35, 0.42] | 0.07 | [–0.48, 0.61] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.04 | [–0.44, 0.35] | 0.33 | [–0.24, 0.89] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | 0.06 | [–0.45, 0.56] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.45$ | [–0.06, 0.97] | |||||
Attitude | 0.63*** | [0.43, 0.84] | 0.07 | 0.55** | [0.21, 0.88] | 0.07 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | –0.03 | [–0.40, 0.34] | –0.06 | [–0.58, 0.47] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.23 | [–0.60, 0.15] | 0.02 | [–0.52, 0.57] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.02 | [–0.51, 0.47] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.31 | [–0.19, 0.80] | |||||
Attitude | 0.79*** | [0.58, 1.01] | 0.10 | 0.68*** | [0.32, 1.03] | 0.11 | 0.01* |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.14 | [–0.25, 0.53] | –0.02 | [–0.57, 0.53] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.30 | [–0.70, 0.09] | 0.17 | [–0.40, 0.74] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.18 | [–0.69, 0.33] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.57* | [0.06, 1.09] | |||||
Attitude | 0.48*** | [0.24, 0.73] | 0.03 | 0.62** | [0.19, 1.09] | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | –0.22 | [–0.65, 0.22] | –0.45 | [–1.14, 0.21] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | –0.44* | [–0.87, -0.01] | –0.53 | [–1.23, 0.16] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | –0.28 | [–0.90, 0.32] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | –0.11 | [–0.74, 0.50] | |||||
Attitude | 0.84*** | [ 0.57, 1.12] | 0.07 | 0.63** | [0.17, 1.08] | 0.07 | 0.00 |
Recall environmentally Friendly | 0.15 | [–0.41, 0.71] | 0.28 | [–0.30, 0.87] | |||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly | 0.36 | [–0.19, 0.92] | 0.42 | [–0.19, 1.02] | |||
Recall environmentally Friendly × attitude | 0.44 | [–0.21, 1.11] | |||||
Recall environmentally Unfriendly × attitude | 0.20 | [–0.46, 0.87] | |||||
Panel
Similar trends were observed for petition 1 (fee for paper cups), petition 3 (ban unsustainable palm oil) and petition 4 (ban plastic dishes); however, with only marginally significant effects (
When the valence of the recalled behavior was held constant, participants with a strong environmental attitude acted more environmentally friendly than participants with a weak environmental attitude. This direct effect was observed in all 16 dependent variables (
Recalling a neutral versus an environmentally friendly or unfriendly behavior also had some direct effects on the environmental outcome variables: When controlling for the influence of environmental attitude, recalling an environmentally friendly (vs. neutral) behavior increased the motivation to engage in three pro-environmental behaviors (switch off electronic devices, buy eco-friendly products, and recycle plastic bottles). In other words, recalling an environmentally friendly deed promoted positive spillover across all levels of environmental attitude with respect to these intentions. When the intention to recycle plastic bottles was the dependent variable, this behavioral consistency was also observed in the other direction: Recalling an environmentally unfriendly (vs. neutral) behavior decreased the intention to recycle, irrespective of the strength of environmental attitude. Finally, behavioral consistency was found when participants who recalled an environmentally unfriendly behavior were asked if they wanted to receive tips about pro-environmental behavior: Compared to the neutral condition, they were less interested in receiving such information.
The prediction that a strong health attitude would increase the likelihood of positive spillover and reduce the likelihood of negative spillover after an initial healthy behavior was not confirmed (
Direct and interactive effects of health attitude and recalled behavior on intentions and interest in information sheet 2.
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | 0.95*** | [0.76, 1.13] | 0.16 | 1.08*** | [0.77, 1.39] | 0.16 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | –0.11 | [–0.42, 0.20] | –0.07 | [–0.39, 0.24] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.24 | [–0.55, 0.07] | –0.21 | [–0.53, 0.10] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.29 | [–0.73, 0.16] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | –0.13 | [–0.57, 0.32] | |||||
Attitude | 0.89*** | [0.69, 1.08] | 0.13 | 0.81*** | [0.49, 1.14] | 0.14 | 0.01$ |
Recall healthy | 0.41* | [0.07, 0.74] | 0.42* | [0.08, 0.76] | |||
Recall unhealthy | 0.22 | [–0.11, 0.56] | 0.17 | [–0.17, 0.51] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.16 | [–0.64, 0.32] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | 0.38 | [–0.10, 0.86] | |||||
Attitude | 0.84*** | [0.66, 1.01] | 0.14 | 0.81*** | [0.52, 1.10] | 0.14 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | –0.02 | [–0.31, 0.28] | –0.01 | [–0.31, 0.29] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.21 | [–0.50, 0.08] | –0.24 | [–0.53, 0.06] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.08 | [–0.50, 0.34] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | 0.15 | [–0.27, 0.57] | |||||
Attitude | 0.80*** | [0.61, 0.98] | 0.12 | 0.98*** | [0.68, 1.28] | 0.13 | 0.01 |
Recall healthy | 0.08 | [–0.22, 0.39] | 0.13 | [–0.17, 0.44] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.11 | [–0.41, 0.20] | –0.08 | [–0.39, 0.23] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.42$ | [–0.86, 0.02] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | –0.16 | [–0.59, 0.28] | |||||
Attitude | 1.08*** | [0.87, 1.28] | 0.16 | 0.96*** | [0.62, 1.30] | 0.16 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | 0.17 | [–0.18, 0.52] | 0.14 | [–0.21, 0.49] | |||
Recall unhealthy | 0.27 | [–0.07, 0.62] | 0.25 | [–0.11, 0.61] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | 0.23 | [–0.27, 0.74] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | 0.14 | [–0.36, 0.64] | |||||
Attitude | 1.14*** | [0.92, 1.35] | 0.17 | 1.09*** | [0.73, 1.44] | 0.17 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | –0.02 | [–0.38, 0.33] | –0.02 | [–0.38, 0.35] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.08 | [–0.43, 0.28] | –0.11 | [–0.48, 0.25] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.09 | [–0.61, 0.43] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | 0.25 | [–0.27, 0.76] | |||||
Attitude | 0.69*** | [0.50, 0.88] | 0.08 | 0.67*** | [0.35, 0.99] | 0.08 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | 0 | [–0.32, 0.33] | 0 | [–0.33, 0.33] | |||
Recall unhealthy | 0.1 | [–0.22, 0.43] | 0.1 | [–0.23, 0.43] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | 0.02 | [–0.45, 0.48] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | 0.05 | [–0.41, 0.52] | |||||
Attitude | 0.37** | [0.12, 0.62] | 0.02 | 0.61** | [0.20, 1.03] | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | 0.01 | [–0.41, 0.43] | 0.05 | [–0.38, 0.48] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.05 | [–0.47, 0.37] | 0.02 | [–0.41, 0.45] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.27 | [–0.88, 0.34] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | –0.48 | [–1.09, 0.12] | |||||
Attitude | 0.73*** | [0.52, 0.95] | 0.08 | 0.70*** | [0.34, 1.06] | 0.08 | 0.00 |
Recall healthy | 0.04 | [–0.32, 0.41] | 0.03 | [–0.34, 0.40] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.25 | [–0.62, 0.11] | –0.25 | [–0.63, 0.12] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | 0.12 | [–0.41, 0.65] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | –0.01 | [–0.53, 0.52] | |||||
Attitude | 0.20 | [–0.05, 0.46] | 0.00 | 0.60** | [0.16, 1.06] | 0.01 | 0.01* |
Recall healthy | –0.14 | [–0.56, 0.28] | –0.06 | [–0.49, 0.37] | |||
Recall unhealthy | –0.13 | [–0.55, 0.29] | –0.09 | [–0.52, 0.34] | |||
Recall healthy × attitude | –0.83** | [–1,47, -2.11] | |||||
Recall unhealthy × attitude | –0.36 | [–0.99, 0.27] | |||||
Panel
Attitude was positively related to all nine health intentions; that is, the stronger a person’s health attitude, the more likely they were to act in a healthy way (
Study 2 provided little evidence for the expected moderating effect of attitude strength: In only two instances – when participants were asked whether they would support a petition against drilling in an arctic wildlife refuge and when they were asked whether they wanted to receive health tips – did the respective attitude moderate the effect of the recalled behavior at the 5% significance level.
What is more, these interactions were not entirely in line with our predictions: We expected that recalling a healthy (vs. a neutral) behavior would increase the interest in receiving health tips among those with a strong health attitude, but found that the recalled behavior decreased their interest in such tips. It is striking that the latter interaction was the only one across both studies in which those with a strong attitude
To explain this unexpected pattern, we look to the content of the dependent variable: the choice to receive information. It could be argued that participants who have a strong health attitude tend to already know a lot about health. This expertise may have become particularly obvious after recalling a healthy behavior, which might in turn have reduced the subjective need for further information. In other words, this dependent variable may have tapped more into participants’ evaluation of whether they require information than their motivation to act healthily. Empirical evidence strengthens the notion that this variable worked differently than questions about behavioral intentions: It was the only variable
Adding to the impression that information-related questions might be of only limited use as proxies of behavioral spillover is the finding that all participants – irrespective of attitude strength – were less interested in receiving tips about pro-environmental behavior after recalling an environmentally unfriendly (vs. neutral) behavior. Moreover, the predictive power of environmental attitude with respect to interest in pro-environmental tips was also considerably smaller than when other dependent variables were used. The diminished influence of attitude strength suggests that additional processes might be in play when participants make decisions about receiving information.
Also contrary to the prediction that recalling an environmentally unfriendly past behavior would increase pro-environmental tendencies among those with a strong attitude and leave those with a weak attitude unaffected, this condition had no discernible effect among those with a strong attitude, but decreased the support for one pro-environmental petition among participants with a weak attitude. One possible explanation for this pattern is that recalling a past environmentally harmful behavior may have increased the salience of participants’ existing attitude, which then could have led to behavioral patterns consistent with their respective attitude strength. We will discuss these issues in more detail in the next section.
This research examined whether attitude strength can explain whether the likelihood of engaging in additional behaviors in the domains of environmental protection and health promotion increases (positive spillover) or decreases (negative spillover) after recalling a goal-conducive behavior in the same domain. We argued that when people who have a strong attitude toward an issue carry out a behavior that benefits the issue, such a behavior is an integral part of a wider network of behaviors that serve a more comprehensive, superordinate goal (
Across two studies, we found limited empirical support for the predicted moderating role of attitude strength. In Study 1, attitude strength moderated the effect of a first behavior in two instances: participants with a weak attitude (25th percentile) less strongly intended to act environmentally friendly after recalling an environmentally friendly versus unfriendly action, while participants with a strong attitude (75th percentile) were similarly motivated regardless of the valence of the recalled action. This pattern is consistent with the prediction that a strong attitude toward an issue should promote positive spillover and mitigate the risk of negative spillover after an initial goal-conducive behavior, while those with a weak attitude should feel that they had done enough and not engage in further behaviors in the same behavioral context. A similar pattern was found in Study 2: Recalling an environmentally unfriendly past behavior again had no discernible effect among those with a strong environmental attitude but decreased support for a pro-environmental petition among participants with a weak attitude.
Taken together, these results suggest that a strong attitude can work as a “behavioral stabilizer” that protects against self-complacency and goal disengagement – it keeps people on track. By contrast, a weak attitude can fuel two tendencies that threaten pro-environmental and healthy behavior: First, it can, as suggested by Study 1, make people susceptible to the kind of behavioral fluctuations that are described in the literature as “moral licensing” (
A possible explanation for why participants with a weak environmental attitude acted in line with “moral licensing” (inconsistent behavior or negative spillover) in Study 1 but in line with the “what-the-hell effect” (consistently goal-inconsistent behavior or positive spillover) in Study 2 is that the two samples differed in terms of absolute attitude strength. To examine whether environmental attitude differed across studies, we pooled participants from both studies and recalibrated the Rasch scale (including all items from both studies), so that attitude scores were on the same metric and directly comparable. Participants in Study 1 were more environmentally friendly (
In addition to some interaction effects, this research also found compelling evidence for a direct effect of attitude: Across two studies and in both domains, a stronger attitude was associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in corresponding goal-conducive behaviors. In short, in the context of behavioral spillover, attitude strength assumed two roles – that of a direct predictor and that of a moderator. The direct effect was much more consistent across different dependent variables and contexts than the moderator effect.
In sum, this research provides limited evidence for the idea that attitude strength (as one possible operationalization of relatively stable individual differences in how relevant an issue is to a person) can moderate the extent to which engaging in pro-environmental or healthy behaviors leads to positive or negative spillover.
This finding has implications for theory and practice. First, it provides limited empirical support for plausible but rarely tested assumptions about the role of attitude strength (and similar concepts tapping into personal relevance) in the context of spillover (for notable exceptions, see
The findings also contribute to a refined theoretical understanding of the conditions under which recalling past behavior affects subsequent behaviors. Based on
The findings also have implications for practice. It can be assumed that reminding people of past pro-environmental or healthy behaviors (
A limitation of the research is that attitude strength accounted for positive and negative spillover for only some of the dependent variables. This raises two major questions. First, why did attitude strength moderate the effect of recalling a goal-consistent versus a goal-inconsistent behavior for some but not for other variables? Previous research suggests that when the second behavior is either extremely difficult or extremely easy, it could attenuate or even override the generally positive relationship between attitude strength and the likelihood of engaging in further goal-conducive behaviors (
On a more speculative note, the fact that the expected moderation was found for only some of the dependent variables could also have to do with the subjective meaning that participants attributed to the respective behaviors. For example, it is possible that participants may have perceived the behaviors as environmentally relevant to different extents (
The second major question is why did we not find any of the predicted attitude moderations in the health domain. It is striking that much spillover research focuses directly or indirectly on morality, for example, by examining the extent to which engaging in morally relevant behaviors affects people’s self-perceptions and subsequent behaviors (
This raises the question to what extent moral processes are relevant for the two domains examined here. There is evidence that people understand behaviors that affect the environment to be morally relevant (
One last critical point is that we used several dependent variables, which increased the probability to detect (interaction) effects that do not in fact exist (false positives). This research is exploratory in the sense that it is one of the first to investigate the role of attitude as a moderator of spillover effects and does therefore not necessarily require statistical procedures to correct for false positives (
Overall, the two studies showed that the importance of an issue to a person – in our study operationalized as behavior-based attitude (
The raw data and R code supporting the conclusions of this manuscript is available in the Open Science Framework
At the time these studies were conducted (spring 2013 and summer 2018), our faculty had no Internal Review Board to grant ethical approval. However, we certify that the research adhered to the ethical principles of the
AB conceived and designed Study 1, analyzed the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. BH and AB conceived, designed, and analyzed the data from Study 2. BH contributed to the editing process of the first draft and added additional content. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, and read and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We thank Claudia Aregger for her assistance in collecting the data for Study 1 and Selina Hauser and Livia Steffen for coding the recalled behaviors in Studies 1 and 2. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
Importantly, though, the Campbell paradigm does not suggest that a single behavior can be equated with attitude. The latent trait can be inferred only by inspecting a broad range of behaviors, ordered by difficulty.
The Johnson-Neyman technique suggested that the recall condition would also have an effect on participants with an extremely favorable environmental attitude (i.e., scores larger than 4.08). However, because our sample did not include any participants with such extreme scores, this extrapolated effect should be seen as hypothetical and treated with caution.
Note that limiting the FDR adjustment to the interaction terms results in their