Aktuelle Neuigkeiten

Consumers express their commitment to environmental protection by engaging in a variety of environmentally protective behaviors. We thus suggest that strengthening consumers' commitment to environmental protection will cause behavioral spillover, which is the joint change in multiple environmentally protective behaviors. This idea differs from other spillover notions that draw on psychological processes that follow a change in a specific behavior. By reanalyzing data from a pre-post treatment-control quasi-field experiment with customers of a retail company in which one group was exposed to a multiple-component intervention over the course of 8 months, whereas the other was not, we corroborated a significant commitment gain in the experimental group (n = 81) that did not occur in the control group (n = 152). This commitment gain manifested in the expected spillover effect that mirrored the Rasch-model-implied likelihood gains in increasingly favorable behavioral expressions of people's commitment to environmental protection. This research complements existing models of behavioral spillover by providing theoretical and empirical arguments that strengthening consumers' commitment to environmental protection can result in spillover. In practical terms, focusing on people's commitment to environmental protection could thus be a promising avenue for directly promoting sustainable lifestyles.

To use a particular reason to explain behavior, the reason (e.g., to protect the environment) must be present when people engage in the action (e.g., riding a bike) and absent when people do not (e.g., not riding a bike). This thinking resonates in the statistical benchmark that behavioral scientists typically apply when assessing a reason's behavioral relevance. In contrast to what the notorious attitude-behavior gap insinuates, explaining small amounts of variance in a behavior does not inevitably challenge the behavioral relevance of reasons. The problem arises because different people have different reasons for engaging in a behavior and even for not engaging in it. By reanalyzing two previously collected data sets, we corroborate the environmental-protection reason's sensitivity for actions and specificity for inactions. Additionally, we confirm that both effects become even more convincing when person-specific rather than behavior-specific benchmarks for the presence and absence of a reason are employed.

 

Highlights:

• Many reasons can account for any specific decision to act or not to act.
• Alternative reasons usually weaken the behavioral relevance of any specific reason.
• A reason's behavioral relevance is not necessarily shown by its explained variance.
• Action must correspond with the presence of a reason and inaction with its absence.
• Environmental protection is a vital reason for specific action-inaction decisions.

Replicability is one essential aspect of genuine explanations in empirical science, whereas valid measurement is another. Particularly when people seek strong evidence that some leverage can be applied to change behavior the measurement of the attribute supposedly operating as the cause needs to be valid. Thus, before attitudes can be tested as causes of behavior, measurements of the strength of these attitudes must be empirically validated to an extent that goes beyond what is conventionally done in psychology. Because attitude is a mental attribute, the numbers assigned to people through measurement cannot be validated with some manifest reference point, as is typically the case in physical measurement (e.g., freezing point of water). We demonstrate how measurements of people’s mental attributes can be substantiated. Only when equipped with valid measures is the stage finally set to build a cumulative network of replicable knowledge.