IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1811-d217138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the Influence of Purity-Based Interventions on Pro-environmental Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Sonya Sachdeva

    (Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Evanston, IL 60201, USA)

  • Reihane Boghrati

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA)

  • Morteza Dehghani

    (Department of Psychology & Computer Science, Brain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA)

Abstract

Environmental issues are often discussed in purity-related terms. For instance, pollution, contamination, toxicity, and degradation are all concepts that can evoke notions of (im)purity in an environmental context. In this paper, we assess the efficacy of purity-based norms as drivers of environmentally sustainable behavior. First, using a social media-based environmental cleanup campaign as a test case, we find that purity-based norms increase participation in the campaign. We then replicate and extend these findings in three behavioral experiments, finding that purity-based interventions do increase environmental behavior (Study 1), but that these effects are strongest for people who are more deeply connected with an in-group (Studies 2 and 3). Using an integrative approach to combine computational linguistics with behavioral experiments, we find that purity-based norms can be powerful motivators of environmental behavior, particularly if they emphasize the relation to one’s in-group.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonya Sachdeva & Reihane Boghrati & Morteza Dehghani, 2019. "Testing the Influence of Purity-Based Interventions on Pro-environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1811-:d:217138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1811/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1811/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascal Boyer, 2008. "Religion: Bound to believe?," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7216), pages 1038-1039, October.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. Md. Shahzalal & Azizul Hassan, 2019. "Communicating Sustainability: Using Community Media to Influence Rural People’s Intention to Adopt Sustainable Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tessa Buchanan & James Ackland & Sam Lloyd & Sander Linden & Lee de-Wit, 2022. "Clear consensus among international public for government action at COP26: patriotic and public health frames produce marginal gains in support," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-8, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ara Norenzayan & Will M Gervais & Kali H Trzesniewski, 2012. "Mentalizing Deficits Constrain Belief in a Personal God," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
    2. Will M. Gervais & Michiel van Elk & Dimitris Xygalatas & Ryan T. McKay & Mark Aveyard & Emma E. Buchtel & Ilan Dar-Nimrod & Eva Kundtová Klocová & Jonathan E. Ramsay & Tapani Riekki & Annika M. Sved, 2018. "Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 268-274, May.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:268-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    6. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    7. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    9. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    10. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    11. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    12. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.
    15. Sirola, Nina, 2023. "Going beyond the call of duty under conditions of economic threat: Integrating life history and temporal dilemma perspectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    16. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Holli-Anne Passmore & Ying Yang & Sarena Sabine, 2022. "An Extended Replication Study of the Well-Being Intervention, the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI)," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2663-2683, August.
    18. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    19. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    20. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    21. Nadav Klein & Igor Grossmann & Ayse K. Uskul & Alexandra A. Kraus & Nicholas Epley, 2015. "It pays to be nice, but not really nice: Asymmetric reputations from prosociality across 7 countries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 355-364, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1811-:d:217138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.