University of Groningen
Bringing Community and Environment Together
Sloot, Daniel
DOI:
10.33612/diss.166147736
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2021
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Sloot, D. (2021). Bringing Community and Environment Together: the role of community environmental initiatives in sustainability transitions. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.166147736
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Chapter 5
An appeal is not enough – the limited
impact of financial, environmental,
and communal appeals in promoting
involvement in community
Abstract
Given that community environmental initiatives can motivate pro-environmental behaviour, it is vital to understand how involvement in these initiatives can be promoted. Previous findings suggest environmental and communal, but not financial, motives are linked to people’s involvement in community environmental initiatives. In this paper, we examine if initiative involvement can be promoted through appeals to environmental and communal (next to financial) motives. Three experimental studies tested this by manipulating financial, environmental, and communal appeals in flyer messages aimed at promoting involvement in a new (fictitious) student environmental initiative. Results did not support the idea that appeals are effective in promoting initiative involvement. Specifically, environmental and communal appeals did not promote initiative involvement compared to financial appeals or a control condition, and a combined appeal to environmental and communal motives was not more effective than the respective single appeals. In a field study, we further examined if the emphasis of financial, environmental, and communal benefits in flyers used in real-life community energy initiatives is linked to actual membership in these initiatives. Again, results did not indicate any relationship between the emphasis of these appeals and initiative membership across a number of initiatives. These findings suggest appeals used in flyer messages are largely ineffective in promoting initiative involvement. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
Chapter 5 is based on Sloot, D., Jans, L., & Steg, L. (2021). Is an Appeal Enough? The Limited Impact of Financial, Environ-mental, and Communal Appeals in Promoting Involvement in Community Environmental Initiatives. Sustainability, 13, 1085.
5.1 Introduction
Limiting the effects of climate change requires rapid change towards more pro-environmental behaviour (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). Different strategies have been implemented to promote pro-environmental behaviour, including community environmental initiatives that aim to promote pro-environmental behaviour among their members (e.g., Bailey et al., 2010; Middlemiss & Parrish, 2010; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012; Sloot et al., 2017). Examples are energy efficiency initiatives or community farming initiatives. Research suggests involvement in community environmental initiatives is associated with more pro-environmental behaviours (Middlemiss, 2011; Sloot et al., 2018). For example, people who are involved in a community energy initiative report stronger sustainable energy intentions and more sustainable energy behaviours than people who are not (Sloot et al., 2018). Given the potential of community environmental initiatives in promoting pro-environmental behaviour, it is vital to understand how to encourage people to become involved. This paper examines the extent to which appeals to financial, environmental, and communal motives (e.g., Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Dóci & Vasileiadou, 2014; Sloot et al., 2019) are effective in promoting involvement in community environmental initiatives.
Appeals are likely to be more effective when they target important motives, or reasons, for being involved in a community environmental initiative (cf. Dietz, 2015a). Generally, people can be involved in a community environmental initiative to serve either their own interest (e.g., because they expect to save money) or the collective interest (e.g., because it would benefit the environment; cf. Dietz, 2015b). In line with the assumption that (sustainable) behaviour can be motivated by emphasising monetary benefits (Schultz, 2014; Simon, 1955; see also Miller, 1999), community environmental initiatives often emphasise the financial benefits of being involved when advertising their initiative, such as saving energy costs (e.g., Duurzaam Oss, 2019). When asked directly, people do indicate that financial motives are important for their involvement in community environmental initiatives
(Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Dóci & Vasileiadou, 2014; Sloot et al., 2019). Yet, financial motives do not appear to be uniquely related to initiative involvement when other motives, in particular environmental and communal motives, are taken into account (Sloot et al., 2019). This suggests that financial appeals, although often used, may not be very effective in motivating involvement in community environmental initiatives. To our knowledge though, no research has examined the effectiveness of financial appeals in promoting involvement in community environmental initiatives.
Research has found that financial appeals (i.e., emphasising the monetary benefits of engaging in the targeted behaviour) are not very effective in promoting pro-environmental behaviour, such as saving energy in one’s household (Bolderdijk, Steg, et al., 2013; Delmas, Fischlein, & Asensio, 2013; Schwartz et al., 2015). Financial appeals may cause people to focus on cost-benefit calculations, and, since many pro-environmental behaviours yield only small financial gains, people may believe they are not worth the effort to gain the financial benefits (Dogan et al., 2014). In addition, financial appeals can weaken intrinsic motivation to act pro-environmentally, which is an important factor in encouraging pro-environmental actions, and, consequently, engagement in the targeted behaviour may be less likely (Dietz, 2015a; Schultz, 2014). Thus, financial appeals may not be very effective in encouraging initiative involvement. Appeals to environmental motives (targeting people’s motivation to act pro-environmentally) may be more effective than appeals to financial motives when it comes to promoting people’s involvement in community environmental initiatives. People often consider the environmental consequences of pro-environmental behaviour and act according to these pro-pro-environmental motivations (Dietz, 2015b; Steg, 2016). Specifically, many people hold strong environmental values and strive to behave in line with these values (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Steg, Bolderdijk, et al., 2014). Acting pro-environmentally positively reflects on the self-concept and can elicit positive feelings (Taufik et al., 2015; Venhoeven et al., 2016), which may motivate pro-environmental actions (Taufik, Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2016). In line with this, environmental motives are not only rated as important for involvement in community energy initiatives
(Dóci & Vasileiadou, 2014), but are also positively related to involvement in community energy initiatives (Sloot et al., 2019). Specifically, those who rate protecting the environment as important for their decision to be involved are more interested in joining, more likely to join, and identify more strongly with the initiative after joining. Yet, the question of how much appealing to environmental motives promotes involvement in community environmental initiatives still remains. Environmental appeals (i.e., emphasising the environmental benefits of engaging in a certain behaviour) have been found to be effective in promoting different types of pro-environmental behaviour (Asensio & Delmas, 2015; Bolderdijk, Steg, et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2015). Therefore, we hypothesise that environmental appeals can be effective in promoting involvement in community environmental initiatives as well.
Notably, being involved in a community environmental initiative enables people to meet and connect with others in their local community (Sloot et al., 2019; Bomberg & McEwen, 2012), which is an important human motive (cf. Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer, 1991). Research shows that while people rate communal motives as relatively less important than financial or environmental motives for their involvement in community environmental initiatives, communal motives are uniquely and positively associated with different indicators of initiative involvement such as interest to join, initiative membership, and identification with the initiative, next to environmental motives (Sloot et al., 2019). This suggests that appealing to communal motives (i.e., emphasising the benefits of being involved in and connected to one’s community) may promote involvement in community environmental initiatives. Although research has hinted at the idea that communal appeals may promote initiative involvement (Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Heiskanen, Johnson, Robinson, Vadovics, & Saastamoinen, 2010; Hoffman & High-Pippert, 2010), to our knowledge the effectiveness of such appeal to promote initiative involvement has not yet been studied.
Another question is whether combining environmental and communal appeals would be even more effective in promoting involvement in community environmental initiatives than each of these appeals on their own. There is
some evidence to suggest that combining appeals could backfire. For example, combined financial and environmental appeals are less effective in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour compared to environmental appeals alone, as an appeal that targets extrinsic motives (e.g., financial benefits) undermines the effects of an appeal that targets intrinsic (e.g., environmental) motives (Schwartz et al., 2015). Yet, the question remains if emphasising communal appeals next to environmental appeals will also be less effective than either of these appeals alone, or if a combination of both appeals might actually be more effective at promoting initiative involvement than a single appeal. We will address this question in the current research.
Current research
In four studies, we tested the hypothesis that emphasising the environmental or communal benefits of becoming involved in community environmental initiatives is more effective in promoting initiative involvement compared to emphasising the financial benefits or emphasising no benefits at all. Moreover, we explored whether combining environmental and communal appeals is more or less effective in promoting initiative involvement compared to appeals to a single motive. We assessed two different indicators of initiative involvement: interest to join (both self-reported and observed) and actual initiative membership. Additionally, we assessed different variables explaining why appeals may encourage involvement. First, we examined perceived persuasiveness of the different appeals, as appeals may be more likely to promote involvement when they are perceived to be more persuasive by recipients (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Dillard, Weber, & Vail, 2007; Nilsson, Hansla, Heiling, & Bergstad, 2016). Second, we examined whether appeals increased the perceived importance of the targeted motives as a reason to join the initiative. Third, we assessed whether appeals strengthened the belief that the benefits stressed in the appeals would be a likely consequence of joining the initiative.
To test the generalizability of the findings, we studied involvement in community initiatives with different pro-environmental goals. To draw causal
conclusions and establish ecological validity, we tested our predictions in three experiments and one field study, using both fictitious and real-life initiatives. Specifically, Study 1 experimentally compared the effects of financial, environmental, and communal appeals on message persuasiveness and interest to join a community environmental initiative. Study 2 experimentally explored the effects of combined environmental and communal appeals on message persuasiveness and interest to join a community environmental initiative, compared to appeals to only an environmental or communal motive. In addition, we tested whether the appeals increase the perceived importance of the targeted motive as a reason to join the initiative. Study 3 compared the effects of financial, environmental, and communal appeals, respectively, to those of a control condition in which no benefit of being involved in the initiative was emphasised. Specifically, we tested the effects of the appeals on message persuasiveness, interest to join, perceived importance of the targeted motives as a reason for joining, and beliefs in the financial, environmental, and communal benefits of joining the initiative. Finally, Study 4 examined the effects of actual flyers emphasising the financial, environmental, and/or communal benefits of joining real-life community energy initiatives. We tested whether the extent to which financial, environmental, and communal benefits were emphasised in these flyers was related to the proportion of community members who joined the community energy initiative.
5.2 Study 1 Method
Participants and design. In total, 249 students participated in this experiment (Mage = 21.93, SD = 2.96, 75% female). Five participants did not provide consent to use their data and were excluded from the analyses. To ensure the manipulation that was directed at students at a Dutch university was relevant for participants, we excluded participants who were not a student at this university (N = 12). The final 231 participants were randomly
assigned to a financial (n = 77), environmental (n = 82), or communal (n = 72) appeal condition.
Procedure and independent variable. Participants were approached at various university locations and asked to fill in a paper questionnaire that had to do with a new student initiative on food waste.1 The first page of the questionnaire had a short text explaining that the participants’ fellow students had recently established the Movement Against Food Waste initiative. The second page contained the experimental manipulation: a flyer emphasising either the financial, environmental, or communal benefits of joining the initiative (see Appendix A). The financial appeal condition emphasised that the prevention of food waste is ‘good for your wallet’ and that by joining the initiative, students could save money. The environmental appeal condition emphasised that the prevention of food waste is ‘good for the environment’ and that students could protect the environment by joining. The communal appeal condition emphasised that the prevention of food waste ‘connects people’, and that students could meet fellow students by joining the initiative. Measures. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘completely disagree’ to 7 ‘completely agree’, unless otherwise specified (see
Appendix B for an overview of all items across all studies).
Message persuasiveness. Participants first indicated how persuasive they found the message, by completing three items: ‘I find the information on the flyer convincing’, ‘The message of the flyer is credible’, ‘I find the information on the flyer inspiring’ (α = .75; M = 3.67, SD = 1.44).
Interest to join. Next, five items assessed interest to join the student initiative: ‘I would like to attend a meeting to get more information on the Movement Against Food Waste’, ‘I would like to become a member of the Movement Against Food Waste’, ‘I intend to take part in the Movement Against Food Waste in the future’, ‘I would like to receive more information about the Movement Against Food Waste’, ‘I am interested in the Movement Against Food Waste’ (α = .93; M = 3.48, SD = 1.34).
1 The questionnaire assessed additional motivational variables, such as different self-identities and level of identification with the initiative.
Request for more information. As a second indicator of interest to join, upon collecting the completed questionnaire, the experimenter told participants that the initiative was about to be launched and asked whether participants would like to provide their email addresses so they could be contacted with further information; 63% of participants chose to do so.
Manipulation check. At the end of the questionnaire, participants indicated which reason was emphasised in the appeal by indicating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each of the following statements: ‘The flyer asks you to take part in the Movement Against Food Waste in order to… protect the environment/save money/be involved with [name of university] students’.
Results and discussion
Manipulation check. Table 5.1 shows that most people in the financial condition indicated the flyer emphasised saving money. Nearly all participants in the environmental condition indicated the flyer emphasised environmental benefits, and most people in the communal condition indicated the flyer emphasised communal benefits, though nearly half of the participants also indicated the flyer emphasised environmental benefits. Thus, while participants predominantly indicated they had seen the appeal that they actually received, it might be difficult to clearly isolate the effects of the communal appeals, as many believed environmental benefits were emphasised here as well (the same seemed to apply to financial appeals and perceived environmental reasons, albeit to a lesser extent).
Perceived persuasiveness of appeals and effects on initiative involvement. A univariate ANOVA indicated a significant effect of appeal condition on message persuasiveness, F(2, 228) = 6.74, p = .001, partial η² = .056 (see Appendix C for descriptive and inferential statistics across all
studies). As expected, post-hoc tests showed that the financial appeal was perceived to be less persuasive compared to the environmental appeal (p < .001) or the communal appeal (p = .024), while the perceived persuasiveness
Table 5.1. Percentage of participants who indicated that financial, environmental and
communal benefits were emphasised per experimental condition
Condition was emphasisedFinancial reason Environmental reas-on was emphasised Communal reason was emphasised
Financial appeal 88% 27% 1%
Environmental appeal 1% 99% 2%
Communal appeal 7% 46% 76%
of environmental and communal appeals did not differ (p = .206).2 However, contrary to our hypothesis, we found no significant effect of appeal condition on interest to join the initiative, F(2, 228) = 0.26, p =.772, partial η² = .002, or request for more information on the initiative, χ(2) = 0.62, p = .733. Hence, Study 1 did not support the hypothesis that environmental and communal appeals are more effective than financial appeals in promoting initiative involvement, although these appeals were seen as more persuasive.
2 When only those participants were included in the analysis who provided the strictly correct answer to the manipulation check questions (i.e., indicating the flyer emphasised the benefit actually advertised in the respective condition and not any other benefits that weren’t actually emphasised by the flyer), we found an overall similar pattern of results. However, message persuasiveness in the communal condition (M = 3.21, SD = 1.04) was rated less strong and no longer significantly differed from the financial condition (M = 3.01, SD = 0.94; p = .358), whereas the message persuasiveness rating in the environmental condition (M = 3.66, SD = 1.03) maintained its significant difference compared to the financial condition (p < .001). However, the number of participants particularly in the communal condition dropped substantially from 72 to 36 participants in this condition) and these results should thus be viewed with caution.
Descriptive statistics per experimental condition
Financial Environmental Communal
M SD M SD M SD
Message persuasiveness 3.31a 1.02 3.95b 1.14 3.72b 1.19
Interest to join 3.41 1.33 3.46 1.28 3.57 1.42
Information request 34% 40% 37%
Table 5.2. Means and standard deviations for Study 1 (full sample)
Note. Different superscripts indicate significant (post-hoc test) differences across
expe-rimental conditions.
5.3 Study 2
Study 2 aimed to explore whether appeals targeting both environmental and communal motives would be more, or less, effective in promoting initiative involvement than each of these appeals on their own. Moreover, we checked whether the appeals increased the importance of the targeted motive(s) as a reason to join the initiative. In theory, pointing people to certain benefits of a behaviour could make people more focused on these benefits in their decision to engage in the behaviour (cf. Delmas et al., 2013). It might be that we did not find an effect of appeal condition on interest to join in Study 1 because the appeals did not increase the perceived importance of the targeted motive as a reason for joining the initiative. Study 2 focused on a different type of student-led environmental initiative, one that promoted vegetarian cooking and eating among students.
Method
Participants and design. In total, 250 undergraduate students participated in this experiment in exchange for course credits (Mage = 20.13, SD = 1.92, 69% female). Participants were randomly assigned to an environmental (N = 82), communal (N = 84), or combined appeal condition (N = 84).
Procedure and independent variable. Participants completed a computer-based questionnaire in individual cubicles. A short text introduced the fictitious student initiative, The Good Food Initiative.3
1
Specifically, it was indicated that university students were setting up an initiative aimed at promoting vegetarian cooking and eating and would soon spread flyers to advertise the new initiative. Participants were then presented with a double-sided flyer (displayed side by side on screen) aimed at encouraging people to join 3 Prior pilot testing (N = 29) had indicated that this name evoked associations with environmental (M = 4.14, SD = 1.36) and communal goals (M = 4.52, SD = 1.38) to a similar extent (measured on a 7-point Likert scale), as we aimed to avoid that the initiative name would prime a particular environmental or communal goal. Nevertheless, the rather high mean ratings above the scale midpoint suggest that participants could perceive the initiative to emphasise both environmental and communal reasons at the same time, even without seeing a particular appeal on these reasons.
the initiative (see Appendix A). Flyers in all conditions displayed the initiative name and a call to ‘sign up for our initiative’. Next, the environmental appeal condition indicated that by joining one could ‘help protect the environment and save the planet’, and that ‘the Good Food Student Initiative gives you the opportunity to contribute to a better environment’. The communal appeal condition indicated that by joining one could ‘get involved with the student community and connect to other students’, and that ‘the Good Food Student Initiative gives you the opportunity to meet and connect with other students’. The combined appeal condition included both types of benefits. In order to ensure that participants would process the information and engage with the flyer, they were asked to write down in a text box what they could achieve by signing up with the student initiative, while the flyer was still presented on screen.
Measures. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘completely disagree’ to 7 ‘completely agree’ unless otherwise specified. We computed a mean score for each scale.
Message persuasiveness. Participants first indicated to what extent they found the message to be persuasive (see Study 1). We added one extra item: ‘I find the flyer appealing’ (α = .87; M = 4.69, SD = 1.18; see Appendix B for an overview of all items across studies).
Interest to join. We next assessed how interested participants were in joining the student initiative with six items. Barring slight variations in wording, items were equivalent to those in Study 1 (α = .95; M = 4.34, SD = 1.48).
Choice to take a flyer. The last page of the questionnaire indicated that the student initiative would soon be launched. As another indicator of interest in the initiative, participants were asked to take a flyer if they would like more information on the initiative. These flyers were attached to the inside of their cubicle door and could be picked up by participants upon leaving the lab. The experimenter recorded that 53% did so.
Importance of reasons for joining. After measuring the indicators of initiative involvement, we assessed to what extent participants would see environmental and communal reasons as important in their decisions to
consider joining the initiative on a scale from 1 ‘Not at all’ to 7 ‘Very much’ (adapted from Sloot et al., 2019). Two items assessed the importance of environmental reasons for joining (‘Protecting the environment’, ‘Saving the planet’; ρSB = .95; M = 5.11, SD = 1.52), and two items assessed the importance of communal reasons (‘Connecting with other students’, ‘Being involved with the student community’; ρSB = .87; M = 5.05, SD = 1.36).
Manipulation check. At the end of the questionnaire, participants indicated to what extent the flyer indicated that The Good Food Student Initiative enables one to contribute to a better environment and to connect with other students, respectively. To gain more insight into the effectiveness of the manipulation, we used a continuous instead of a dichotomous answer scale in this study, ranging from 1 ‘Not at all’ to 7 ‘Very much’.
Results and discussion
Manipulation check. A mixed ANOVA using the manipulation checks as the within-subjects factor and appeal condition as the between-subjects factor indicated a significant interaction effect between the manipulation check and appeal condition, F(1, 247) = 127.93, p < .001. As expected, participants in the environmental appeal condition were more likely to indicate that the flyer emphasised environmental benefits (compared to communal benefits; p < .001). Participants in the communal appeal condition were more likely to indicate that the flyer emphasised communal benefits (compared to environmental benefits; p < .001). Participants in the combined appeal condition rated both statements similarly high (p > .05), indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful overall (Table 5.3). However, the relatively high rating of emphasised communal benefits in the environmental appeal condition may indicate similar concerns of isolating specific appeals as in the previous study, which we will reflect on further below.
Perceived persuasiveness of appeals and effects on initiative involvement. Appeal condition had no significant effect on message persuasiveness, F(2, 247) = 0.21, p = .809, partial η² = .002, interest to join
Table 5.3. Mean rating of environmental and communal reasons according to the flyer
(manipulation check)
Environmental reason was emphasised
Communal reason was emp-hasised
Condition M SD M SD
Environmental 6.38 0.81 4.26 1.63
Communal 3.87 2.02 6.27 0.97
Combined 6.14 1.22 6.25 1.05
the initiative, F(2, 247) = 1.31, p = .272, partial η² = .010, or choice to take a flyer, χ(2) = 2.45, p = .293 (see Table 5.4). These results do not provide evidence that combining environmental and communal appeals is either more or less effective compared to single appeals.
Yet, two separate univariate ANOVA showed that appeal condition had a significant effect on the importance of both environmental, F(2, 247) = 6.25, p = .002, partial η² = .048, and communal reasons for joining the initiative, F(2, 247) = 3.61, p = .028, partial η² = .028. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that environmental reasons to join the initiative were evaluated as more important in the environmental (p = .001) and combined appeal condition (p = .050) compared to the communal appeal condition. Similarly, communal reasons to join the initiative were evaluated as more important in the communal (p = .011) and combined appeal condition (p = .050) compared to the environmental appeal condition. Interestingly, environmental and communal reasons were not rated as more or less important when a combined appeal was used compared to when a single appeal was used (both ps > .050). In other words, using a combined appeal increased the importance of both environmental and communal reasons for joining the community environmental initiative, while using single appeals increased the importance only of the reason to join corresponding with the targeted motive. This implies that the non-significant effects of appeals on message persuasiveness, interest to join, and taking a flyer were not a consequence of the appeals’ ineffectiveness to raise the respective motive’s importance for people’s decision to join the initiative.
Table 5.4. Means and standard deviations for Study 2
Note. Different superscripts indicate significant (post-hoc test) differences across
expe-rimental conditions.
Descriptive statistics per experimental condition
Environmental Communal Combined env/com M SD M SD M SD Message persuasiveness 4.47 1.31 4.75 1.03 4.64 1.21 Interest to join 4.52 1.49 4.15 1.45 4.37 1.50
Choice to take flyer 52% 48% 60%
Importance of reasons for joining
Environmental 5.51a 1.32 4.69b 1.60 5.14ab 1.53
Communal 4.73a 1.35 5.27b 1.43 5.14ab 1.24
5.4 Study 3
As we did not find significant differences in the effects of different appeals on initiative involvement in Studies 1 and 2, an important question is whether appeals are effective at all in promoting initiative involvement compared to not emphasising any benefit of being involved in community environmental initiatives. Therefore, Study 3 included a control condition that did not provide any information on the benefits of joining the initiative, along with financial, environmental, and communal appeal conditions. Moreover, it could be that the appeals in Studies 1 and 2 had no effect on initiative involvement because the promoted initiatives pursued goals that did not necessarily require joining an initiative (i.e., people can avoid food waste and eat vegetarian individually). Thus, it is possible that while students were willing to support the goals of the promoted initiative, they could have decided to engage in the promoted behaviour individually instead of by joining the initiative. Furthermore, it may be that appeals are not effective because they do not change participants’ belief that the initiative can reach the benefits stressed in the appeal. To address this potential issue, we presented a fictitious student initiative with a promoted behaviour that required student involvement (i.e. a behaviour students could
not individually engage in): the Clothes Swap Initiative, which promoted the reuse of clothing items. As in Studies 1 and 2, we assessed message persuasiveness, interest to join, and perceived importance of different reasons for joining. Additionally, we assessed whether people’s beliefs about the benefits of joining increased in line with the benefits emphasised in the appeals.
Method
Participants and design. In total, 139 students at a Dutch university took part in this experiment (68% female, Mage = 21.33, SD = 2.48). Fifteen participants had missing data on the dependent variables and were excluded from data analyses (final N = 124). The majority of participants (58%) were recruited via the psychology student participant pool and the remaining students were recruited in open student spaces. All participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: a control condition (n = 33), financial (n = 30), environmental (n = 32), or communal appeal (n = 29) condition.
Procedure and independent variable. Participants completed an online questionnaire that presented a short text about the new Clothes Swap Initiative and its aim. Participants were asked to give their feedback on a flyer that promoted the initiative. Participants were then shown a flyer that included the experimental manipulation (see Appendix A). The flyers of all conditions had the initiative name and some basic, identical contact information. Next to this, the financial appeal condition stated that ‘Clothes swapping saves money’ and that joining the initiative would enable students ‘to get clothes for free’. The environmental appeal condition stated that ‘Clothes swapping benefits the environment’ and that joining would enable students to ‘save energy and water’. The communal appeal condition stated that ‘Clothes swapping brings students together’ and that joining would enable students to ‘connect with fellow students’. In the control condition, no benefits were stated, and the flyer simply asked people to ‘Join the initiative and get swapping’.
Measures. All items were randomised and measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘completely disagree’ to 7 ‘completely agree’ unless otherwise specified. Items measuring message persuasiveness and interest to join were identical to those in Study 2, barring minor variations in wording (see Appendix B for a comparative overview of all items).
Message persuasiveness. Participants indicated to what extent they found the message to be persuasive, using the same items as in Study 2 (α = .86; M = 3.73, SD = 1.23).
Interest to join. Interest to join the initiative was measured with the same items as in Study 2, but this time we omitted the sixth item, leaving a five-item scale (α = .95; M = 3.87, SD = 1.54).
Importance of reasons for joining. Three two-item scales were used to measure the importance of financial reasons (‘Saving money’, ‘Getting clothes for free’; ρSB = .88; M = 4.66, SD = 1.41), environmental reasons (‘Benefiting the environment’, ‘Reducing energy use and waste and saving water’; ρSB = .91; M = 5.11, SD = 1.47), and communal reasons (‘Bringing students together’, ‘Connecting with fellow students’; ρSB = .98; M = 4.20, SD = 1.58).
Perceived benefits of joining. We assessed the perceived financial, environmental, or communal benefits of joining, respectively, on a scale from 1 ‘Not at all’ to 7 ‘Very much’. Two items were used for each scale, reflecting financial benefits (‘To what extent do you think joining the initiative would… save you money’; ‘…get you clothes for free’; ρSB = .76; M = 5.20, SD = 1.23), environmental benefits (‘…benefit the environment’; ‘…reduce energy use and waste and save water’; ρSB = .85; M = 5.20, SD = 1.40), and communal benefits of joining (‘…bring students together’; ‘…connect you with fellow students’; ρSB = .89; M = 4.74, SD = 1.26).
Manipulation check. Three single items assessed participants’ agreement with the following statements: ‘According to the flyer, joining the Clothes Swap Initiative will… save me money; benefit the environment; bring students together’.
Results and discussion
Manipulation check. A mixed ANOVA using the financial, environmental, and communal manipulation checks as the within-subjects factor and appeal condition as the between-subjects factor indicated a significant interaction effect between the manipulation checks and appeal condition, F(6, 234) = 35.63, p < .001. As expected, participants’ ratings for each manipulation check were the highest in the corresponding condition (e.g., participants in the financial appeal condition indicated that financial benefits were particularly emphasised; see Table 5.5). Yet, the mean ratings tended to be similar and consistently around or above the mid-point of the scale across conditions, which may indicate that participants thought the flyers also somewhat appealed to other motives than the one we targeted, and it might thus not be possible to cleanly isolate these motives.
Manipulation check statement
Condition Message is financial environmentalMessage is Message is communal
M SD M SD M SD
Control 4.13 1.63 4.06 1.81 4.29 1.55
Financial appeal 5.63 0.96 3.87 1.70 4.30 1.51
Environmental appeal 3.97 1.63 5.48 1.39 4.19 1.42
Communal appeal 3.66 1.40 3.66 1.70 6.31 0.93
Table 5.5. Mean agreement with the statement that the flyer message contained a financial,
environmental, or communal appeal across experimental conditions
Perceived persuasiveness of appeals and effects on initiative involvement. Again, results showed no significant differences in message persuasiveness nor interest to join between the different appeal conditions (all ps > .752; Table 5.6). Furthermore, three separate ANOVA showed no significant effects of the different appeals on the perceived importance of financial, environmental, and communal reasons to join the initiative (all ps > .245; Table 5.6). These results on the appeals’ effects on the importance of
motives for joining are contrary to those found in Study 2 and could explain why appeals failed to motivate initiative involvement. Next, three separate ANOVA showed no effects of appeal condition on any of the three beliefs about the benefits of joining (all ps > .087; Table 5.6).
Similar to Study 1, Study 3 again did not support our hypothesis that environmental and communal appeals would be more effective than financial appeals in promoting initiative involvement. In fact, none of the appeals affected the perceived persuasiveness of the appeals or encouraged initiative involvement, as we found no differences between the appeal conditions and the control group. Additionally, the appeals did not affect the perceived importance of the targeted motive or the perception that joining would have the benefits stressed by the appeal. These findings may be an explanation for why we did not find that any of the appeals promoted interest to join, as none of the appeals even seemed to be effective in increasing either the belief that joining would have the targeted benefits or to increase the importance of these reasons for joining.
5.5 Study 4
Lastly, we investigated if the extent to which financial, environmental, and communal benefits are emphasised in promotional flyer messages is related to actual membership in community energy initiatives in various neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. As this study did not manipulate different appeals but relied on ratings of the emphasis on the financial, environmental, and communal benefits of joining the initiative in pre-existing flyer messages, we tested our main hypothesis in a different way. Specifically, we expected that the more strongly flyers emphasised environmental and communal benefits to promote initiative involvement, the higher the ratio of members (relative to the number of potential households) in the local communities would be. We did not expect such a relationship for the emphasis on the financial benefits and the ratio of initiative members.
Descriptiv e sta tistics p er e xp erimen tal c ondition Inf er en tial sta tistics Fina nc ial En vironment al Comm unal Control ANO VA M SD M SD M SD M SD F(3, 120) p par tial η² M essage persuasiv eness 3.63 1.03 3.88 1.35 3.82 1.24 3.61 1.29 0.35 .787 .009 In ter est t o join 3.78 1.27 3.71 1.75 4.12 1.54 3.87 1.63 0.40 .751 .010 Imp or tanc e of r easons for joining F(3, 118) Financial 4.47 1.37 4.47 1.59 4.81 1.42 4.90 1.26 0.79 .500 .020 En vir onmen tal 5.15 1.15 4.72 1.62 5.48 1.54 5.11 1.47 1.41 .245 .035 Communal 4.17 1.66 4.20 1.46 3.95 1.80 4.47 1.41 0.54 .654 .014 Per ceiv ed b enefits of joining F(3, 119) Financial 4.95 1.21 4.94 1.51 5.50 0.95 5.41 1.11 1.81 .150 .044 En vir onmen tal 5.25 1.03 4.69 1.70 5.57 1.42 5.31 1.27 4.28 .087 .053 Communal 4.67 0.97 4.84 1.50 4.43 1.35 4.97 0.97 1.65 .381 .025 Table 5.6. Means , standar d deviations , and infer ential statistic s for Study 3 Not e. Diff er en t superscr ipts indica te sig nifican t (post -hoc t est) diff er enc es acr oss e xper imen tal c onditions .
Method
Procedure and sample. We obtained 167 flyers used by Buurkracht, which functions as an umbrella organisation that supports local energy initiatives in the Netherlands by offering, among other things, energy-saving advice to initiative members. The flyers had previously been used by the volunteers in 167 local Buurkracht initiatives to promote people’s involvement in these initiatives. The flyers were one to four pages long and included images and text aimed at promoting people’s membership in a local community energy initiative and attendance of a first initiative meeting. Information on the various benefits of being involved in a Buurkracht initiative was also typically included.4
1
Measures.
Perceived benefits emphasised in the appeals. Two research assistants in-dividually rated the extent to which each appeal emphasised the financial, environmental, and communal benefits of joining the initiative, respective-ly. Importantly, both research assistants made all ratings blind to the mem-bership data for the initiatives. We conceptualised financial benefits as saving money, for example saving money on heating, by investing in sustainable energy, increasing the value of the home, and subsidies. Environmental be-nefits were conceptualised as environmental protection, for example reducing CO2 emissions and being green. Communal benefits were conceptualised as a sense of community, for example doing activities together with other commu-nity members, meeting other commucommu-nity members, and learning from neigh-bours. For each flyer, each benefit was rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (‘No emphasis at all’) to 5 (‘Very strong emphasis’). The Spearman-Brown coefficient revealed that the interrater reliability between the two research as-sistants was sufficient for each of the three benefits (financial benefits: ρ = .78; 4 Although the promotional materials ranged in appearance from one- or two-sided flyers to four-page booklet-type materials, we consistently use the term flyer in this study.
environmental benefits: ρ = .76; communal benefits: ρ = .74), so we computed a mean score for both ratings and for each appeal.
Membership ratio. We computed the ratio of households in a given local community who were members of the Buurkracht community energy initiatives by dividing the number of households that had signed up as initiative members by the total number of households in the local community that could potentially join the initiative (i.e., all the households that were targeted with the promotional flyers). As inspection of this variable revealed a severely right-skewed distribution, we removed neighbourhoods with more than 2,549 households. We considered these neighbourhoods as outliers because they were more than three times the interquartile range and greatly exceeded the number of households in the local area commonly targeted by Buurkracht. Across all initiatives, the membership ratio ranged from 0% to 40%, with a mean membership ratio of 10% (SD = 6%).
Results and discussion
On average, financial benefits were rated as most emphasised (M = 3.43, SD = 0.86), followed by communal (M = 2.92, SD = 0.86) and then environmental benefits (M = 2.07, SD = 0.74). A repeated-measures ANOVA with the three benefits as the within-subjects factor revealed that these differences were significant, F(2, 294) = 128.52, p < .001, with post-hoc tests indicating significant differences between all three benefits (all ps < .001). Bivariate correlations showed that the more a flyer emphasised environmental benefits, the more it tended to emphasise communal benefits as well, while these emphases did not correlate with a greater emphasis of financial benefits in the flyers. Counter to our hypothesis, the correlation table did not show any significant relationship between the extent to which financial, environmental, or communal benefits were emphasised and membership ratio (Table 5.7).
Table 5.7. Bivariate correlations for Study 4
Environmental benefits Communal benefits Membership ratio
Financial benefits .019 .098 .131
Environmental benefits .504** -.018
Communal benefits .080
Membership ratio
Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
5.6 General Discussion
The results of four studies provided no support for our hypothesis that environmental and communal appeals would promote involvement in different community environmental initiatives more than financial appeals or a control condition in which no benefits were emphasised. These results were consistent across the different indicators of initiative involvement, specifically interest to join, requesting more information, and actual initiative membership. Notably, we mostly also found no evidence that appeals affected the potential process variables through which appeals likely affect initiative involvement, including message persuasiveness, importance of reasons for joining, and beliefs about the benefits of joining. Whereas the results of Study 1 suggested that environmental and communal appeals may be perceived as more persuasive relative to financial appeals, we did not find differences in the persuasiveness of different appeals in Studies 2 and 3. Hence, the single significant result may have been found due to chance, also given the weaker and non-significant difference in perceived persuasiveness between communal and financial appeals when we excluded participants who failed the manipulation check. Moreover, whereas Study 2 suggested that the reasons to join emphasised in the appeals were perceived to be more important than those not emphasised, we did not replicate this effect in Study 3. Similarly, Study 3 did not provide evidence that people were more likely to perceive the benefits of joining a community environmental initiative emphasised in the appeal. Overall, this suggests that appeals already fail to substantially affect
potential process variables underlying their effects on initiative involvement, which might explain the consistent lack of effect on initiative involvement.
Furthermore, Study 2 did not provide any evidence that a combination of environmental and communal appeals is more or less effective in promoting initiative involvement compared to only using single environmental or communal appeals.
Theoretical implications
Our research is the first to examine the effects of financial, environmental, and communal appeals on promoting initiative involvement in both an experimental and a real-world setting. Our study extends previous research comparing the effectiveness of financial and environmental appeals on other private pro-environmental behaviours (Bolderdijk, Steg, et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2015; Van den Broek, Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2017) in two ways: we additionally examined the effectiveness of communal appeals and tested the effects on people’s involvement in community environmental initiatives, a different type of pro-environmental behaviour.
Our finding that financial appeals seemed ineffective in promoting initiative involvement relative to a control group corroborates research suggesting that financial appeals may not promote sustainable behaviour (Delmas et al., 2013; Dietz, 2015a; Schultz, 2014). However, in contrast to earlier work (Bolderdijk, Steg, et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2015), we also found that environmental appeals did not promote initiative involvement. Also opposed to earlier work (Schwartz et al., 2015), our results indicated no difference in the effectiveness of combined appeals on initiative involvement compared to single environmental or communal appeals, requiring more research to investigate if and under what conditions a combination of appeals can be effective in promoting initiative involvement. One reason that, in our studies, none of the appeals promoted initiative involvement could have been that the appeals in Studies 1 and 2 emphasised benefits that could also be achieved without necessarily needing to join the promoted initiative. For example, the
environmental appeal in Study 1 stated that (a) avoiding food waste is good for the environment and (b) people could protect the environment by joining the initiative. Recipients of the appeal may simply have chosen to engage in the targeted behaviour change (e.g., avoiding food waste) individually, without joining the initiative. Yet, in Study 3 we attempted to overcome this potential weakness by using a fictitious initiative that targeted a behaviour (i.e., clothes swapping) that could not be done individually. Results showed that, in this case, still neither environmental nor communal appeals promoted initiative involvement, which suggests that the lack of effects of the appeals may not (solely) be due to the possibility that people choose to engage in the behaviour individually.
Second, in all studies, participants tended to perceive other benefits than the ones explicitly stressed in the appeals. Specifically, in Study 1, almost half of the people who were presented with a communal appeal also perceived environmental benefits as emphasised. Similarly, in Studies 2 and 3, people generally rated all benefits as being emphasised (scores were around or slightly above the scale mid-point) even if they were not emphasised. Thus, we may not have been successful at targeting one benefit only in the appeals.
Third, it is possible that appeals communicated via flyer messages are not sufficient to promote initiative involvement, while other approaches may be more effective (as also indicated in the generally low perceived persuasiveness of the flyer messages). For example, it might be more effective to emphasise the environmental and communal benefits of joining an initiative not through flyer messages but actual interpersonal contact (cf. Abrahamse & Steg, 2013). Initial involvement could be created via a door-to-door approach, in which familiar neighbours approach one another in order to motivate others to become involved. This initial involvement could then be sustained through face-to-face community meetings, in which community members can meet, talk, and experience the benefit of being involved in one’s community in a more direct way (cf. Hoffman & High-Pippert, 2010). If the means of communication (i.e., how certain motives are emphasised) is more relevant in promoting initiative involvement than the content of the message (i.e.,
what motives are emphasised), a more personal approach might boost the effectiveness of any relevant motive underlying initiative involvement. However, we can further speculate that communicating communal motives in a personal way might particularly leverage the effectiveness of this approach, as the content of the appeal (i.e., emphasising the benefit of connecting to other community members) is aligned with how this benefit is communicated (i.e., through direct contact to other community members). Future research is needed to test if communal appeals in particular can promote involvement when communicated in a more personal manner than through single flyer messages.
Fourth, it may be that individuals already possess ideas about the benefits of becoming involved in a community environmental initiative and these pre-existing motivations may thus not be very malleable when targeted by flyer appeals. This is consistent with research indicating that information strategies, as reflected by appeals, are generally not very effective in changing pro-environmental behaviours (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Steg et al., 2015). Yet, appeals might be more effective in promoting initiative involvement the more they align with individuals’ personal motivations (Bolderdijk, Gorsira, Keizer, & Steg, 2013). This is because people tend to be more attentive to and persuaded by information that is important to them given their personal values (e.g., Corner, Markowitz, & Pidgeon, 2014). Future research could examine if appeals may be particularly effective in promoting initiative involvement among those who care more about the benefits that are emphasised.
Our findings have important practical implications, as they suggest that appeals may not be successful in promoting initiative involvement. Though often employed by initiative takers as a means to motivate community members to join a new initiative, emphasising different benefits of joining an initiative through flyer messages seems to be ineffective in actually promoting such involvement. Instead, different approaches might be required and future research is crucial in order to examine the effectiveness of alternative approaches to promote initiative involvement.
Appendix
Appendix A. Flyer Message Manipulations Used in Studies 1-3 Study 1
An appeal is not enough
An appeal is not enough
Communal appeal Environmental appeal
An appeal is not enough
Environmental appeal
Communal appeal
Environmental appeal
An appeal is not enough
Financial appeal
Environmental appeal
Financial appeal Communal appeal
Control condition (no appeal)
Appendix B. Comparative Overview of Measures Across Studies Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Indep enden t v ariables Financial , en vir onmen tal , communal fly er appeal En vir onmen tal , c om -munal , c ombined fly er appeal Financial , en vir onmen tal , communal fly er appeal plus c on
trol (no appeal)
condition -M easur es Ra ted app eal emp -hasis To wha t e xt en t ar e the follo wing aspec ts emp
-hasised in the fly
er? (1 = not emphasised at all , 7 = ver y str ongly emphasised) Fina nc ial - S aving money (f or example sa ving money for hea ting , in vestmen ts in sustainable ener gy , incr easing the v alue of the home , subsidies) En vironment al - En vir onmen tal pr ot ec ti-on (f or e xample r educing CO2 emissions , being gr een, pr ot ec ting the en vir onmen t) Comm unal - S ense of c ommunit y (for e xample doing ac ti-vities t
ogether with other
communit y members , meeting other c ommu -nit y members , lear ning from neighbours) M emb ership r atio number of initia tiv e
members / number of households in the neigh
-bour
hood
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 In ter est t o join W ha t do y ou think about the fly er? Please answ er the follo wing questions on a scale fr om 1 t o 7 Please answ er the follo wing questions on a scale fr om 1 t o 7 (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee ) (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee ) (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee ) - I w ould like t o r ec eiv e mor e inf or ma tion about the M ov emen t A gainst Food W ast e - I w ould like t o r ec eiv e mor e inf or ma tion about the G ood F ood S tuden t initia tiv e - I w ould like t o r ec eiv e mor e inf or ma tion
about the Clothes S
w ap Initia tiv e - I w ould like t o bec o-me a o-member of the Mov emen t A gainst F ood W ast e - I am in ter est ed in joining The G ood F ood Studen t I nitia tiv e - I am in ter est ed in joi
-ning the Clothes S
w ap Initia tiv e - I am in ter est ed in the M ov emen t A gainst F ood W ast e - I am in ter est ed in The G ood F ood S tuden t Initia tiv e - I am in ter est ed in the Clothes S w ap I nitia tiv e - I w ould like t o a tt end a meeting t o get mor e inf or ma tion on the M ov emen t A gainst F ood W ast e - I am in ter est ed in att ending a meeting of The G ood F ood S tuden t Initia tiv e - I am in ter est ed in
joining a meeting of the Clothes S
w ap I nitia ti-ve and tr y sw apping clothes m yself - I am in ter est ed in chec
-king out the w
ebsit e or social media ac coun ts of The G ood F ood S tuden t initia tiv e - I plan t
o check out the
w ebsit e or social media ac coun ts of the Clothes Sw ap I nitia tiv e - I in tend t o take par t in the M ov emen t A gainst Food W ast e in the futur e - I in tend t o join The G ood F ood S tuden t Initia tiv e Beha viour al D V Choic e t o pr ovide email addr ess ( yes/no ) Choic e t o take a fly er (y es/no )
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Persuasiv eness W ha t do y ou think about the fly er? Please answ er the follo wing questions on a scale fr om 1 t o 7 Please answ er the follo wing questions on a scale fr om 1 t o 7 (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee ) (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee ) (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee )
- I find the inf
or ma tion on the fly er c on vincing
- I find the message of the fly
er c
on
vincing
- I find the inf
or ma tion on the fly er c on vincing - T he message of the fly er is cr edible - T he message of the fly er is cr edible - T he inf or ma tion on the fly er is cr edible
- I find the message on the fly
er inspir
ing
- I find the fly
er inspir
ing
- I find the fly
er inspir ing
- I find the fly
er appea
-ling
- I find the inf
or ma tion on the fly er appealing Belief s To wha t e xt en t do y ou
think the initia
tiv e w ould … (1 = not at all , 7 = ver y m uch ) Fina nc ial …sa ve y ou money …get y ou clothes f or fr ee En vironment al …benefit the en vir on -men t …r educ e ener gy use and w ast e and sa ve wat er Comm unal …br ing studen ts together
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 …c onnec t y ou with fello w studen ts Imp or tanc e To wha t e xt en t ar e the follo wing r easons impor -tan t t o y ou in c onside -ring t o join The G ood Food S tuden t I nitia tiv e? To wha t e xt en t ar e the f ollo wing r easons for y our decision t o join The Clothes S w ap Initia tiv e? (1 = complet ely disagr ee , 7 = complet ely agr ee) (1 = not at all , 7 = ver y m uch) Fina nc ial - S aving money - G etting clothes f or fr ee En vironment al - S
aving the planet
- B enefiting the en vir on -men t - P rot ec ting the en vir on -men t - R educing ener gy use and w ast e and sa ving wat er Comm unal - B eing in volv ed with the studen t c ommunit y - Br ing ing studen ts together - C onnec
ting with other
studen ts - C onnec ting with fello w studen ts
Appendix C: Comparative Overview of Statistics Studies 1-3 Descriptiv e sta tistics p er e xp erimen tal c ondition Inf er en tial sta tistics Fina nc ial En viron -ment al Comm unal Combine d en v/c om Control ANO VA Study 1 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F df p In ter est t o join 3.41 1.33 3.46 1.28 3.57 1.42 0.26 2, 228 .772 M essage persuasiv eness 3.31 a 1.02 3.95 b 1.14 3.72 b 1.19 6.74 2, 228 .001 Request f or mor e inf or ma tion 34% 40% 37% χ = 0.62 2 < .733 Study 2 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F df p In ter est t o join 4.52 1.49 4.15 1.45 4.37 1.50 1.31 2, 247 .272 Choic e t o take fly er 52% 48% 60% χ = 2.45 2 .293 M essage persuasiv eness 4.47 1.31 4.75 1.03 4.64 1.21 0.21 2, 247 .809 M otiv e impor tanc e: en vir on -men tal 5.51 a 1.32 4.69 b 1.60 5.14 ab 1.53 6.25 2, 247 .002 M otiv e impor tanc e: c ommunal 4.73 a 1.35 5.27 b 1.43 5.14 ab 1.24 3.61 2, 247 .028 Study 3 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F df p In ter est t o join 3.78 1.27 3.71 1.75 4.12 1.54 3.87 1.63 0.40 3, 120 .751 M essage persuasiv eness 3.63 1.03 3.88 1.35 3.82 1.24 3.61 1.29 0.35 3, 120 .787 Belief : financial 4.95 1.21 4.94 1.51 5.50 0.95 5.41 1.11 1.81 3, 119 .150 Belief : en vir onmen tal 5.25 1.03 4.69 1.70 5.57 1.42 5.31 1.27 4.28 3, 119 .087 Belief : c ommunal 4.67 0.97 4.84 1.50 4.43 1.35 4.97 0.97 1.65 3, 119 .381 M otiv e impor tanc e: financial 4.47 1.37 4.47 1.59 4.81 1.42 4.90 1.26 0.79 3, 118 .500 M otiv e impor tanc e: en vir on -men tal 5.15 1.15 4.72 1.62 5.48 1.54 5.11 1.47 1.41 3, 118 .245 M otiv e impor tanc e: c ommunal 4.17 1.66 4.20 1.46 3.95 1.80 4.47 1.41 0.54 3, 118 .654 Table 5.C1. Means , standar d deviations , and infer ential statistic s for Studies 1-3 Not e. Diff er en t superscr ipts indica te sig nifican t (post -hoc t est) diff er enc es acr oss e xper imen tal c onditions .
