Activists escaping backlash: Inconsistencies as a remedy for reducing observer self-threat and increasing behaviour attainability Master Thesis MSc. Marketing, Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Activists escaping backlash: Inconsistencies as a remedy for reducing observer self-threat and increasing behaviour attainability

Master Thesis

MSc. Marketing, Marketing Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Author

Natalia Tymchyshyn 14th January 2019 University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business First Supervisor

Table of Content

Abstract 2

Introduction 3

Theoretical Framework 5

Moral do-gooder derogation 5

Self-threat 6

Attainability 7 Conceptual model 8

Hypotheses 8

The Present Research 8

Research Methodology 9

Participants and Design 9

Procedure 9 Measures 10 Manipulation check 12 Results 12 Main effect 12 Mediator Self-threat 13 Mediator Attainability 14 Mediation Analysis 14 Exploratory Analysis 16 Discussion 17

Limitations and Future Research 19

Implications 20

References 21

Abstract

Introduction

Over the past two decades global warming has become a focal issue amongst governmental authorities, scientists and researchers across the globe. In a bid to tackle the issue, multiple summits have been held, which shed light on the subject and have set new goals towards sustainability. The 2015 Paris Agreement saw 195 member states committed to mitigating global warming through various initiatives (The United Nations, 2018) and intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which have been founded in order to assess, monitor and report on countries progress (IPCC, 2018). This global drive towards a sustainable future indicates that the culmination of poor production practices, consumption patterns, and a failure to reduce carbon emissions have led to the necessity of dramatic changes being made within society.

Individuals who advocate in favour of such changes and encourage others to adopt environmentally sustainable consumption patterns, have become known as activists or ‘agents of social change’ (Bashir et al., 2013). Other names include moral innovators, moral do-gooders and moral rebels. Vegan activists, known for promoting a diet that excludes all animal produce, often encourage others to follow suit on the basis that it promotes a healthier lifestyle and the positive effects it has on the environment (Povey, 2001). This opinion is held by many, including other diet groups such as vegetarians, who question whether consuming meat is the right choice, given food shortages across the world (Ruby, 2012). However, being a multifaceted and sometimes contentious subject, and one which requires effort (De Young, 1991; Lorenzoni et al., 2007), this can cause conflict and discomfort amongst different consumer groups. Rather than being praised for their admirable intentions and observer’s adopting sustainable behaviours– ethical individuals are derogated and discredited, and his happens at both the individual and social systems levels (Bandura, 2017).

Prior literature has focused on the ramifications of ethical individuals promoting ‘perfect’ behaviour, and how this affects the observer, however, little research has looked at in the way of how activists can avoid backlash and appear in a more positive light. Although we know relatively much about what motivates individuals to ‘go green’, one might say we know relatively little about how these green individuals in turn ‘infect’ others. As a remedy to this paradox, and since displaying seemingly ‘perfect’ behaviour can elicit negative reactions, this research explores the flip side of the activist. Specifically, how an activist admitting one’s own inconsistent, as opposed to overly consistent behaviour, can reduce derogation and elicit a more positive evaluation from the observer.

Theoretical Framework

Moral do-gooder derogation

The phenomenon of ‘moral do-gooder derogation’ is one of the main mechanisms which affects how ethical individuals are perceived, and how their own behaviour can prevent others from achieving behavioural change. Derogation occurs when individuals put down or ‘derogate’ others, who– unlike them– chose to go against set standard norms and act morally (Minson and Monin, 2012). Even though the choices or behaviours themselves may be questionable– whether they are moral or not. The fact that do-gooders often proclaim their behaviours on moral grounds implies that anyone who takes a different approach is being condemned (Turiel, 1983). This portrays the individual as a moral person, disapproving of the observer by the implication that their behaviour is something improper and should be frowned upon (Monin and Marquez, 2008). According to moral self-regulation theory, individuals strive to maintain a moral balance and want to see themselves as good human beings (Zhong et al., 2009). However, the way in which individuals see themselves and how they judge others can cause conflicts (Pronin, 2008).

Since morality is a central construct to a person’s identity, individuals are concerned with maintaining their moral self-concept (Monin, 2007). As such, behaving morally can often backfire for do-gooders, as observers can perceive their behaviour as a self-threat. This makes observers motivated to resist those who try to convince them to adopt ethical behaviours (Brock, 2018). This occurs across a myriad of domains where activists seek change, and can result in negative stereotypes such as ‘feminists’ and ‘environmentalists’, which supersede the activists and undermine what they promote (Bashir et al., 2013). This is particularly true for environmentalists who are often seen as aggressive, eccentric and militant in their approach to tackling pro-environmental issues (Bashir et al., 2013).

Given that holding an idealized, moral position has been shown to lead to the rejection of activists and behavioural change, this research proposes that an activist admitting their inconsistent behaviour– as opposed to proclaiming their seemingly ‘perfect’ behaviour– can reduce the derogation of the activist. The activist admitting s/he occasionally eats meat and foods made from animals, despite claiming to be vegan, signals to the observer they are not the ‘image of perfection’. As a result, it leads to them being less derogated and viewed in a more positive light by observers. There are two reasons why this might be the case. Firstly, admitting their own inconsistent behaviour can reduce the self-threat that observers feel when comparing themselves to those who they see as superior. Secondly, admitting the inconsistencies in their own behaviour shows observers that the behaviour is attainable. Studies have found that individuals, were evaluated more positively when they were honest and admitted their transgressions– as opposed to those who hid them. Despite showing they hold contradicting values (Jordan et al., 2017).

Self-Threat

Social Comparison Theory suggests that the self-threat which observers perceive, stems from individuals comparing themselves to others based on characteristics, opinions and abilities. Individuals engage in upward social comparison when they are confronted with the knowledge that someone possess superior qualities and unlike them, behaves morally (Festinger, 1954). When an observer is threatened, they subsequently alleviate these stresses and achieve moral internal consistency by activating their defensive processes (Blasi, 1983). As a result, when observer’s self-image is threatened, observers resolve this perceived self-threat by derogating the activist (Cramwinckel et al., 2013). Inconsistencies can therefore, make upward social comparison less painful for observers.

praised for their efforts, activist’s ethical behaviour can often lead to resentment and elicit negative feelings in the observers, and this happens

Attainability

Another potential way in which inconsistencies could lead to more positive evaluations of the activist is through increased attainability or self-efficacy. It could be the case that, in order for activist’s behaviour to be effective and to achieve change, observers must believe they are able to achieve such behaviour. Studies show that individuals who engaged with exemplary peers who out-performed them, felt de-identification with the subject and less motivated to pursue it further (Rogers and Feller, 2016). Observers who witness exemplary behaviour also felt demoralized and deflated when they felt the behaviour was unattainable (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). Since displaying overly consistent behaviour can have negative consequences such, derogating the ethical individual. Inconsistencies can therefore serve as an aid for activist’s, by showing observers the behaviour is attainable. Individuals who believe the behaviour is attainable, feel inspired by the success of the others. This is because the exemplary individual provides a plausible and realistic view of what an observer can aspire to (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, Van Yperen, & Dakof, 1990; Collins, 1996; Taylor & Lobel, 1989; Taylor, Wayment, & Carillo, 1996; Wood, 1989). This can lead to greater feelings of accomplishment and the sense of striving to achieve the behaviour. This stems from the fact that the beliefs in one’s own capabilities have been strengthened (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997).

Figure 1. Conceptual Model H1: Inconsistent behaviour leads to higher activist evaluation

H2: Self-threat mediates the relationship between inconsistent behaviour and activist evaluation H3: Attainability mediates the relationship between inconsistent behaviour and activist evaluation

The Present Research

The present research extends the current literature on moral-do gooder derogation and hopes to shed light on how activists can elicit a more positive reaction from observers. Prior research has explored how morally motivated innovators can elicit negative reactions from self-involved observers, since their own ethical choices pose a threat to the observer’s self-concept. However, literature suggests that instead of demotivating change, these individuals can as ‘change agents’ (Bolderdijk, 2018), facilitating change instead. The current research builds on this by examining how activists can be seen in a positive light. Specifically, this research focused self-involved observers. This group are usually most concerned with protecting their self-image and therefore would feel threatened by the activist’s behaviour as well as, feeling they cannot attain it themselves. The present study extends the existing literature which suggests that showing imperfections can work in an ethical person’s favour.

Research Methodology

Participants and Design

The study employed a manipulation with one independent variable and two levels (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) between subject’s design. The participant’s evaluation of the activist, the level of self-threat and level of attainability were measured. An anonymised survey link was generated using Qualtrics, and was distributed on the author’s own personal Facebook page to gather respondents (Appendix A). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The design of the study was inspired by a similar one conducted by Bolderdijk et al. (2018). The data collection process took place in London, between November and December 2018.

Procedure

For the purpose of this study, a vegan activist was chosen. Vegans, who in recent times have received much negative criticism for their food choices, are the strictest amongst all of the different ‘alternative-diet’ groups, and refrain from eating all products derived from animals. This made examining only those who are non-vegan interesting, since by default they are assumed self-involved. Self-involved observers are non-vegans– whose moral self-concept is threatened when faced with an individual who, unlike them, chose to be vegan.

Veganism was also, chosen in an attempt to achieve a larger effect and reduce the chance of noise from participants who already fallen into the vegan group. Since, the majority of people are not vegan. Furthermore, it is easier to show the distinction between consistent and inconsistent behaviour via veganism. This is because being a vegan includes not eating every day products such as; eggs, milk, butter and cheese. As opposed to vegetarianism, which only involves not eating meat. All individuals were self-involved, therefore, there was no need to systematically manipulate involvement between the conditions.

In the inconsistent condition, Rose also, explains that she cares about protecting the environment, and that she has adopted a vegan diet. In this post however, she explains she has attempted a vegan diet, but admits that she has had some slip ups and has not managed to stick to it every day. In the post, she admits that it is not always easy and once a week she allows herself to eat a muffin (which contains ingredients not allowed in a vegan diet i.e. eggs, milk, butter) and once a month a piece of meat (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Figure 3.

After filling out a consent form, participants were at random introduced to one of the two conditions: consistent Rose or the inconsistent Rose. Then, participants were asked a series of questions, that respectively, measured (1), participants’ evaluations of Rose (2), their perceived level of attainability and after completing a manipulation check (3), participants perceived level of self-regard, indirectly measuring observers perceived self-threat.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Activist Evaluation

unpleasant–pleasant, dependent–independent, stingy–generous, immature–mature, and low self-esteem–high self-esteem. The items were combined into one scale (a = .96, M = 4.81, SD = 1.08).

Mediators

Self-Threat

It was thought that effect of the independent variable (Consistent vs. Inconsistent), on the dependent variable, activist evaluation would be mediated by self-threat. Lower levels of self-threat were thought to lead to higher evaluations of the activist and higher levels of self-threat to lower evaluations. Meaning participants felt more negatively towards Rose. Given that direct questions may give rise to social desirable response patterns, self-threat was measured indirectly by examining participants’ self-regard, or how participants felt about themselves, as conducted previously by Cramwinckel et al. (2013) and Bolderdijk et al. (2018). The higher the average self-regard score, the more satisfied the participants feel with themselves, meaning less self-threat. On a 14 item, 7-point Likert scale, with 1 (totally not applicable) to 7 (totally applicable), participants were asked to report to what extent they felt happy with themselves, satisfied with themselves, good, happy, comfortable, confident, determined, disappointed with themselves (reverse-coded), annoyed with themselves (reverse-coded), disgusted with themselves (reverse-coded), angry with themselves (reverse-coded), dissatisfied with themselves coded), self-critical coded), and guilty (reverse-coded). The items were combined into one scale (a = .91, M = 5.18, SD = 1.05).

Attainability

Manipulation check

A manipulation check was included to verify whether the participants have read the stimulus materials carefully. Participants were asked to check a box that asked what was Rose’s stance on veganism. Answer options were (a) very strict, (b) its ok to treat yourself, (c) she is vegetarian.

Results

A total of 124 participants completed the study. Since the study was designed only for non-vegans, 7 participants who checked the box to say they were vegan, were excluded from the study. 15 participants failed the manipulation check, meaning they did not remember Rose’s stance on her choice of diet and therefore were also excluded. A Missing Value Analysis was conducted, and 8 participants failed to answer all the questions so they were also excluded. In order to optimise the study, as suggested by Meyvis and Osselaer (2017) 9 vegetarians were also excluded, since vegetarians are in a very similar food group to vegans, this could skew the data with heavily biased responses. The cleaned dataset consisted of 85 participants, 54% female and 31% male, average age 31.93 (min. = 19, max. = 64) representing 20 countries. The participants were recruited using an anonymised survey link which was downloaded from Qualtrics. The link was distributed on the authors own personal Facebook page to gather respondents. The differences between conditions (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) in relation to their effect on other variables (activist evaluation, self-threat and attainability) in the conceptual model were examined first. Then, the whole pathway was assessed via a parallel mediation analysis.

Main Effect

Figure 4.

Mediators Self-Threat

A one-way ANOVA was conducted in relation to the independent variable (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) and self-threat. For this effect, one potential reason why inconsistencies could make the activist less likely to be derogated is because observers would feel less threatened. The analysis showed that there is no significant difference between consistent and inconsistent behaviour and self-threat (F(1,83) = .40, p = .56). The participants in the inconsistent condition rated themselves slightly higher (M = 5.25, SD = 1.02) than participants in the consistent condition (M = 5.10, SD = 1.09). The higher the average value, the higher the participants rated themselves and the lower the perceived self-threat. The results were not significant, meaning neither consistent nor inconsistent behaviour had an effect on observer’s level of self-threat and the difference between the conditions was expected to be greater. These results demonstrate that participants in both conditions rated their self-regard similarly. Participants generally felt good about themselves, therefore, Rose did not succeed in eliciting threat in the observers (Figure 5).

Attainability

A one-way ANOVA was conducted in relation to the independent variable (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) and attainability. Another reason why inconsistencies may help an activist avoid derogation and instead be seen in a more positive light, is that they make the activist’s behaviour seem attainable. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the consistent and inconsistent conditions in regards to attainability (F(1,82) = .02, p= .90), suggesting that the error variance exceeds the effect variance. On a scale measured from -3 to 3, the lower the score, the less participants felt becoming vegan was attainable. The participants in the inconsistent condition had a slightly higher score on attainability (M = .01, SD = 1.03) than the participants in the consistent condition (M = -.01, SD = .96), however this difference was not significant (Figure 6). The results show, that whether the activist was consistent or inconsistent did not affect how attainable they felt becoming a vegan was. This suggests that the participants sense of whether they could adopt a vegan diet was already high, therefore, being faced with one person who is a vegan did not change that fact. It was expected that the difference between the two conditions would be significantly higher and that participants who saw the inconsistent activist would feel becoming vegan was more attainable.

Figure 6.

Mediation Analysis

The full model was tested through a parallel mediation analysis using model 4 of the Process macro (Hayes, 2013), in order to assess the whole pathway (bias corrected, 1000 bootstrap samples). The mediation analysis showed a significant effect from the manipulation (Inconsistent vs. Consistent conditions), on the dependent variable, activist evaluation (t(80) = 2.70, p = .01). The results have shown that consistent and inconsistent behaviour significantly predicts how participants have evaluated the activist.

Inconsistent behaviour was anticipated to make an activist appear less threatening, thus lowering participants self-threat– meaning participants would rate how they felt about themselves higher.

However, the results showed there was no significant difference between the two conditions (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) and the mediator self-threat (t(82) = .49, p = .63). The effect of the mediator–self-threat, in relation to the dependent variable– activist evaluation, was insignificant (t(80) = .58, p = .56). It was expected that when a person feels less threatened, they would evaluate the activist more positively. However, this was also not the case since, how participants felt about themselves did not affect how they perceived the activist.

The effect from the independent variable (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) and the mediator attainability was insignificant (t(82) = .12, p = .90). This indicates that whether Rose showed consistent or inconsistent behaviour does not significantly predict how attainable participants felt becoming a vegan was. This was not as hypothesised, since it was expected that when faced with the activist displaying inconsistencies– this would make their behaviour seem more attainable. The effect from the mediator– attainability, on the dependent variable– activist evaluation, was also insignificant (t(80) = 1.06, p = .29). This suggests that whether observers felt becoming vegan was more or less achievable did not affect their perceptions of the activist. Due to all the indirect effects being insignificant (Figure 10), it was concluded that there was no mediation present. The results also showed that zeros were included in the confidence interval (95% CI [-0.79, 0.11]). When the difference between two group means is zero, this means that they are equal. Therefore, when a 95% confidence interval includes zeros, this indicates there is no statistical difference between the groups.

Exploratory Analysis

Although the above analysis did not show evidence of parallel mediation, it is possible the variables could be linked in other ways, therefore, a further exploratory analysis was carried out. Prior literature has suggested that self-threat and attainability may have independent effects, however, it is also possible that they influence each other. Specifically, by making veganism seem more attainable, a vegan person can also appear less threatening to the self. Thus, the effect of attainability may be mediated by self-threat. Literature suggests that self-efficacy can influence outcomes both directly and indirectly through its effect on other factors (Krieger and Sarge, 2013). Therefore, a further moderated mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS model 7 (Hayes, 2013), in order to assess the whole pathway (bias corrected, 1000 bootstrap samples). The analysis included the independent variable (Consistent vs. Inconsistent) and the dependent variable, activist evaluation. With attainability– measured by self-efficacy– as the moderator, and self-threat, as the mediator. The analysis concluded that the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable was significant (t(81) = 2.70, p = .01). Attainability also, significantly predicted self-threat (t(80) = 2.34, p = .02). The more attainable the behaviour, the higher the perceived levels of threat. The interaction effect between the independent variable and attainability was also, significant (t(80) = -1.97, p = .05). In the consistent condition, higher levels of attainability were linked to higher levels of self-threat, and lower levels of attainability, to lower levels of self-threat. This suggests that observers who saw the strict, consistent, vegan felt more threatened when they felt becoming vegan felt more attainable. When they felt becoming vegan was less attainable, they felt less threatened. In the inconsistent condition however, attainability was not important for self-threat (Figure 9). This means, observers who saw the inconsistent vegan– did not feel more or less threatened– depending on how attainable becoming a vegan was. There was no significant effect between the independent variable and self-threat (t(80) = .48, p = .63). The indirect effect from the mediator self-threat and activist evaluation was also insignificant (t(81) = .77, p = .45). Due to the indirect effects being insignificant there was no moderated mediation, and zeros are included in the confidence intervals (95% CI [-0.18, 0.05]).

Figure 9.

Discussion

Prior literature has established that observers who are confronted with agents of social change can be reluctant to identify with them despite activist’s having ethical intentions. The key issue which has not be addressed by much literature is how activists can change people’s negative perceptions of them. Since activist’s beliefs often do not conform to social norms and challenge them instead, they are often viewed negatively, particularly by observers who strive to maintain their self-concepts (Bashir et al., 2018). Individuals believe that the groups which individuals associate themselves with, is a large part of their self-concept, therefore they are more likely to affiliate themselves with those whom they view positively (Tajfel and Turner, 1979).

This research has built on prior literature by exploring how vegan activists can threaten non-vegan’s positive self-image. By showing the observer that they possess inconsistencies and are not the ‘image of perfection’ as one might believe, the observer would evaluate them in a more positive light. Literature has shown that individuals may resist change not because they have negative opinions of the issue itself, but because they have negative opinions of the people who promote them (Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008). This research did indeed find that activists who admitted behaving inconsistently, were evaluated more positively than those who displayed consistent behaviour. In line with prior research that suggests showing imperfections may be positive (Howe and Monin., 2017; Bolderdjik et al., 2018).

The findings support previous a previous research that suggests inconsistencies need not always be negative and can act as aid for activists. There has been fear that possessing inconsistencies can be seen as somewhat undesirable as they signal hypocrisy and disingenuousness. However, the findings in this research are line with research by Monin, Pizarro and Beer (2007) that not following through with one’s actions should not always be taken in bad faith, since having good intentions can override not behaving consistently. Individuals therefore, need not fear inconsistent behaviour, but it can act as a ‘sidecatch’ to reducing moral do-gooder derogation.

in line with work by Monin and Merritt (2010) who suggested that, the act of confessing in itself might have more value than the inconsistent behaviour that has been carried out. Future research could investigate whether behaving in a more honest and genuine way impacts how ethical individuals are perceived. Furthermore, by expressing that she treats herself, could suggest to observers that the activist is trying to relate to the them. Since ‘treating’ oneself is something many people do in relation to food consumption, perhaps observers felt they could relate to the inconsistent activist more.

The current findings do not support research that suggests self-involved observers would feel threatened when faced with an ethical individual. It was expected that inconsistent behaviour would result in observers feeling less threatened, thus, leading to a positive evaluation of the activist. And consistent behaviour lead to observers feeling more threatened– since their moral self-concept is threatened. This was not found to be the case. Overall, observers evaluated how they felt about themselves similarly after seeing the consistent and inconsistent activist, meaning their levels of perceived threat were similar. They also evaluated the activist similarly when taking self-threat into consideration. This is particularly surprising since prior research suggested that self-involved observers, like the non-vegans in this study– would feel threatened and derogate the activist.

Furthermore, since leading by example has been found to be an ineffective way of targeting ethical issues (Monin et al., 2008), it was anticipated that exposing inconsistent behaviour instead, would make becoming vegan appear more attainable. Thus, the activist would appear more pleasant in the eyes of the observer– due to the observer feeling that the behaviour was in their reach– and as a result evaluate them more favourably. The results showed, whether observers saw the consistent or inconsistent activist this did not translate into them feeling becoming a vegan was attainable and it did not impact how the observers evaluated the activist.

Another possible explanation is that veganism may be so far removed from what is seen as the ‘norm,’ that it is far beyond what most people have considered to adopt in their own lives. It can be seen as a very extreme ‘ideal’, which a person may not believe is appropriate or possible. Therefore, perhaps veganism in particular, does not confront people with their own shortcomings. Individuals may have also, never considered the impact veganism has on the environment or how the diet itself can impact a person’s health. Therefore, when gauging whether a person feels becoming vegan is attainable– from someone who has never thought about it, could have unexpected outcomes. Observers might be looking at the subject with ‘fresh’ eyes and have not had time to process how realistic it would be to implement it into their own lifestyle. Since it can be perceived as a drastic change– they themselves, may not know whether they could achieve it or not.

Limitations and future research

The study was carried out through a personal profile and via a social networking site. Therefore, the number of different nationalities might have provided unexpected results. Different nationalities might have different views– particularly on attitudes towards consumption of meat and animal produced foods. Perhaps much more so than other ethical behaviours. This may be due to cultural differences, personal choices, religion, lifestyle choices etc.

Furthermore, some people may not have been particularly familiar with what exactly a vegan diet entails and therefore, not able to make a sound judgement when faced with the activist in the Facebook post. One might say vegetarianism is relatively well known, however, veganism may not be to some people. Future research should consider whether individuals are aware of what involves a vegan diet as this may change people’s opinions. This was not asked in the study. Furthermore, open-ended responses were not possible in the experiment itself. Perhaps if participants had the choice to explain in their own words answers to some questions– as opposed to having a set of predetermined Likert scale questions– this could have promoted better insight into what participants were really thinking when confronted with the activist.

understand the extent of different foods she had to give up when becoming a vegan– which compared to vegetarian for example, is a lot more.

Future research could also investigate what exactly made the inconsistent activist more likeable in the eyes of the observer. For example, whether an individual’s personality impacts how the messages they promote, are conveyed to the observer. Perhaps the way in which an activist presents themselves and expresses their beliefs, could have more of an impact than the content of the message itself. Studies could also investigate this through field and lab experiments rather than online, where participants are able to observe an activist’s behaviour in real life, rather than only reading a post online. As such participants might feel more engaged with the subject when face-to-face with an ethical individual, rather than participating in a study in their own time, through the internet, where they can be easily distracted.

Managerial implications

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 50, 179-211 (1991

Bashir, N., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A., Nadolny, A., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology. 43, 614–626

Bandura, A. (2017). Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2007 8-35

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologists, 37, 122-147.

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Theoretical Perspective. Developmental Review 3, 178-210.

Brock, B. (2018). Changing Ethically Troublesome Behavior: The Causes, Consequences, and Solutions to Motivated. Social Issues and Policy Review. Vol. 00, No. 0, 2018, 1-30

Bolderdijk, J., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2018). When Do Morally Motivated Innovators Elicit Inspiration Instead of Irritation? Frontiers in Psychology, 8(2362), [2362]. DOI:

10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362

Cramwinckel, F. M., van den Bos, K., & van Dijk, E. (2015). Reactions to morally motivated deviance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 150-156.

Cramwinckel, F. M., van Dijk, E., Scheepers, D., & van den Bos, K. (2013). The threat of moral refusers for one's self-concept and the protective function of physical cleansing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1049-1058.

De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 509-526.

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31-44.

Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations 7, 117-140. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. DOI:10.1177/0146167209351435

Jordan, J., Sommers, R., Paul Bloom., & Rand, G. (2017). Why Do We Hate Hypocrites? Evidence for a Theory of False Signaling. Journal of Psychological Science. Vol. 28(3) 356–368

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2010). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research. 239-260 Kraft-Todd, G., Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., & Lamp, S. (2018). Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Journal of Nature, 245

Krieger, J. L., & Sarge, A. M. (2013) A Serial Mediation Model of Message Framing on Intentions to Receive the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Revisiting the Role of Threat and Efficacy

Perceptions. Health Communication. 28:1, 5-19, DOI:10.1080/10410236.2012.734914

Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69-80.

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103.

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 83, No. 4, 854–864

Lorenzoni I., Nicholson-Cole S., Whitmarsh L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17, 445– 459.

Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200-207.

Monin, B. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening Social Comparison in the Moral Domain. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 20(1), 53-68.

Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76-93.

Monin, B., Pizarro, D., & Beer, J. (2007). Emotion and reason in moral judgment: Different prototypes lead to different theories. Do emotions help or hurt decision making? A hedgefoxian perspective (219-244)

Meyvis, T and Osselaer, V. J. (2017). Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size. Journal of Consumer Research. (1157-1173)

Povey, R., Wellens, B., Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite. 37, 15-26.

DOI:10.1006/appe.2001.0406, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Paschal, S., & Webb, L. T. (2016). The Intention-Behaviour Gap. Social and Personality Psychology. 10(9):503-518

Poore, J., & Nemecek., T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. Vol. 360, Issue 6392, 987-992.

Rogers, T., & Feller, A. (2016). Discouraged by Peer Excellence: Exposure to Exemplary Peer Performance Causes Quitting. Psychological Science, 27 (3), 365-374.

Sherman, K. D., & Cohen, L.G. (2002). Accepting Threatening Information: Self-Affirmation and the reduction of Defensive Biases. Current Direction in Psychological science 11 (4):119-123 Sherman, K. D., & Cohen, L.G. (2006). The Psychology of Self-defence: Self-Affirmation Thoery. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38:183-242.

Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2008). To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1024-1051.

Tabernero, C and Hernandez, B. (2011). Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation Guiding Environmental Behaviour. Environment and Behavior. 43(5) 658–675.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33–47.

The Economist. (2018). The latest report on global warming makes grim reading. Science and Technology Report. Available at https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/10/11/the-latest-report-on-global-warming-makes-grim-reading

The United Nations. (2018). Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change: 195 Nations Set Path to Keep Temperature Rise Well Below 2 Degrees Celsius. News. Available at

https://unfccc.int/news/finale-cop21

Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.

Venhoeven, A. L., Bolderdijk, W. J. (2016). Why Acting Environmentally-Friendly Feels Good: Exploring the Role of Self-Image. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1846.

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.

Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? the effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 337-349.

Appendix A

Q1 Dear Participant,

This master thesis survey looks to examine environmentally friendly behaviour. The information provided by you is confidential and will only be used for research purposes. It will take no longer than 5 minutes to complete. Please read everything carefully and try to answer as honestly as possible. Your responses are anonymous and there are no right or wrong answers.

Do you consent to these terms?

Q5 Do you usually require any special dietary requirements?

o

o

o

o

o

o

Q6 Research suggests that the style of writing is predictive of a person's personality. We want to know whether people can also correctly predict this effect. Please read the following text. Afterwards, you will be asked to make a judgment about this person.

Q7

Dependent

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Q8 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements

Q11

Q12 What is Rose's Facebook post about in regards to food consumption?

o

o

o

Q13 If you would like to receive the results, please send an email to n.tymchyshyn@student.rug.nl