Counteracting moral licensing through normative message framing of the initial pro-environmental deed

(1)

normative message framing of the initial

pro-environmental deed

A study on the influence of normative (descriptive and injunctive) message framing on subsequent moral behavior

Veldstraat 8, 9717LP Groningen

Telephone: +31 626482232

E-Mail: m.milosevic@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen Faculty of Business and Economics

MSc. Marketing Management Master Thesis

Miljana Milosevic s2851091

1st Supervisor: Dr. Jing Wan 2nd Supervisor: Dr. Marijke Leliveld

(2)

ABSTRACT

The study investigates the role and influence of norms in the context of moral licensing. The purpose of the presented research paper is to explore the effect of the normative message framing (injunctive and descriptive) on moral licensing, while comparing it to the standard environmental message framing with focus on environmental protection. Findings were intended to assist in identifying alternative framing options of initial pro-environmental activities which might lead to a positive spillover in subsequent moral behavior, thus, counteracting the effect of moral licensing.

(3)

PREFACE

This research paper represents the final milestone of my Masters' degree in Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. The last year was an exciting and challenging journey during which I had a great opportunity to test my skills, learn, develop and tremendously grow beyond my own limits, both, personally and academically. During the last five months I had the pleasure to work on one of the most interesting projects I have ever undertaken as it concerns a field I have always been highly interested in. I am proud to present the outcome in the following 29 pages. However, the end result could not have been achieved without certain people.

Therefore, before diving into the marketing world outside the university, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Wang for her guidance as well as her valuable and constructive feedback during the whole process. Furthermore, I would like to express my special thanks to my closest friends for their encouragement and emotional as well as spiritual support especially during the “final countdown” of the last five months. In addition, I also wish to thank all of the participants, without whose cooperation I would not be able to conduct this analysis.

Last but not least, I owe my deepest gratitude to my grandmother, Dana, for her everlasting positivity, unfailing encouragement and for being the most valuable asset in my life.

(4)

Over the last few decades the concept of sustainable development and environmental awareness became widespread and popular. The ”green wave” has been increasingly embraced not only by the government and international agencies but also by the business sector and general public (Kotler, 2011). Large scale political and commercial influences shaped the meaning of “green” in individuals’ minds. On a global level, awareness of global warming and threatening climate conditions is increasing, leading to growing interest in the environmental protection. As a result of growing public environmental enthusiasm, individuals’ actions and choices are progressively reflecting one’s social and moral values (Hunt & Dorfman, 2009; Yearley, 2014). As such, shift towards more sustainable way of living, consumption and behavior in general is taking place as a rising number of individuals is engaging in pro-environmental actions (Datta, 2011).

However, building on recent research, prior pro-environmental behavior can restrain rather than promote subsequent moral behavior as it has broad licensing properties which lead individuals to engage in morally dubious behaviors in the same domain and even in domains unrelated to environmentalism. This type of response is described in the literature as moral licensing with the distinction between domain-specific and cross-domain moral licensing (Monin & Jordan, 2009; Zhong et al, 2009; Miller & Effron, 2010).

(6)

moral actions or intentions) allows a person to act in a moral discrediting way in subsequent tasks. Moral actions are likely to justify expressing attitudes that could be perceived as morally dubious. In other words, moral licensing empowers individuals by giving them the permission to do what they otherwise would not psychologically allow themselves (Miller & Effron, 2010).

The aim of this research paper is to explore the option to counteract moral licensing by framing the initial pro-environmental action. As engaging in pro environmental behavior is in general considered altruistic and moral, people mostly abstain from their personal interests when performing it. Subsequently, individuals’ positive self-concept is activated and it leads to the justification of morally dubious behavior in subsequent tasks (Mazar & Zhong, 2010; Branas-Garza et al, 2010; Merritt et al, 2010; Sachdeva et al, 2009). Kahn & Dhar (2006) go even further and argue that moral licensing effect seems to operate beneath the conscious awareness. In their study only 1 participant in 6 was aware that the subsequent task was related to her/his initial prosocial altruistic action. Thus, in order to counteract moral licensing, it is crucial to prevent the positive self-concept boost a person is exposed to after performing an initial pro-environmental act. It is assumed that the voluntary performance of a behavior triggers mental self-justification process and that this heightened mental activity triggers abstract values and attitudes that may serve as justification for the more salient behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Stern, 1992).

(7)

Yet, what happens when the initial intent to perform a pro-environmental behavior is attributed to an external source? Kahn & Dhar (2006) argue that the attribution of altruistic intent to an external source is unlikely to boost the relevant positive self-concept and provide license for subsequent morally dubious action. In their study Kahn & Dhar (2006) provide participants with an external reason to engage in initial moral behavior. And results demonstrate that the attribution of the intent to an external source dampens the licensing effect.

Prior research provides evidence that norms can spur and guide behavior, however, the role of norms in the context of moral licensing has not been explored so far. Bendor and Swistak (2001) argue that norms are meaningful to an extent to which individuals perceive that their violations will result in social sanction. Thus, a desire to avoid social sanctions serves as external motivation source to perform initial pro-environmental behavior. Lapinski and Rimal (2005) additionally proffer that individuals will comply to perceived norms if the behavior is accompanied by the belief that it will result in significant benefits for the self or if they share a strong affinity with the referent group. As conclusion, activation of the positive self-concept is therefore unlikely to take place. In this context, if individuals engage in initial pro-environmental behavior out of the urge/need to comply with a social norm, they may be less likely able to justify subsequent morally dubious behavior since the first action undertaken was not purely voluntary. In this case, social norm can be seen as the external source leading the initial pro-environmental behavior. As a result, individuals’ feeling of being licensed to act immorally in subsequent tasks might be restrained. By elaborating on stated assumptions, this research paper addresses following question:

(8)

Theoretical Framework The Concept of Moral Licensing

(9)

What shapes pro environmental behavior is a complex framework involving external as well as internal factors, such as social/cultural factors, values, attitudes (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). It is established that environmentally friendly behavior can be motivated by the form of altruism called “actively caring”. People‘s intrinsic motivation to care about the environment and the consequences that misbehavior can bring upon the future generations is considered as one of the main drivers of the pro-environmental behavior . As a consequence, preservation information campaigns frame their messages with the focus on the problematic state of the planet in order to guide individuals’ behavior in the pro-environmental direction (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In the present research paper this way of framing pro-environmental messages is referred to as standard environmental message framing. By elaborating on the present research it can be stated that initial pro-environmental activities framed in standard environmental manner lead individuals to express desired pro-environmental behavior, but they also liberate an individual to license in subsequent tasks. The altruistic perceived nature of the initial pro-environmental action triggers positive self-concept, thus, leads to moral licensing.

(10)

violation. Thus, in this setting, participants were somehow “forced to perform the initial moral behavior”. The results demonstrate that the attribution of the intent to an external source dampens the licensing effect (Kahn & Dhar, 2006).

The present research paper is linked to the idea of external source attribution as a feasible way to counteract moral licensing, by using norms as a tool that in a specific way have the power to enforce, guide and spur human pro-environmental behavior .

The Concept of Social Norms

Humans are unique among all species in the extent to which they regulate their social life through compliance with social norms (Aronson et al, 2010). According to Crawford and Ostrom (1995) social norms represent shared understandings about obligatory, permitted or forbidden actions. They are seen as important to a proper understanding of human social behavior (Triandis, 1977; Pepitone, 1976; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Berkowitz, 1972).

Literature on the influence of norms on behavior provides evidence for the short term influence of norms (Rimal & Lapinski , 2005). In line with that evidence, The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct developed by Cialdini et al (1990,1991) asserts that social norms are only directly influencing human behavior when they are salient in consciousness. Thus, in order to trigger individuals’ compliance to the norm, it is crucial to make the norm as focal as possible.

(11)

The injunctive norm resembles conceptually the subjective norm applied in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It refers to what others think one should do and motivate behavior by imposing informal social rewards and sanctions (Cialdini, et al, 1991; Cialdini et al, 2006). On the other hand, descriptive norms are described as those that “characterize the perception of what most people do” (Cialdini et al, 1991, p. 203) , describing what is typical and commonly done. Motivation in this case is providing evidence of what is effective through registering what the majority is doing. By detecting what is commonly done by most others an individual can make the own efficient choice (Cialdini et al, 1991; Cialdini et al, 2006).

For instance, statement such as “9 out of 10 students consider glass recycling important” represents an example of an injunctive norm, while an example of a descriptive norm might be a statement such as “9 out of 10 students recycle glass regularly”. In the first statement we learn about the approved/desired behavior of a group, we learn something about their preferences. In the latter we determine something about the actual behavior of the group. Thus, while descriptive norms inform about the behavior via example, injunctive norms command it via informal sanctions.

(12)

significant member of the same, publicly complies to the norm although hers or his private beliefs are not in line with the group norm. On the other hand, on the individual level, there is the own perception of the norm, one’s interpretation of the dominant collective norm. Perceived norm can differ from the collective norm itself, as it exists on psychological level of an individual (Rimal & Lampinski, 2005).

However, since the aggregation among individuals in a social system will likely not represent the collective norm (Rimal & Lampinski, 2005), and in the context of this study I explore effect of normative messages on the individuals, the present research paper is tapping into individual norms, rather than collective norms. After making this distinction the question arises when and how do injunctive and descriptive norms influence behavior.

In conclusion, the main focus of this study is to apply normative messages (in form of injunctive and descriptive messages) in framing initial pro-environmental behavior, that would ideally result in reduced moral licensing in subsequent moral behavior.

Normative Influence and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Making social norms focal while using persuasive normative messages in order to promote pro-environmental behavior has been often applied in the literature and it is proven to result in desirable pro-environmental behavior (Schultz et al, 2008; Goldstein et al, 2008; Schultz, 1999; Cialdini et al, 1991).

(13)

hotel guest’s participation in an environmental conservation program is superior to a more widely used traditional appeal with focus on environmental concern (e.g. “Help save the environment … by reusing your towels during your stay”). Moreover, normative appeals were most effective when they were linked to a group behavior that occurred in the setting which was closely corresponding one’s immediate situational circumstances (e.g., “75% of hotel guests in this room reuse their towels”). Goldstein et al (2008) refer to this kind of norms as provincial norms ( “the norms of one’s local setting and circumstances”), which according to the authors should be more powerful, even if they derive from a social category not linked to or not particularly meaningful for one’s social identity.

Additionally, the authors compared descriptive norm condition, standard norm condition - focusing on environmental protection only, and three new normative conditions – first referring to guests in the same room (“provincial norm”), second referring to fellow citizens and third referring to gender (men and women). As predicted, the same room condition yielded a higher reuse rate than any other condition, although the participants rated the importance of being a citizen or female/male as more important to their identity than being a hotel guest in a particular room. Therefore, the participants acted in line with a contextual reference group despite the fact they did not consider this reference group as relevant to their social identities. Schultz et al (2008) also examined towel reuse in a hotel in the US, suggesting that alignment of the injunctive and descriptive elements of a normative message increases its impact on behavior, while a purely descriptive general message framing failed to increase reuse rates compared to a control condition in their studies.

(14)

govern their influence on the initial pro-environmental behavior and which can be perceived as external motivators.

Cognitive processes of Injunctive and Descriptive Norms

According to Cialdini et al. (1991) cognitive processes that guide the influences of injunctive and descriptive norms are different. While changes in behavior resulting from injunctive norms are because of social pressure that an individual has to bear by the presence of others, behavioral change resulting from descriptive norms are because of changes in individual’s internal frames. As stated in the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB; Rimal & Real, 2003), descriptive norms affect behavior through interactions with three normative mechanisms: injunctive norms, outcome expectations, and group identity. They are considered as moderators in the descriptive norms-behavior relation. Thus, injunctive norm is partly embodied in the normative mechanism of the descriptive norm. However, due to the immense amount of literature making a strict distinction between injunctive and descriptive norms, this research paper considers both forms while framing normative messages and compares them to the standard environmental message framing (with the focus on purely environmental protection as mentioned in the previous chapter).

According to the TNSB (Rimal & Real, 2003) the main drivers of social norms are following three: external social pressure, outcome expectations, group identity.

(15)

Outcome Expectations: According to the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) human behavior is, among other things, governed by individuals’ outcome expectations—beliefs that his or her actions will lead to significant benefits for the self. Thus, individuals who engage in pro-environmental behavior may do so while expecting positive outcomes for themselves such as better health due to consumption of organic products. However, Kahneman et al (1991) argue that the threat of a potential loss is a greater motivator of action than the potential of gaining something of equal value. That might lead to the conclusion that the behavior of individuals may be influenced by their perception about benefits which occur to other individuals who do engage in pro-environmental behavior.

Group Identity: Social networks play a crucial role in initiating behavior (Donohew et al., 1999). According to Rimal & Real (2003) group identity is built on individuals’ desire to connect with the reference group, on aspirations to imitate significant others and on the extent to which individuals perceive similarity between themselves and the reference group.

(16)

Building on the previous research, this study examines the hypothesis that normative message framing (descriptive and injunctive) of an initial altruistic act is subsequently less likely to liberate the person to make morally dubious choices due to the external intent attribution in comparison to the control condition (standard environmental appeal). In other words, if participants perceive the initial pro-environmental action as a norm, the activation of positive self-perception and moral licensing in subsequent task will be unlikely to take place.

Hypothesis 1: Framing initial pro environmental action with a normative message (injunctive or descriptive) reduces moral licensing in subsequent task

compared to the standard environmental message.

I illustrate the general idea by examining the subsequent task referring to the willingness of an individual to participate in the blood donating task. Specifically, I hypothesize that the relative willingness to donate blood will be higher if the initial action is framed with a normative message (descriptive/injunctive).

(17)

Established studies report a strong link between internal LOC and advanced moral reasoning. Individuals with higher internal LOC show higher levels of cognitive moral development and display less unethical behavior than externals (Murk & Addleman, 1992, Cherry, 2006). In broad terms, internals seem to have a more developed moral sense, that could lead to a compliance to the norm out of intrinsic altruistic reasons and not out of assumed urge to comply to the norm itself in order to avoid social pressure, obey group requirements etc. Internals might be more likely to donate blood regardless the previous pro-environmental action in comparison to externals due to their developed moral sense.

Theoretical findings lead to the assumption that LOC as a chronical trait of an individual may affect the effect of normative message framing on subsequent moral behavior. Thus, LOC is not the manipulated but the measured factor and it is included in the analysis as a covariate.

Conceptual Framework

According to the research question and the derived hypothesis, my conceptual framework (see Figure 1) consists of one independent variable message framing divided into two different conditions, namely normative message framing with two levels (descriptive message framing and injunctive message framing) and the standard environmental message framing , that serves as the control condition. I hypothesize that normative message framing will have a negative impact on moral licensing.

-

+

(18)

Contribution

The findings of the present study provide further contributions to the general understanding of the moral licensing mechanism itself. Additionally, they provide evidence on if and how moral licensing is systematically counteracted by normative message framing (descriptive, injunctive) of prior choices. Thus, they provide evidence that moral licensing effect occurs if people choose morally right options beyond what the norm dictates. In other words, morally right behavior within the norm does not allow people to justify their immoral subsequent behavior any longer. In this way, the academic work aims to suggest a meaningful instrument for framing pro environmental activities in a way that this initial action would have a subsequent positive spillover on moral behavior of individuals.

Methodology Data Collection

In order to test the defined hypotheses quantitative data method is used by creating an online questionnaire in English and distributing it among RUG students on social media and via e-mail over a three-week period. In order to maximize fill out rates, the questionnaire was designed as simple and clear as possible with only one open question (Appendix A).

Participants

(19)

Materials

In the first part of the study three different scenarios are presented (= three conditions of the IV). Each scenario includes different message framing adapted to the purpose of the study from Goldstein et al. (2008):

1. Standard Environmental Message – control condition –focus on the importance of environmental protection, but does not include any normative information.

“You can show your respect for the nature by considering the environment before printing!”

2. Injunctive Normative Message – focus on what is commonly approved/disapproved.

“The majority of your fellow students believe that printing harms the environment. Please consider the environment before printing!”

3. Descriptive Normative Message – focus on what is commonly done.

“70% of your fellow students avoid printing due to the environmental challenges we are facing. Join your fellow students in helping to save the environment. Please

(20)

Design

The design of the study is one-way between-subjects design. Every participant is randomly assigned to only one condition. The categorical independent variable Message Framing consists of three different levels: (1) an injunctive normative message (2) descriptive normative message and (3) a standard environmental message. While the prior two belong to the normative message framing condition, the latter serves as a control condition. The ordinal dependent variable is the Subsequent Moral Behavior, in this case, willingness to participate in a voluntary activity e.g. donating.

Procedure

Initial Pro-Environmental Deed (Independent Variable)

At the beginning of the online questionnaire deception is used to mislead participants about the true nature of the research and in that way avoid compromised results. Participants should think that the focus of the study lies in examining environmental attitudes of individuals.

(21)

compliance to the read statement. Apart of ensuring the real involvement, this writing task was crucial for making normative messages more salient in consciousness.

In the normative conditions messages are framed with the focus on what is commonly approved/disapproved (injunctive) or with the focus on what is commonly done (descriptive condition). In the control condition, that is the standard environmental condition, message is framed with the focus on the importance of environmental protection. Thus, the focus of messages across all conditions differed, while the structure remains similar in order to ensure validity.

Moral Licensing (Dependent Variable)

After reading the message and performing the writing task each participant is informed that in order to proceed with the second part of the study, previous answer has to be saved which takes one minute. During this fictional break, participants are shown an advertisement about the new “RUG Donates Blood Project”, the actual subsequent moral task. Since, the project is new, organizations are curious about the number of students actually willing to participate as donors. Participants are asked to indicate the likelihood to donate blood on a six point Likert scale (1-Very Unlikely to 6-(1-Very Likely). Higher score on the Likert scale indicates reduced moral licensing and vice versa.

Locus of Control (Confound)

(22)

(Strongly Agree) is presented to the participant. In comparison to other LOC scales (e.g. Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, 1996) Levenson IPC scale asks the participant to interpret their own specific experience, rather than that of the general population using less ambiguous wording. The scale set up is such that items for each different subscale are similar to the questions in the other two subscales. There is extremely low social desirability bias in the Levenson IPC scale. Furthermore, Levenson (1973) has effectively demonstrated that external locus of control has two important sub-facets: the belief in powerful others and the belief in chance. Thus, these two subscales measure together external locus of control.

Results

(23)

In order to determine whether there are any significant differences between the means of three different message framings one-way between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted. Hereby, LOC is taken into account as the covariate, since the review theory suggests that LOC as a chronical trait of an individual, have influence of the moral sense. Thus, it can be assumed that it could have influence on the dependent variable. Therefore, in the present study the effect of the treatment is tested, while “statistically controlling” for the three confounding variables, namely Internality Subscale, Powerful Others Subscale and Chance Subscale. Hereby, the latter two subscales represent External Locus of Control.

The means and standard deviations of the normative conditions (injunctive and descriptive) and the control condition (standard environmental) are presented in the Table 1.

Table 1. Message Framing Descriptive Statistics

Message Framing M (SD)

Standard Environmental Message 4.04 (1.57) Injunctive Normative Message 3.98 (1.52) Descriptive Normative Message 4.13 (1.60) Notes. N = 146

The results of the one-way ANCOVA (Appendix C) show that the effect of different message framings on the likelihood to donate blood after controlling for Locus of Control is non-significant (F (1.85) = .095, p = .909) .

(24)

stronger socialization to consider wishes of others as higher sensibility to social/group pressure. Since the sample used in the study contained 61% female and only 39% male participants one-way ANCOVA was conducted once again separately for both gender groups. Table 2 and Table 3 show means and standard deviations separately for female and male participants.

Table 2. Message Framing Descriptive Statistics Female

Table 3. Message Framing Descriptive Statistics Male

(25)

General Discussion

The final chapter provides a general conclusion of the results obtained in the previous section and brings together the theoretical review in which this paper was built on. The second and final part presents limitations of this research as well as suggestions for further research.

Conclusion

(26)

In conclusion,. invoking norms in participants’ minds while performing the initial pro-environmental behavior had no influence on their subsequent moral behavior.

Limitations and Further Research

The lack of significant results can be explained by several limitations discussed in the following section. In addition, proposed suggestions can serve as the basis for further research.

First, the limited resources and time did not allow providing an accurate sample. The questionnaire was distributed solely on social networks or via mail and it was filled in online without the supervision of a researcher. In this setting, it was impossible to control for environmental bias in respondents surrounding. This could have had a huge impact on the quality of data (Malhotra, 2008) and subsequently on the results, especially if we take into consideration the nature of the presentation of the independent variable Message Framing. Message Framing was introduced with a scenario where the participants were asked to imagine an act of compliance with the message presented on the screen. Although the survey included a manipulation check task where participants were asked to write down few sentences about the act of compliance, a researcher still cannot be entirely sure that the participants were focused enough on the task or were reading the instructions very carefully in order to pick up on the manipulation. The scenario technique as a manipulation in this setting (online survey) might not be strong enough to yield a desired effect.

(27)

in subsequent task. Due to the fictitious decision making people have difficulties to establish a connection with their emotions. Through the hypothetical moral decision making process individuals do not experience such intense emotions as in the real life setting (Teper & Zhong, 2014). Due to these facts the manipulation is highly vulnerable for errors. Therefore, it is possible that the lack of significant results can be ascribed to this error. Another limitation regarding the proximity in time between the initial pro-environmental act and the subsequent moral behavior arises due to the method chosen (electronic, online survey). The sample consists of respondents who took 4 to 23 minutes to fill in the online survey. The question is if the effect of normative message framing wears off as the lag between the two tasks increases or how accurate were answers of participants who took approximately four minutes to complete the survey. On the other hand, participants who needed more than 15 minutes to finish might have been distracted during the process of filling in the questionnaire. Consequently, the model should be tested through different channels and through different techniques in order to gain more control over the process and capture respondents’ behavior in the very moment, e.g. interviews, lab experiments, rather than online surveys. In this way, respondents’ engagement would be higher as they would participate more actively in the experiment/interview, that can result in more straightforward findings.

(28)

in line with the scenario presented with normative message. Therefore, their act of compliance to the normative message is not manipulated but a natural response or even already a habit. As the habit becomes stronger the process of engaging in the specific behavior becomes easier (Aarts et al. 1994). Therefore, such “automatic” behavior may not warrant the same sort of compensation as effortful behavior. Consequently, in such a case, norms fail to influence the behavior. The suggestion is to include additional measures in order to explore initial attitude towards the environment and ideally include them in the analysis as confounds in order to consider solely the effect of norms. Additionally, the role of norms varies across cultures and populations, reflecting also a differential in the in-group versus out-group pressure (Bagozzi et al, 2001). Thus, since all respondents are situated in Groningen, Dutch culture is overall present and might have influence on the behavior of individuals. One additional suggestion is to test the model while using a diverse sample in terms of culture e.g. cross-national study. The expected results could be able rule out the mentioned limitation.

(29)

(30)

References

Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1994). Attitude versus General Habit: Antecedents of Travel Mode Choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 285-300.

Allen, J.B. & Ferrand, J. (1999) Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and pro- environmental behavior: a test of Geller’s actively caring hypothesis, Environment and Behavior, 31(3), pp. 338–353.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2010). Social psychology. Pearson.

Arrow, H., & Burns, K. L. (2004). Self-organizing culture: How norms emerge in small groups. The psychological foundations of culture, 171.

Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K. H., & Van Loo, M. F. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16(1), 29-56. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bendor, J., & Swistak, P. (2001). The evolution of Norms1. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1493-1545.

Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 63-108.

Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067-1084.

Branas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Espinosa, M. P., Jiménez, N., Kovářík, J., & Ponti, G. (2010). Altruism and social integration. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 249-257.

Chakrabarti, R., & Banerjee, S. (2014). Impact of Socialization Measures on Role Orientation. Review of HRM, 3, 28.

Cherry, J. (2006). The impact of normative influence and locus of control on ethical judgments and intentions: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(2), 113-132. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question.Psychological

Inquiry, 2(2), 124-126.

(31)

Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social influence, 1(1), 3-15. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A

theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology,24(20), 1-243.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.

Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 907-919.

Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(03), 582-600.

Datta, S. K. (2011). Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying: A study on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business and management, 6(6), p124.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629.

Donohew, L., Clayton, R. R., Skinner, W. F., & Colon, S. (1999). Peer networks and sensation seeking: Some implications for primary socialization theory. Substance use & misuse, 34(7), 1013-1023.

Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.

Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken: The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(6), 916.

Excluded cases due to the noncompliance with scenarios presented – Question 1) Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research.

Geller, E. S. (1995a). Actively caring for the environment: An integration of behaviorism and humanism. Environment and Behavior, 27(4), 184-195.

(32)

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(4), 638.

Hunt, N., & Dorfman, B. (2009). How green is my wallet? Organic food growth slows. Reuters. J O'Gorman, H. (1986). The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: An ironic lesson. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 333-347.

Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2004). Green marketing: An attitudinal and behavioural analysis of Indian consumers. Global Business Review, 5(2), 187-205.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The journal of economic perspectives, 193-206.

Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259-266.

Khan, U., Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). A behavioral decision theory perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. Inside consumption: Frontiers of research on consumer motives, goals, and desires, 144-165.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental

Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132-135.

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms.Communication Theory, 15(2), 127-147.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 41(3), 397.

Malhotra, N. K. (2008). Marketing research: An applied orientation, 5/e. Pearson Education India.

Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. B. (2010). Do green products make us better people?. Psychological science.

(33)

Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Chapter three-psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in experimental social psychology,43, 115-155.

Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological

perspective. Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology, 341-354.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 33.

Murk, D. A., & Addleman, J. A. (1992). Relations among moral reasoning, locus of control, and demographic variables among college students.Psychological Reports, 70(2), 467-476. Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental

conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32.

Noreen, E. (1988). The economics of ethics: A new perspective on agency theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(4), 359-369.

Ostman, R. E., & Parker, J. L. (1987). Impact of education, age, newspapers, and television on environmental knowledge, concerns, and behaviors.The Journal of Environmental Education,19(1), 3-9.

Pepitone, A. (1976). Toward a normative and comparative biocultural social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 641.

Pepitone, A. (1976). Toward a normative and comparative biocultural social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 641.

Psychology Compass : 1–14

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 104.

Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(> 2), 184-203.

Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms a test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389-414.

Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological science, 20(4), 523-528.

(34)

Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 25-36. Schultz, W. P., Khazian, A. M., & Zaleski, A. C. (2008). Using normative social influence to

promote conservation among hotel guests. Social influence, 3(1), 4-23. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford Univ Pr.

Teper, R., Zhong, C. and Inzlicht, M. (2014). How Emotions Shape Moral Behavior: Some Answers (and Questions) for the Field of Moral Psychology. Social and Personality

Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160-171.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied psychology, 75(4), 378.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Cross-cultural social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(2), 143-158.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Yearley, S. (2014). The Green Case (Routledge Revivals): A Sociology of Environmental Issues, Arguments and Politics. Routledge.

(35)

Appendices Appendix A: Qualtrics Questionnaire

(36)

(37)

Question 1: Descriptive Normative Message Framing

Q

(38)

Puffer

(39)

(40)

Questions 4: Demographics, Purpose of the Study

(41)

Appendix B: Excluded Cases – Question 1 Statements

1. I was tanding infront of the printer, started thinking of the environment and its impact it has if I print a hughe amount of pages but then decided to print anyway is I am in need of the printed materials. Sorry environment, my career has

priority.

2. Im usually not printing anyways.

3. In the supermarket, they suggest the customer to save the using of plastic bags. i wanted to take the plastic bags given by the supermarket,but decided not to because the stuffs I bought still fit in my bag

4. I was standing in front of the printer, i read about three seconds and decided to print what i came for. Not less or more just what i came for.

5. When I decide to print fewer files because of the sign, I feel good about myself momentarily😇, but I realize quite quickly that I will go back later to print the other files and realize that I am a hypocrite.

6. I was having a shower at the football pitch when I saw the post next to the shower place "please, do not waste water, it is the most precious thing" so I decided to take a very fast shower instead of staying a lot of time with the water open. 7. I was standing in front of the printer, I read the statement and decided not to

reduce my printing because I needed them for my courses. My printing amount wouldn't make much difference in the world unless there is a massive awareness and movement.

(42)

9. I always print on 2 sides of the paper unless it is specifically required that I print one 1 side of the paper. Thus it would not affect me personally.

10. I was standing in front of the poster, read the line and didn't act any different than intended

11. When standing in front of the printed and read how others care for the environment, i decided to do the same and not print less files

12. / If I needed all the fiels, I would print all of them.

13. It seems a typical top-down approach which doesn't really affect me; I assume the RUG uses recycled paper and I only print when it would help me a lot. I dread reading from a screen, so sometimes I just "have" to print. But I don't print that much anyway. About 30-40 Euro per year. If not less.

14. i would still print if it was necessary, especially for study purpose. but usually i kept my used papers for another purpose, such as for making notes behind it, etc 15. I was standting in front of the printer and thought, yes, they are pretty right. 16. the statement does not have any effect on daily activities or personal attitude 17. i was standing in front of the printer, i read about the statement but i print all my

pages. i do not follow the statement because i want to print my pages.

18. If I need to print something, I need to print something. If I don't need to print something, then I don't print it.

(43)

print what I really need. If I were a person that does not think about these things I do not know, how I would react.

20. I was standing in front of the printer, I read about the environment and decided print, because I need it for my class. However, when I finish my studies, I will sale my book. I would like that other people won't print the book, because I won't need it, so I hope that other people don't print the same book.

21. I decided that at the moment, the priority was to print my course material. I also thought that the environmental problems presented here might be better tackled by providing viable alternatives (new technologies) to the university

requirements of printer materials rather than just looking for a minor reduction due to a temporary case of bad conscience.

22. I always Print on both sides anyway. Id probably just ingnore the poster. 23. When i read the poster i hoped that the lines would be short and still print the

same as before /

(44)

Appendix C: SPSS Output

Output 1: Results of ANCOVA incl. Descriptive Statistics

(45)

Counteracting moral licensing through normative message framing of the initial pro-environmental deed

normative message framing of the initial

pro-environmental deed

Table of Contents

-

+