Comparing The Effectiveness Of Monetary Versus Moral Motives In Environmental Campaigning
This Dutch study tested motivators in behavior-change campaigns. On questionnaires, and in a subsequent field experiment that tested actions, participants were more motivated by positive self-image and affirmation of personal values than by financial self-interest. Participants responded similarly regardless of their level of concern about issues related to the campaign. The authors note that the use of “greed” incentives may promote social irresponsibility, undermining the overall goals of campaigners. While this study is not about animal protection, some results may be of note for animal advocates.
[Abstract excerpted from original source.]
“Environmental campaigns often promote energy conservation by appealing to economic (for example, lower electricity bills) rather than biospheric concerns (for example, reduced carbon emissions), assuming that people are primarily motivated by economic self-interest. However, people also care about maintaining a favourable view of themselves (they want to maintain a ‘positive self-concept’), and may prefer to see themselves as ‘green’ rather than ‘greedy’. Consequently, people may find economic appeals less attractive than biospheric appeals. Across two studies, participants indicated feeling better about biospheric (‘Want to protect the environment? Check your car’s tire pressure’) than economic (‘Want to save money? Check your car’s tire pressure’) tyre-check appeals. In a field experiment, we found that an economic tyre-check appeal (‘Do you care about your finances? Get a free tire check’) elicited significantly less compliance than parallel biospheric and neutral appeals. Together, these studies discredit the conventional wisdom that appealing to economic self-interest is the best way to secure behaviour change. At least in some cases, our studies suggest, this strategy is not effective.”