Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Monetary or environmental appeals for saving electricity? –Potentials

for spillover on low carbon policy acceptability
Julia Steinhorst n, Ellen Matthies
Institute of Psychology I, Department of Environmental Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, PO Box 4120, 39016 Magdeburg, Germany

H I G H L I G H T S

Policy acceptability may be influenced by type of framing and individual factors.

We examined long-term spillover effects in association with type of framing.

Framing (environmental vs. monetary) interacts with personal ecological norms.

For strong personal ecological norms, environmental framing increases acceptability.

Also, strong personal ecological norms increase low carbon policy acceptability.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The acceptability of low carbon policies is an important precondition for energy system transitions, such
Received 16 June 2015 as the German Energiewende. This long-term experimental study examines the potential for behavioural
Received in revised form spillover on the acceptability of low carbon policies, caused by a framed intervention to promote elec-
3 February 2016
tricity saving behaviour. Clients of a German energy provider were randomly assigned to continuously
Accepted 16 March 2016
Available online 25 March 2016
receive electricity saving tips with either monetary framing (saving potential in €) or environmental
framing (saving potential in CO2). The control group did not receive any information. In two follow-up
Keywords: surveys, four (N¼ 333) and nine months (N ¼258) later, participants rated the acceptability of several low
Monetary framing carbon policies. A pre-survey assessed the personal ecological norm for saving electricity. Participants
Environmental framing
with strong personal ecological norms reported generally higher policy acceptability. After environ-
Policy acceptability
mental framing they also indicated higher acceptability compared to the monetary framing or control
Personal norms
Low carbon policies group. These results indicate that information campaigns should be designed carefully in order to pro-
mote positive spillover effects. Environmental framing of private-sphere behaviour can increase the
disposition for further pro-environmental behaviour in the public sphere, e.g. policy acceptability. When
appealing to monetary benefits in pro-environmental behaviour, there is a risk of inhibiting positive
spillover effects.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (compared to 1990) will be reached in 2050 (German Federal

Since the mid-1990s the German government has decided to
introduce changes in the national energy system in order to sig-
nificantly reduce carbon emissions. In the last couple of years
Germany has begun to undergo a considerable transformation of
its energy infrastructure, including a nuclear phase-out and a
significant extension of its renewable energy supply. This process,
the so-called German Energy Transition, or Energiewende, will
bring about challenges in all kinds of sectors until the ambitious
goal of a 80–95% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Julia.Steinhorst@ovgu.de (J. Steinhorst).
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy [BMWi], 2014). As a
challenging long-range project, the Energiewende incorporates a
wide range of low carbon policies that serve two core objectives:
the expansion of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
Low carbon policies therefore range from regulatory policies for
reducing the overall energy demand (e.g. by reducing household
carbon emissions) to infrastructural changes, such as expanding
renewable energy power plants, power lines and power storage
facilities (Morris and Pehnt, 2012). Below, we use the term low
carbon policies for policy instruments that pursue carbon emission
reduction.
An essential precondition for a sustainable energy transition
and its policy measures is their acceptance and support by the
German population. Policy support is defined as the “tacit

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.020
0301-4215/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
336 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
endorsement of or willingness to accept environmental measures
and regulations” (Poortinga et al., 2004, p. 76). Similarly, policy
acceptability is characterised as an “evaluative judgement” towards
a new technology or policy instruments (Huijts et al., 2012, p. 527).
Thus, civil society plays a prominent role in the transformation
process. On the one hand, it became apparent that local resistance
can lead to cancellation or delay e.g. of onshore and offshore wind
farms (Devine-Wright, 2005; Jones and Eiser, 2009), biogas facil-
ities (Upham and Shackley, 2007) and the construction of sus-
tainable energy technologies in general (Schweizer-Ries, 2008;
Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). On the other hand, reducing the energy
consumption of private households is an important means of the
German Energiewende.
In order to ensure and promote the public acceptability of en-
ergy system transitions, such as the German Energiewende with a
perspective of more than 50 years, it is important to study pro-
moting and inhibiting factors, preferably in the long run. Re-
peatedly, simple and easy pro-environmental behaviour in the
private-sphere has been suggested as a “wedge” or catalytic be-
haviour which can promote other environmentally relevant be-
haviours (see Thøgersen and Crompton, 2009). There is first evi-
dence, that this behaviour can positively affect high-impact be-
haviour in the public sphere, such as the acceptability of low
carbon policies (Thøgersen and Noblet, 2012). The term positive
spillover describes the phenomenon that an increase in a particular
pro-environmental behaviour may result in the performance of
other kinds of pro-environmental behaviour. Yet, even among
private-sphere behaviours, only a handful of studies have reported
indications for positive spillover, mostly in similar behavioural
domains (Thøgersen, 2004) and with spillover effects of small to
modest size (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003).
In order to trigger positive spillover, it is highly important how
the “wedge” or catalytic behaviour is promoted. Environmental
campaigners, businessmen and politicians often choose to en-
courage pro-environmental behaviour by means of monetary ar-
guments, thereby hoping for changes in a range of further pro-
environmental behaviour (see Thøgersen and Crompton, 2009).
Current studies, however, have revealed the risk of framing pro-
environmental behaviour with monetary reasons or arguments.
Namely: monetary framing of the source behaviour can limit po-
sitive spillover and environmental framing itself can increase the
disposition to show further pro-environmental behaviour (Evans
et al., 2013; Steinhorst et al., 2015). Monetary appeals for pro-en-
vironmental behaviour, which is a commonly used strategy in
environmental campaigning, can counteract the original purpose
of the campaign (to trigger a wide range of pro-environmental
behaviour) by limiting pro-environmental behavioural change to
the targeted behaviour. In this context, Thøgersen and Crompton
(2009) point out that “It is crucially important to examine the ef-
fect of public campaigns aimed at encouraging individuals to
modify their behaviour in simple ways that serve to reduce per-
sonal environmental impact: to what extent do such campaigns
contribute to building public acceptance of, and demand for, far-
reaching government interventions?”(p. 142).
While psychologists mainly focus on pro-environmental be-
haviour in the private sphere (e.g. reducing electricity consump-
tion or car use), there is a need for research on how most common
intervention strategies (informational measures) influence high-
impact pro-environmental behaviour in the public sphere, such as
policy acceptability. To date, only few studies have examined this
research question (e.g. Bolderdijk et al., 2013; Boomsma and Steg,
2014; Walker et al., 2014). Also, research on factors that trigger
positive spillover effects from pro-environmental private-sphere
behaviour to public-sphere behaviour, such as the acceptability of
policy measures is purely correlational (Thøgersen and Noblet,
2012; Tobler et al., 2012; Willis and Schor, 2012). To the best of our
knowledge, there is no experimental evidence on this form of
spillover yet.
The present study investigates the spillover effects due to a
framed intervention aimed at household electricity saving on the
acceptability of low carbon policies. To the best of our knowledge,
the present study is the first approach to address the influence of
framing on low carbon policy acceptability and the occurrence of
pro-environmental spillover on this high impact pro-environ-
mental behaviour. By means of an experimental long-term design
we examine spillover effects of the most commonly used strate-
gies for promoting pro-environmental behaviour: monetary and
environmental framing, while taking into account the influence of
initial personal ecological norms.
1.1. Spillover effects on policy acceptability related to type of framing
The spillover hypothesis was first introduced by Scott (1977).
As postulated, it has been shown that the performance of pro-
environmental behaviour (Thøgersen, 1999) or its promotion in
light of environmental values or goals (Evans et al., 2013; Spence
et al., 2014) can increase the disposition to show further pro-en-
vironmental behaviour in the future. Nevertheless, positive spil-
lover cannot be taken for granted and may appear under certain
circumstances only (for reviews see Thøgersen and Crompton,
2009; Truelove et al., 2014). Empirical evidence shows that it is
usually of small to modest size (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003).
Chances increase with the perceived similarity of behaviours
(Thøgersen, 2004), therefore, if the actor believes that both serve a
pro-environmental goal.
Also, most indications for positive spillover effects have been
found among different private-sphere behaviours (e.g. Evans et al.,
2013; Spence et al., 2014; Steinhorst et al., 2015; Thøgersen, 1999,
2004; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003). Stern et al. (1999) introduced
the term private-sphere behaviour for pro-environmental beha-
viour carried out in the private sphere (e.g. the purchase, use and
disposal of personal and household products) in contrast to pro-
environmental behaviour in the public sphere (such as policy
support or acceptability). According to Stern (2000), public-sphere
behaviours are of higher importance for environmental change
because “although these behaviours affect the environment only
indirectly, by influencing public policies, the effects may be large,
because public policies can change the behaviours of many people
and organisations at once” (p. 409). Our study focusses on a form
of spillover usually not investigated: from private-sphere beha-
viour (here: saving electricity) to public-sphere behaviour (here:
the acceptability of low carbon policies). Up to now, only a few
entirely correlational studies point to this form of behavioural
spillover: In the environmental context, private-sphere behaviour
has been shown to positively correlate with policy support (Stern
et al., 1999; Thøgersen and Noblet, 2012; Tobler et al., 2012; Willis
and Schor, 2012). For instance, in a study by Thøgersen and Noblet
(2012) everyday “green” behaviour significantly contributed to
predicting the acceptance of wind power when controlling for
environmental concern.
Yet, the reasons for the occurence of positive spillover have not
been completely uncovered. In regard to pro-environmental be-
haviour, it has been suggested that people who show one pro-
environmental behaviour will be likely to strive for consistency by
acting pro-environmentally in other areas as well (Thøgersen,
2004). This recurrent explanation for spillover effects is based on
the cognitive dissonance theory (Aronson, 1997). According to
Aronson individuals who are confronted with inconsistency be-
tween their self-concept and a cognition about their behaviour
will experience some kind of mental stress or discomfort. Conse-
quently they will be motivated to reduce this dissonance, for ex-
ample by acting in accordance with their self-concept.
 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
This explanation for cognitive dissonance is built on the im-
plicit assumption that all people strive to perceive themselves as a
moral (e.g. pro-environmental) person (Thøgersen, 2004) and to
appear as a morally integer person to others (see Truelove et al.,
2014). Another possibility may be that people more likely perceive
themselves as pro-environmental after performing behaviour in
light of a pro-environmental motivation. The self-perception the-
ory (Bem, 1972) posits that people infer their attitudes from past
behaviour. In line with this theory, if past behaviour is introduced
in the light of pro-environmental motives, a person will reattribute
the performance of this behaviour to a pro-environmental attitude
and thus be motivated to act in line with this attitude in the future.
As a consequence, chances for positive spillover between pro-en-
vironmental behaviour may increase with environmental framing
or labelling, demonstrated in regard to private-sphere behaviour
(Cornelissen et al., 2008; Evans et al., 2013; Spence et al., 2014). If
past behaviour is introduced in light of a monetary motivation,
however, a person will be motivated to act in line with this mo-
tivation as well. Therefore this person will more likely show fur-
ther behaviour with monetary benefits, often not inherent in pro-
environmental behaviour. As a consequence, chances of positive
spillover on further pro-environmental behaviour will be inhibited
by monetary framing, which has been demonstrated in regard to
private-sphere behaviour already (Evans et al., 2013; Steinhorst
et al., 2015).
Hence, the effects of monetary or environmental framing on
pro-environmental behaviour should differ considerably, depend-
ing on the motive that was made salient, as outlined above. In the
tradition of Levin, Schneider & Gaeth`s(1998) specification of goal
framing, we refer to the term framing as an appeal to one of several
possible motives or reasons for performing a specific behaviour.
Framing is understood to work by priming behaviour with certain
values or motives or making motives or values salient (Evans et al.,
2013; Spence et al., 2014). Recipients of framing will consequently
be more likely to perform behaviour that is in line with these
motives or goals (Maio et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004).
These results may also apply to the acceptability of low carbon
policies, substantiated by the fact that pro-environmental values
are positively related to pro-environmental policy support
(Bolderdijk et al., 2013; Poortinga et al., 2004; Steg et al., 2005) and
renewable energy sources (Steg et al., 2015).
H1. Against the background of the presented literature, we pos-
tulate that (repeated) environmental framing of electricity saving
tips increases the acceptability of low carbon policies, such as in-
frastructural changes and subsidies for reducing household carbon
emissions. This positive influence is not expected for monetary
framing.
1.2. The role of personal ecological norms for policy acceptability
Apart from the positive influence of environmental framing on
behavioural spillover, studies by Thøgersen and Ölander (2003)
and Thøgersen (2004) suggest that strong personal norms for pro-
environmental behaviour increase the likelihood for positive
spillover from one pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. saving
electricity) to another (e.g. policy acceptability). Personal norms
can be described as feelings of moral obligation, which are gen-
erated by the activation of a person's internalised moral standards
or values (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz and Howard, 1981). According
to the norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz and Ho-
ward, 1981) these feelings of moral obligation can be experienced
due to a person's self-expectation to show certain behaviour in a
particular situation. More specifically, personal ecological norms
result from a person's self-expectation to behave environmental
friendly (see Hunecke et al., 2001). According to Stern et al. (1999),
337
personal norms strongly influence all kinds of behaviours per-
formed with pro-environmental intention. Based on the value-
belief-norm theory (Stern et al., 1999) several studies demon-
strated that the acceptability of political measures is significantly
influenced by personal norms, e.g. in the context of transport
policies (Eriksson et al., 2006, 2008), low carbon policies (De Groot
and Steg, 2009; Steg et al., 2005) and pro-environmental policies
in general (Poortinga et al., 2004). Thus, we conclude the following
assumption.
H2. Individuals with a strong personal ecological norm for redu-
cing electricity consumption also show a higher acceptability of
low carbon policies, such as infrastructural changes and subsidies
for reducing household carbon emissions.
1.3. How do framing effects interact with personal ecological norms?
So far, it has been shown that positive spillover does vary with
the strength of a person's pro-environmental norms (Thøgersen,
2004; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003). Furthermore, there are in-
dications that the type of framing can trigger positive spillover on
the acceptability of low carbon policies (see Section 1.1). Both
spillover mechanisms can be traced back to the fact that pro-en-
vironmental goals are more accessible and salient to a person with
strong or activated pro-environmental norms. Thus, both me-
chanisms may possibly interact and result in an even stronger
spillover effect. In support for this reasoning, a study by Dickerson
et al. (1992) was able to show that an induced salience for a dis-
crepancy between a person's norm for pro-environmental beha-
viour and actual behaviour can lead to pro-environmental beha-
viour change. According to Chong and Druckman (2007, p. 111)
“Framing can work on […] three levels, by making new beliefs
available about an issue, making certain available beliefs acces-
sible, or making beliefs applicable or “strong” in people's
evaluations”.
The cognitive dissonance theory (Aronson, 1997), as mentioned
above, states that an inconsistency appears between a person's
self-concept and a cognition about own behaviour will result in an
aspiration to reduce the inconsistency. In reference to framing, this
means that the pro-environmental framing of electricity saving
behaviour can activate a person's cognition of perceiving elec-
tricity saving behaviour as pro-environmental. After performing
this behaviour, a person will be more willing to act consistently on
further pro-environmental behaviour types, such as the accept-
ability of low carbon policies. The cognitive dissonance theory
(Aronson, 1997) also posits that the desire to reduce the incon-
sistency will even be stronger, if it is perceived as important, be-
cause it threatens the self-concept of a person. Therefore, in-
dividuals with strong personal norms will be more receptive to
this inconsistency.
Thus we can conclude: When the initial personal norm for a
specific pro-environmental behaviour is strong or made salient by
framing, chances for positive spillover on further pro-environ-
mental behaviour, such as low carbon policy acceptability will
increase. This effect should be even stronger when both conditions
apply. Otherwise, if the personal ecological norm is not strong or
does not become salient (in the case of monetary framing) this will
not lead to a feeling of inconsistency, not causing a motivation to
act in accordance to one's personal ecological norm.
Empirical evidence so far supports this reasoning. A study by
Parag et al. (2011) found evidence for a moderating effect of atti-
tude on the influence of carbon emission framing (mixed with
monetary arguments) on intentions for the target behaviour (en-
ergy saving), when compared to a purely monetary frame. Fur-
thermore, environmental information congruent with pro-en-
vironmental values has been found to interact with environmental
338 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
framing: For instance, Boomsma and Steg (2014) observed an in-
creased acceptability of lower street lighting levels for people with
strong biospheric values when provided with value-congruent
pro-environmental information compared to no information. Thus,
the kind of information did not affect acceptability ratings in
people with weak biospheric values (Boomsma and Steg, 2014).
Similarly, in a study by Bolderdijk et al. (2013) environmental in-
formation (a movie on bottled water) showed no effect compared
to neutral information, but positively interacted with biospheric
values and strengthened behavioural intentions and policy ac-
ceptability if congruent values were strong. If congruent values
were weak, however, there was no significant interaction effect
(Bolderdijk et al., 2013).
Given this empirical evidence, we may infer that, similarly,
personal norms will interact with environmental framing effects.
As we mentioned earlier, activated values or moral standards are
understood as a precondition for feelings of moral obligation (or
personal norms), in the tradition of the norm activation theory
(Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz and Howard, 1981). Environmental
framing has been argued to take effect upon the activation of
environmental values and norms (Evans et al., 2013; Steinhorst
et al., 2015). Several studies have proven that the strength of
personal norms increases chances of pro-environmental spillover
in the private sphere (Thøgersen, 2004; Thøgersen and Ölander,
2003). In regard to public-sphere behaviour, as mentioned earlier,
personal norms have been demonstrated to be important pre-
dictors of the acceptability of transport policies (Eriksson et al.,
2006, 2008), low carbon policies (De Groot and Steg, 2009; Steg
et al., 2005) and pro-environmental policies in general (Poortinga
et al., 2004). Thus, we presume that findings for private-sphere
behaviour are also applicable to public-sphere behaviour, such as
low carbon policy acceptability.
H3. The strength of personal ecological norms moderates the in-
fluence of the type of framing on policy acceptability. More spe-
cifically: (Repeated) environmental framing has a stronger positive
influence on the acceptability of low carbon policies for individuals
with a strong personal ecological norm for saving electricity,
compared to individuals with a weak personal ecological norm.
However, the influence of (repeated) monetary framing on the
acceptability of low carbon policies is not moderated by personal
ecological norms, since personal ecological norms are not con-
gruent with this type of framing.
2. Methods
This study was carried out as part of a larger intervention study
aimed at encouraging households to reduce their electricity con-
sumption. The purpose of the present paper was to investigate how
potential spillover effects on the acceptability of low carbon policies
are influenced by the way the source behaviour, electricity saving, is
promoted (in terms of monetary or environmental framing).
Table 1
Study design.
Group Pre-assessment Intervention
6/2013 11/2013–01/2014
Monetary framing O1 X1
R Environm. framing O1 X2
Control group O1 – –
Dependent variables: O1: personal ecological norms for saving electricity
O2 and O3: acceptability of low carbon policies
2.1. Procedure
Online clients of a local energy provider in a German city in the
Ruhr-area were invited to participate in an electricity saving pro-
ject. For participation they registered in a web portal. As incentives
for taking part in the project we offered tailored electricity saving
tips and a lottery for vouchers from an online retailer.
Prior to the intervention, participants were randomly assigned
to three different groups: two experimental groups which received
electricity saving tips accompanied either by monetary framing or
environmental framing and a control group which received no
information. The intervention consisted of a short text paragraph
introducing a problem situation and five to ten electricity saving
tips accompanied by the annual saving potential in Euro (mone-
tary framing) or CO2 (environmental framing). The monetary
framing text explained the rise of energy prices in Germany and
how saving electricity may help to reduce the financial burden for
households. The environmental framing group read a short para-
graph on the threat of climate change and how saving electricity
can help to minimise negative effects (for details see Appendix A).
One and three months after the initial framing and intervention,
participants received email reminders with their electricity saving
tips attached, again framed in terms of monetary or environmental
benefits (example in Appendix B).
Table 1 presents the study design with one pre-assessment
prior to the intervention and two follow-up assessments, four and
nine months later. The pre-assessment was carried out in June
2013 in order to identify the most relevant electricity saving do-
mains for the sample. The intervention took place in November
2013 and was repeated in December 2013 and February 2014. A
list of five to ten framed electricity saving tips could be down-
loaded in a web portal until the end of the study and was sent to
participants as an attachment in two email-reminders (repeated
intervention). Participants evaluated the acceptability of low car-
bon policies in two follow-up assessments after the initial inter-
vention, starting in March and August 2014.
2.2. Sample
The initial sample consisted of 360 participants who took part
in the pre-assessment, the intervention and Follow-up assessment
1. In Follow-up assessment 2 the number of participants dropped
to 329. For both follow-up assessments, manipulation control
questions were applied in order to confide participants who had
not processed the framing carefully. Only participants who in-
dicated that they had read, downloaded, displayed or discussed
the electricity saving tips were included in the analysis. Therefore,
for the first follow-up assessment 333 participants (92.5%), and for
the second follow-up assessment 258 (78.4%) participants were
included in the final sample. The manipulation control filtering
process did not distinctly alter the socio-demographic character-
istics or the perceived seriousness of environmental problems in
the samples. In Follow-up assessment 1 the average age of parti-
cipants was 48.38 (SD ¼15.00; Min ¼ 20, Max ¼82, 0.6% missing)
and 36.6% were female (0.6% missing). The educational level of
Repeated intervention Follow-up assessment 1 Follow-up assessment 2
12/2013 & 2/2014 3–5/2014 8–10/2014
X1 O2 O3
X2 O2 O3
O2 O3
 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344 339

29.9% of the participants was a university or college degree, 30.5% environmental framing monetary framing control group
finished high school and 39.6% obtained less than a high school

acceptability for infrastructural

5
degree (3.6% missing). Socio-demographic characteristics of the

changes - Follow-up 1
samples in Follow-up assessment 1 (N ¼333) and Follow-up as-
4
sessment 2 (N ¼258) barely differed from each other. In compar-
ison to the German population, the study sample contained
a bigger proportion of male and slightly older participants 3
(Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2013). The perceived ser-
iousness of environmental problems was slightly higher in com- 2
parison to the answers of a representative German survey
(N ¼ 2000) conducted by the German Federal Environment Agency n = 42 n = 45 n = 47 n = 69 n = 60 n = 70
(Umweltbundesamt, 2012). On the question “When evaluating the 1
weak personal ecological norms strong personal ecological norms
policy of the federal government for environmental protection,
should the government, in your opinion…” participants in Follow- framing condition
up assessment 1 chose the answer options “…do more” with 72.4%, Fig. 1. Mean acceptability ratings for infrastructural changes in Follow-up assess-
“…do less” with 3.0% and “…or is it right as it currently is?” with ment 1 for subjects with weak (N ¼134) and strong personal ecological norms
24.6%, compared to 64%, 6%, and 30% in the representative German (N ¼ 199).
Note. aError bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
survey (Umweltbundesamt, 2012).

4 ¼“fairly in favour”, 5 ¼“very much in favour”) with an additional

2.3. Variables
answer option (“do not know”), treated as missing in the
analysis.
For measuring the acceptability of low carbon policies we fo-
Originally, another two items assessed the acceptability of price
cussed on the two most essential political strategies of the German
increases for reducing household carbon emissions: “Increase
Energiewende: i.e. the expansion of renewable energy sources and
prices of household appliances that are not energy efficient by
political measures for energy efficiency. In order to screen for the
10%“ and “Increase electricity price by 10%”. A principal component
effects of framing on policy acceptability, we assessed acceptability
analysis conducted with the complete set of 10 acceptability items
ratings for examples of both types of political measures: the ac-
revealed that all items loaded very high (.77) on one of three
ceptability of infrastructural changes for renewable energy sources
(oblimin) rotated factors in Follow-up assessment 1 and 2.
and subsidies for reducing household carbon emissions. The ac-
Therefore, the mean score of the acceptability ratings was calcu-
ceptability for low carbon policies was assessed with eight items
lated for the factors: infrastructural changes (6 items, Cronbach's
divided into two scales. Items were introduced with: “In the fol-
α ¼.92 for the first and α ¼.94 for the second follow-up assess-
lowing you find a list of climate protection policy measures in
ment), subsidies for reducing household carbon emissions (2
Germany that are already implemented or would be conceivable in
items, Spearman Brown coefficient of .71 and .65; Cronbach's
the future. Please indicate for every measure, if and how strongly
α ¼.70 and α ¼ .65)2 and price increase for electricity and non-ef-
you support them”.
ficient appliances (2 items, Spearman Brown coefficient of .47 and
The scale for the acceptability of infrastructural changes con-
.57; Cronbach's α ¼ .47 and α ¼.54; e.g. Eisinga et al., 2013). Due to
tained six items referring to different domains: the extension of
insufficient (Kline, 1999) reliability values (Cronbach's α o.60) the
renewable energy plants (2 items: “Extension of renewable energy
items on the acceptability of price increases were excluded from
plants [e.g. wind wheels, photovoltaic] in my region” and “Exten-
the subsequent analysis.3
sion of renewable energy plants [e.g. wind wheels, photovoltaic] in
The personal ecological norm for saving electricity was assessed
Germany”), the extension of the electricity grid (2 items: “Exten-
with two items.: “Due to my personal values/ principles for en-
sion of power lines in my region for the distribution of electricity
vironmental protection I feel obliged to save electricity during my
from renewable energy” and “Extension of power lines in Germany
everyday life” and “No matter what other people think or do, due
for the distribution of electricity from renewable energy”, as well
to my personal values/ principles for environmental protection, I
as the extension of electricity storage (2 items: “Extension of sto-
feel personally obliged to save electricity during my everyday life”,
rage options for renewable energy [e.g. underground pumped
measured on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “do not agree”, 2 ¼“agree
storage power stations] in my region” “Extension of storage op-
slightly”, 3¼ “agree moderately”, 4 ¼“agree fairly”, 5¼ “agree very
tions for renewable energy [e.g. pumped storage power stations]
much”). This operationalisation is in accordance with previous
in Germany”)..1
measures of personal ecological norms (Matthies et al., 2006).
The scale for the acceptability of subsidies for reducing house-
Internal consistency for the personal ecological norms scale
hold carbon emissions consisted of two items: “Subsidise energy-
was very good (Spearman Brown coefficient and Cronbach's
efficient household appliances so that the price is reduced by 10%”
α ¼.89). Based on a median split (Median ¼4.00) a categorical
and “Subsidise electricity from renewable energy/ green electricity
variable was computed representing a strong and weak personal
so that the price is reduced by 10%”.
ecological norm for saving electricity. The resulting groups were
All items were answered on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “not in
similar in gender composition (strong personal ecological norms:
favour”, 2 ¼“slightly in favour”, 3 ¼“moderately in favour”,
35.9% females; weak personal ecological norms: 34.3% males), χ2
(1, N ¼ 332) ¼0.082, p ¼.775, but differed in age (strong personal
1
Items for policy acceptability were phrased in reference to local or national ecological norms: M ¼50.75, SD ¼ 14.83, n¼ 199; weak personal
dimensions due to an implicit research assumption. Researchers and practitioners
have come across a “gap” between the high level of public support for renewable
2
energy technologies and the opposition to specific projects at the local level, called In line with the recommendation of Eisinga et al. (2013) for two-item scales
the NIMBY syndrome (not-in-my-backyard). Therefore, we expected local energy we also calculated the Spearman-Brown coefficient additionally to Cronbach's
plants to be less acceptable due to local disadvantages (e.g. changes in landscape) alpha.
3
but global advantages (reduced carbon emissions). This assumption, however, was We did not use a standardised questionnaire and these items did not load on
not supported by the factor structure and therefore not pursued any further in our one factor. Consequently, we did not proceed with single item testing, since these
study. results would not be trustworthy.
340 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344

ecological norms: M¼46.00, SD ¼14.96, n ¼ 134), t (330) ¼  2.86, environmental framing monetary framing control group
p ¼0.005, d ¼0.32. 5

acceptability for infrastructural

changes - Follow-up 2
4
3. Results

Data analysis was originally planned in the repeated measures 3

design or multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), most ap-
propriate for longitudinal data and interaction hypothesis. How- 2
ever, data screening revealed missing preconditions of normally
distributed data. Hence, the most robust procedure in order to test n = 35 n = 32 n = 36 n = 53 n = 46 n = 56
1
for main and interaction effects were single analyses of variance
weak personal ecological norms strong personal ecological norms
(ANOVAs), combined with non-parametric tests in order to con-
firm the main effects. For each of the two identified acceptability framing condition
types (acceptability of infrastructural changes and acceptability of Fig. 2. Mean acceptability ratings for infrastructural changes in Follow-up assess-
subsidies), the effects of type of framing and personal ecological ment 2 for subjects with weak (N¼ 103) and strong personal ecological norms
norms were examined. A two way 2  3 ANOVA included the (N ¼ 155).
Note. aError bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
factors personal ecological norms (weak, strong) and the framing
condition (monetary framing, environmental framing, control
carbon emissions in Follow-up assessment 1, there was no sig-
group).4 Additional information on significant interaction effects
nificant main effect of framing condition (p ¼.251, N ¼ 333), but a
was obtained from a simple effect analysis for pairwise comparisons.
significant main effect of personal ecological norms (F(1, 327) ¼
4.06, p ¼.045, ηp2 ¼0.01) and a significant interaction effect of
3.1. Effects on the acceptability of infrastructural changes
framing condition with personal ecological norms (F(2, 327) ¼3.85,
p¼ .022, ηp2 ¼ 0.02).
In Follow-up assessment 1 the ANOVA revealed no significant
Pairwise comparisons for subjects with strong personal ecolo-
main effect of framing condition on the acceptability of infra-
gical norms (see Fig. 3) showed that acceptability ratings in the
structural changes (p ¼ .965, N ¼333). There was a significant main
environmental framing group were 0.58 points higher than in the
effect of personal ecological norms (F(1, 327) ¼ 4.47, p ¼ .035,
monetary framing group (p ¼.005, 95% CI of the difference ¼0.18
ηp2 ¼0.01) and the interaction effect for framing condition and
to 0.97) and 0.48 points higher than in the control group (p ¼.015,
personal ecological norms was marginally significant (F(2, 327) ¼
95% CI of the difference ¼0.09 to 0.86). The monetary framing
4.01, p¼ .068, ηp2 ¼0.03).5
group and the control group did not differ in their acceptability
Pairwise comparisons for subjects with strong personal ecolo-
ratings (p ¼.620). For subjects with weak personal ecological
gical norms (see Fig. 1) showed that the acceptability in the en-
norms, no significant differences in acceptability ratings were
vironmental framing group was marginally higher than in the
found under the three framing conditions.
monetary framing group (p¼ .075). The other groups did not differ.
For the acceptability of subsidies for reducing household car-
For subjects with weak personal ecological norms however, no
bon emissions in Follow-up assessment 2, there was no significant
significant differences in acceptability ratings were found under
main effect of framing condition (p¼ .795, N ¼258), no main effect
the three framing conditions.
of personal ecological norms (p ¼ .400), but a significant small to
In Follow-up assessment 2, again there was no significant main
medium interaction effect for framing condition and personal
effect of framing condition on the acceptability of infrastructural
ecological norms (F(2, 252)¼6.12, p o.01, ηp2 ¼ 0.05).
changes (p¼.552, N¼258) and the main effect for personal ecolo-
For the subjects with strong personal ecological norms (see
gical norms in Follow-up assessment 1 had disappeared (p¼ .300),
Fig. 4), the environmental framing group showed 0.46 points
but there was a significant interaction effect of framing condition and
higher acceptability ratings than the control group (p¼ .033, 95% CI
personal ecological norms (F(2, 252)¼ 3.73, p¼ .025, ηp2 ¼ 0.03).
of the difference ¼ 0.04 to 0.88). There were no differences be-
Pairwise comparisons for subjects with strong personal ecolo-
tween the monetary framing group and the control group re-
gical norms (see Fig. 2) revealed a 0.43 points higher acceptability in
gardless of the strength of personal ecological norms. Pairwise
the environmental framing group than in the control group
comparisons for subjects with weak personal ecological norms
(p¼ .033, 95% CI of the difference ¼0.03 to 0.82) and a marginally
(see Fig. 4) revealed 0.68 points lower acceptability ratings in the
significant increase in acceptability ratings compared to the mone-
environmental framing group compared to the control group
tary framing group (p¼.067). The monetary framing group and the
(p ¼.010, 95% CI of the difference ¼ 1.20 to  0.17) and margin-
control group did not differ in their acceptability ratings (p¼.844).
ally lower ratings compared to the monetary framing group
For subjects with weak personal ecological norms, no differences on
(p ¼.063).
acceptability ratings were found between framing conditions.

3.2. Effects on the acceptability of subsidies for reducing household

carbon emissions
For the acceptability of subsidies for reducing household
4
The precondition of normally distributed data for the ANOVA was not met.
On this account we conducted additional Kruskal-Wallis-Tests for the main effects
of personal ecological norms and condition framing on acceptability ratings and
found the same pattern of significant results and effects sizes. Consequently, the
interaction effect in the ANOVA can be interpreted as valuable.
5
Benchmarks for ηp2 are 0.01 for a small but not trivial effect, 0.06 for a
medium and 0.14 for a large effect.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of com-
monly used strategies for promoting pro-environmental beha-
viour, therefore emphasising monetary rather than environmental
benefits. More specifically, we examined how the framing
(monetary vs. environmental) of an intervention to promote a
private-sphere pro-environmental behaviour (electricity saving
behaviour) affects further pro-environmental behaviour in the
public sphere (the acceptability of low carbon energy policies).
Furthermore, we aimed at taking into account the role of personal
 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344 341

environmental framing monetary framing control group The monetary framing of electricity saving behaviour in our
5 study presented no positive effect on the acceptability of infra-
structural changes and subsidies for reducing household carbon
acceptability for subsidies

emissions. This is in line with research demonstrating that, when

4
promoting pro-environmental behaviour, appeals to monetary
-Follow-up 1

benefits may discourage positive influences on further pro-en-

3 vironmental behaviour (Evans et al., 2013; Steinhorst et al., 2015).
In this context, a review on spillover effects (Thøgersen and
Crompton, 2009) similarly concludes that the motivation to sup-
2
port sustainable policies seems more likely to be sustained if it
n = 42 n = 45 n = 47 n = 69 n = 60 n = 70 was adopted due to intrinsic motives (such as environmental
1 protection), rather than extrinsic motives, such as monetary
weak personal ecological norms strong personal ecological norms
benefits.
framing condition
4.2. The influence of personal ecological norms on policy
Fig. 3. Mean acceptability ratings for subsidies in Follow-up assessment 1 for
subjects with weak (N ¼ 134) and strong personal ecological norms (N ¼ 199). acceptability
Note. aError bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
As expected, the results of the present study revealed that
personal ecological norms for pro-environmental behaviour are
environmental framing monetary framing control group positively related to the acceptability of low carbon policies,
5 namely infrastructural changes as well as subsidies (Hypothesis 2).
Our results are in line with other studies that support the corre-
acceptability for subsidies

lation of personal ecological norms and public-sphere pro-en-

4
vironmental behaviours such as policy acceptability (De Groot and
-Follow-up 2

Steg, 2009; Eriksson et al., 2006, 2008; Steg et al., 2005; Steg et al.,
3 2006; Stern et al., 1999).

2
n = 35 n = 32 n = 36 n = 53
1 Hypothesis 3 predicted that personal ecological norms play a
weak personal ecological norms strong personal ecological norms
framing condition
Fig. 4. Mean acceptability ratings for subsidies in Follow-up assessment 2 for
subjects with weak (N ¼ 103) and strong personal ecological norms (N ¼ 155).
Note. aError bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
norms as a predictor as well as a moderator for potential spillover
effects.
In the following, results will be discussed for each hypothesis.
4.1. Spillover effects on policy acceptability caused by framing
Contrary to our expectations of a positive spillover effect, en-
vironmental framing had no influence on either one of the scales
for policy acceptability (Hypothesis 1). There are two possible
reasons for these results. On the one hand our manipulation may
not have been strong enough to uncover a rather small increase in
the public-sphere behaviour. Indeed, studies on private-sphere
behaviour have found a spillover effect of small size (Thøgersen
and Ölander, 2003), apparent in only one third of possible beha-
viours (Evans et al., 2013). On the other hand, the connection of
electricity saving behaviour with low carbon policies may not have
become salient. Studies on spillover effects provide support for the
latter explanation, showing that positive spillover usually appears
in similar behavioural domains (Stern et al., 1999; Thøgersen,
2004). Private-sphere behaviours among themselves are much
more similar than private-sphere and public-sphere behaviour.
Nevertheless, both behaviours targeted in our study (electricity
saving behaviour and the acceptability of low carbon policies)
share the same behavioural domain of energy relevant behaviour
and indications for positive spillover from a private-sphere beha-
viour to a public-sphere behaviour has been proven possible be-
fore for the acceptance of wind power (Thøgersen and Noblet,
2012) as well as political action and support for policy measures
(Tobler et al., 2012; Willis and Schor, 2012).
4.3. The moderating role of personal ecological norms on spillover
effects in association with framing
n = 46 n = 56
moderating role on the influence of the framing condition on ac-
ceptability ratings. We expected the acceptability of low carbon
policies to be higher for individuals with strong personal ecolo-
gical norms. We did not expect an effect of framing conditions for
subjects with weak personal ecological norms or an effect of
personal ecological norms under monetary framing. Overall, re-
sults confirmed these assumptions, which is in line with findings
that framing or labelling effects can be moderated by pro-en-
vironmental values (Bolderdijk et al., 2013; Boomsma and Steg,
2014) or attitudes (Parag et al., 2011).
For individuals with strong personal ecological norms, en-
vironmental framing had a significant positive effect on accept-
ability ratings. For subjects with a weak personal ecological norm
for saving electricity, however, the framing condition had no effect
on acceptability ratings. This positive spillover effect caused by the
framing condition in case of strong personal norms appeared in
spite of the absent main effect of the framing condition itself (see
Section 4.1). A possible explanation might be that the similarity
between saving electricity and low carbon policies is more ap-
parent if it is important for a person to behave environmental
friendly. This is the case when personal ecological norms are
strong (Thøgersen, 2004).
One exception to the consistent moderating role of personal
ecological norms was the negative effect of environmental framing
for participants with weak personal ecological norms, only present
on the acceptability of subsidisation measures and only in the
second follow-up assessment after nine months. This unexpected
effect may be due to a defensive response, resulting in a seemingly
paradox reaction. Schwartz and Howard (1981) describe a similar
effect that occurred in studies on altruistic behaviour, when an
appeal was presented in a highly pressuring manner. The en-
vironmental framing itself may not have had such a strong influ-
ence, but pro-environmental arguments often used in the media
may have primed the climate debate in society, which was then
perceived as heavily pressuring. Schwartz and Howard's (1981)
342 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
explanations for subsequent defensive reactions may also apply to
our results: First, when an appeal is presented in a highly pres-
suring manner, the recipient could become suspicious of the mo-
tives of the sender, resulting in denial of need. Second, the per-
ception of being manipulated may result in reactance, resulting in
refusal to show the behaviour. It is puzzling, however, that we
observed this defensive reaction for the acceptability of subsidies
only. This finding may be due to the fact that participants with an
initially weak personal ecological norm for saving electricity per-
ceived subsidies as possible financial disadvantages, because they
were not granted financial benefits. When rating the acceptability
of subsidies, those participants might have sensed it unfair, if other
people investigate less for behaving pro-environmentally, some-
thing they, in their opinion, have already acquired by saving
electricity. Environmental framing was designed to make partici-
pants perceive their electricity saving behaviour as something that
protects the climate. The fact that most participants had already
contributed to climate protection by their electricity saving be-
haviour without anybody else co-financing it, may finally have led
to a defensive reaction. On the contrary, the policy measure in-
frastructural changes presents inherent monetary advantages that
are profitable for all of Germany and the German economy, re-
spectively, which indirectly benefits the individual.
Furthermore, another cause might have been that participants
with low personal ecological norms were concerned about ap-
pearing pro-environmentally contrary to their desired self-re-
presentation. Gromet et al. (2013) found that politically con-
servative participants were reluctant to act in line with pro-en-
vironmental appeals. However, this explanation would call for a
systematic effect, which is unlikely, since individuals with low
personal ecological norms did show defensive reactions only on
one out of four possible acceptability ratings.
4.4. Transferability of the present findings
On the one hand, it should be noted that in the study sample
(older) men were overrepresented and showed a slightly higher
perceived seriousness of environmental problems compared to the
German population. This may be due to the fact that participants
were “household representatives”, since each household was asked
to select the person responsible for the energy topic in the
household. Consequently, the present results may not be gen-
eralizable to the German population in total. On the other hand,
the transferability of this German sample to other countries might
be impaired. German citizens generally possess strong environ-
mental values. Additionally, due to frequent media coverage and
ongoing infrastructural changes for renewable energy across the
country, the energy system transition is highly salient already.
Nevertheless, our study found high acceptability ratings for in-
frastructural changes, which are implemented political measures
as well as for currently hypothetical subsidies for household car-
bon emission reduction in Germany. In a range of countries, per-
sonal norms (the Netherlands: De Groot and Steg, 2009; Sweden:
Eriksson et al., 2006; Eriksson et al., 2008; Germany: Hunecke
et al., 2001) and environmental framing (the Netherlands: Bol-
derdijk et al., 2013; Boomsma and Steg, 2014; UK: Walker et al.,
2014) have been detected as influencing factors for the pro-en-
vironmental policy support. Thus, our results should nonetheless
be transferable beyond Germany, especially to countries were no
such measures have been implemented yet.
In terms of transferability, our results may also apply to other
low carbon policy measures that are present in the lives of citizens,
especially those that are known and discussed in the media. Ex-
amples might be any kind of energy policies currently applied or
discussed, such as personal carbon allowances. Results may also be
informative for policies similar to those investigated, therefore
technological changes and steering policy instruments that go
beyond the extension of renewable energy sources and subsidies
for household carbon emission reduction. Results for the latter
may apply to other energy-efficiency enhancing policies, e.g. price-
incentives for energy efficient refurbishment.
4.5. Implications for future research
To the best of our knowledge there is hardly any investigation
of spillover effects on the acceptability of pro-environmental pol-
icy measures related to framing. Our study contributed to filling
this research gap on policy acceptability and the relevance of dif-
ferent types of framing. As one of the first studies we investigated
how the framing (monetary vs. environmental) of rather low-im-
pact pro-environmental behaviour (saving electricity) influences
further high-impact pro-environmental behaviour (the accept-
ability of low carbon policies and energy system changes). Key for
the value of our study is that it addresses an area not well re-
searched yet. It contributes to the development of spillover the-
ories and possible moderating variables. Furthermore, as an ex-
perimental field study, our research findings possess higher eco-
logical validity than lab studies, which is typical for most studies
on spillover effects (Truelove et al., 2014) and provides means for
causality, contrary to purely correlational approaches so far
(Thøgersen and Noblet, 2012; Tobler et al., 2012; Willis and Schor,
2012).
However, it should be kept in mind that the type of framing
and personal ecological norms are just part of a range of factors
influencing policy acceptability (for an overview see Steg and Vlek,
2009). Hence, subsequent research should further investigate
spillover effects in association with environmental framing and
further influential factors. Our field experiment is highly relevant
from a practical point of view, also for drawing conclusions based
on causal effects. Nevertheless, this study can only be a start to
explore spillover effects in association with environmental and
monetary framing of pro-environmental interventions on the ac-
ceptability of pro-environmental policy measures. Future studies
should investigate spillover effects on the acceptability of further
policy measures.
5. Conclusion and policy implications
Within the German Energiewende, a long-range transformation
process, it is not the rather short-lived impact of political measures
which determines the overall success, but the long-term effects
and potentials of those political measures. Framing information
arguing in terms of consequences and advantages, accompanies
almost every intervention in the course of the energy transition.
For example, community-owned wind farms can be advertised in
terms of monetary advantages for potential shareholders and the
community, or in terms of carbon emission reduction. Another
example is the encouragement of demand side flexibility, which
aims at shifting electricity usage at peak times to times of less
usage. The purpose of this procedure is to allow a reliable overall
power supply with less basic energy demand. Flexible time-of-use
tariffs provide monetary incentives for private households to shift
the time of their energy usage. Simultaneously households con-
tribute to carbon emission reduction by reducing the basic energy
demand. In both examples monetary as well as environmental
advantages are inherent, but it is a matter of the communication
process, which one will be highlighted.
The results of the present study shed light on the potential for
long-term spillover effects that monetary or environmental
framing strategies yield on further behaviours with higher impact.
Our study demonstrated that a rather small intervention
 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
(environmental framing of private-sphere behaviour), under cer-
tain circumstances, may have positive long-term consequences
(the promotion of high-impact public-sphere behaviour). We
therefore conclude that environmental framing of pro-environ-
mental behavioural change can increase the disposition to show
further pro-environmental behaviour in the public sphere.
As our results for interaction effects showed, this is true, at
least, for a subpopulation with strong personal ecological norms. If
personal ecological norms are weak, however, environmental
framing may have a delayed negative effect on the acceptability of
certain policy measures, due to defensive reactions. Furthermore,
from the present study it can be concluded that appeals to
monetary benefits may discourage positive intentions for further
pro-environmental behaviour. Generally, low carbon policy ac-
ceptability increases with the strength of personal ecological
norms, even if these norms are specific for the target behaviour.
Based on the findings of our study we draw conclusions on the
design of policy measures or intervention approaches. In principle,
all kinds of measures for pro-environmental behaviour change
should be designed thoughtfully. If behavioural change in the tar-
geted behaviour is desired to spill over on further pro-environ-
mental behaviour, then communication strategies should focus on
environmental advantages, in particular if the target group pos-
sesses strong ecological norms. Possible inherent financial ad-
vantages may speak for themselves. Monetary incentives are often
perceived as efficient measures for changing a target behaviour
(see Thøgersen and Crompton, 2009). This, however, has been
found to depend on the perceived worthiness of monetary gains,
whereas environmental ains are often perceived as worthy, in-
dependent of their height (Dogan et al., 2014). Furthermore, Parag
et al. (2011) argue that price signals in the energy context may lead
to a relatively weak behavioural impact, since energy costs account
for a relatively small proportion of the total household budget in
many countries. Sheldon et al. (2011) suggest that it is better to
focus information on how sustainability policies benefit present
and future generations rather than how they help the economy
grow. Thus we can conclude, when there is a choice between
promoting monetary or environmental advantages - in cases
where pro-environmental behaviour serves both - politicians,
businessmen and environmental campaigners should prefer en-
vironmental arguments over monetary to promote pro-environ-
mental behaviour, especially in the presence of strong ecological
norms.
In general, policies that increase the occurrence of strong pro-
environmental values and norms in society will render environ-
mental reasoning more effective. If strong pro-environmental va-
lues or norms of the addressee prevail, interventions that increase
their salience can trigger positive spillover more effectively due to
underlining the importance of environmental causes. In addition,
strengthening personal ecological norms or the general pro-en-
vironmental motivation in society may represent a means to
prevent negative effects, such as defensive reactions. Conse-
quently, it is important to promote the development of pro-en-
vironmental norms in our society. Not only informational cam-
paigns but also educational curricula may strengthen the inter-
nalization of pro-environmental values as norms. In order to fa-
cilitate ecological norm development, education should address
environmental issues as early as possible and governments should
signal high commitment to environmental topics (Thøgersen,
2004).
Besides education, nudging can represent an influential mea-
sure to increase norm development. By setting the default to a
pro-environmental option, this option is more likely perceived as
an indication to a societal standard (Sunstein and Reisch, 2014),
which triggers subsequent pro-environmental behaviour. Thus, by
strengthening the general pro-environmental motivation, in a long
343
run this might help to reduce defensive reactions such as found in
our study. The communication of monetary aspects might even be
endangering the development of stronger pro-environmental
norms or attitudes in our society, since it leads to discussing pro-
environmental aspects less often.
Another policy implication of our findings is to target values or
norms that underlie acceptability ratings, as argued by Steg et al.
(2015). When introducing a new policy, politicians and stake-
holders should carefully consider the perceptions and responses of
parts of the target population which might oppose. At best, a na-
tional or regional survey should precede in order to identify the
specific motivations of specific target groups. Tailored information
schemes or campaigns that market the policy in a way that im-
prove public acceptance could be the next steps. Also, individuals
with initially high ecological norms may need different types of
framing of private-sphere behaviours - like energy saving tips –
than individuals with less developed concerns and norms. This
once again points to the necessity of target group tailored inter-
ventions (e.g. Abrahamse et al., 2007).
In general, our study has indicated that the success of inter-
ventions depends on psychological influences. Above and beyond
characteristics of the policy, individual factors have been identified
to be an important influence on acceptability judgments in many
psychological studies, e.g. in the context of transport policies
(Eriksson et al., 2006, 2008), low carbon policies (De Groot and
Steg, 2009; Steg et al., 2005) and pro-environmental policies in
general (Poortinga et al., 2004). In matters like these, it has proven
helpful to consult psychological expertise. Psychologists can pro-
vide valuable input for designing informational strategies in a way
that triggers the strongest desirable spillover effect on long-term
motivation and further pro-environmental behaviours with higher
impact.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of a project within the
Helmholtz-Alliance ENERGYTRANS in cooperation with the utility
company DEW21 (http://www.dew21.de), founded by the Helm-
holtz-Association and the state of Saxony-Anhalt. We would like to
thank colleagues who supported us in conducting this study,
especially we thank Heidi Mohnert from DEW21. Our gratitude
also belongs to Paul Stern and two anonymous reviewers that
commented on this paper.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.020.
References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T., 2007. The effect of tailored in-
formation, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, en-
ergy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27 (4),
265–276.
Aronson, E., 1997. The theory of cognitive dissonance: The evolution and vicissi-
tudes of an idea. In: McGarty, C., Haslam, S.A. (Eds.), The Message of Social
Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, England, pp. 20–36.
Bem, D.J., 1972. Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Social. Psychol. 6, 1–62.
Bolderdijk, J.W., Gorsira, M., Keizer, K., Steg, L., 2013. Values determine the (In)ef-
fectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental
behavior. Plos. One 8 (12), e83911.
Boomsma, C., Steg, L., 2014. The effect of information and values on acceptability of
reduced street lighting. J. Environ. Psychol. 39, 22–31.
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung [German Federal Agency for Civic Education],
2013. Datenreport 2013. Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
344 J. Steinhorst, E. Matthies / Energy Policy 93 (2016) 335–344
[Data report 2013. A social report for Germany. Retrieved from 〈http://www.
bpb.de/173887/datenreport-2013〉 [2015/08/31].
Chong, D., Druckman, J.N., 2007. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10, 103–126.
Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., Dewitte, S., 2008. Positive cueing: pro-
moting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental be-
haviors as environmental. Int. J. Res. Mark. 25 (1), 46–55.
De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., 2009. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness,
responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 149 (4),
425–449.
Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8 (2), 125–139.
Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., Miller, D., 1992. Using cognitive dis-
sonance to encourage water conservation. J. Appl. Social. Psychol. 22 (11),
841–854.
Dogan, E., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., 2014. Making Small Numbers Count: Environ-
mental and Financial Feedback in Promoting Eco-driving Behaviours. J. Con-
sum. Policy 37 (3), 413–422.
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., Pelzer, B., 2013. The reliability of a two-item scale:
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Health 58 (4), 637–642.
Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., Norlund, A.M., 2006. Acceptability of travel demand man-
agement measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm,
freedom, and fairness. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 15–26.
Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., Norlund, A.M., 2008. Acceptability of single and combined
transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy spe-
cific beliefs. Transp. Res. Part A 42, 1117–1128.
Evans, L., Maio, G.R., Corner, A., Hodgetts, C.J., Ahmed, S., Hahn, U., 2013. Self-in-
terest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (2), 122–125.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy [BMWi], 2014. A good
piece of work. The Energy of the Future. First “Energy Transition” Progress
Report – Summary. Retrieved from 〈http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/
Pdf/fortschrittsbericht-kurzfassung-en,property ¼ pdf,bereich¼ bmwi2012,spra
che¼ en,rwb ¼ true.pdf〉 [27/04/2015].
Gromet, D.M., Kunreuther, H., Larrick, R.P., 2013. Political ideology affects energy-
efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (23), 9314–9319.
Huijts, N.M.A., Molin, E.J.E., Steg, L., 2012. Psychological factors influencing sus-
tainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive fra-
mework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (1), 525–531.
Hunecke, M., Blobaum, A., Matthies, E., Hoger, R., 2001. Responsibility and en-
vironment - Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of
travel mode choice behavior. Environ. Behav. 33 (6), 830–852.
Jones, C.R., Eiser, J.R., 2009. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore
wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 37
(11), 4604–4614.
Kline, P., 1999. The Handbook of Psychological Testing 2. Routledge, London.
Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., Gaeth, G.J., 1998. All frames are not created equal: a ty-
pology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Human. Decis.
Process. 76 (2), 149–188.
Maio, G.R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., Rees, K.J., 2009. Changing, priming, and
acting on values: effects via motivational relations in a circular model. J. Per-
sonal. Soc. Psychol. 97 (4), 699–715.
Matthies, E., Klöckner, C.A., Preißner, C.L., 2006. Applying a modified moral decision
making model to change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective?
Appl. Psychol. 55 (1), 91–106.
Morris, C., Pehnt, M., 2012. Energy transition: the German Energiewende. Retrieved
from 〈http://energytransition.de/wp-content/themes/boell/pdf/en/German-En
ergy-Transition_en.pdf〉 [27/02/2015].
Parag, Y., Capstick, S., Poortinga, W., 2011. Policy attribute framing: a comparison
between three policy instruments for personal emissions reduction. J. Policy
Anal. Manag. 30 (4), 889–905.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concern, and en-
vironmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 36
(1), 70–93.
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 221–279.
Schwartz, S.H., Howard, J.A., 1981. A normative decision-making model of altruism.
In: Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 189–211.
Schweizer-Ries, P., 2008. Energy sustainable communities: environmental psy-
chological investigations. Energy Policy 36 (11), 4126–4135.
Scott, C.A., 1977. Modifying socially-conscious behavior: The foot-in-the-door
technique. J. Consum. Res. 4 (3), 156–164.
Sheldon, K.M., Nichols, C.P., Kasser, T., 2011. Americans recommend smaller eco-
logical footprints when reminded of intrinsic American values of self-expres-
sion, family, and generosity. Ecopsychology 3 (2), 97–104.
Spence, A., Leygue, C., Bedwell, B., O'Malley, C., 2014. Engaging with energy re-
duction: does a climate change frame have the potential for achieving broader
sustainable behaviour? J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 17–28.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of
energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (4), 415–425.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2006. Why are energy policies acceptable and
effective? Environ. Behav. 38 (1), 92–111.
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., 2015. Understanding the human di-
mensions of a sustainable energy transition. Name: Front. Psychol. 6, 805.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behvaiour: an integrative
review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317.
Steinhorst, J., Klöckner, C.A., Matthies, E., 2015. Saving electricity – for the money or
the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using
monetary framing. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 125–135.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407–424.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm
theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum.
Ecol. Rev. 6 (2), 81–97.
Sunstein, C.R., Reisch, L.A., 2014. Automatically green: behavioral economics and
environmental protection. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 38, 127.
Thøgersen, J., 1999. Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable con-
sumption pattern. J. Econ. Psychol. 20 (1), 53–81.
Thøgersen, J., 2004. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and in-
consistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 24
(1), 93–103.
Thøgersen, J., Crompton, T., 2009. Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover
in environmental campaigning. J. Consum. Policy 32 (2), 141–163.
Thøgersen, J., Noblet, C., 2012. Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of
wind power? Energy Policy 51, 854–862.
Thøgersen, J., Ölander, F., 2003. Spillover of environment-friendly consumer be-
haviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (3), 225–236.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2012. Addressing climate change: De-
terminants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. J.
Environ. Psychol. 32 (3), 197–207.
Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Weber, E.U., Raimi, K.T., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2014. Po-
sitive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative
review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang. 29, 127–138.
Umweltbundesamt [German Federal Environment Agency], 2012. Umweltbe-
wusstsein in Deutschland 2012: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölk-
erungsumfrage [Environmental consciousness in Germany 2012]. Retrieved
from 〈http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publika
tion/long/4396.pdf〉 [2013/08/05].
Upham, P., Shackley, S., 2007. Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW
(e) biomass gasifier in Devon: Questionnaire survey results. Biomass. Bioenergy
31 (6), 433–441.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., Deci, E.L., 2004. Motivating
learning, performance, and persistencce: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal
contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 87 (2),
246–260.
Walker, B.J.A., Wiersma, B., Bailey, E., 2014. Community benefits, framing and the
social acceptance of offshore wind farms: an experimental study in England.
Energy Res. Social. Sci. 3, 46–54.
Willis, M.M., Schor, J.B., 2012. Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the
world? Political action and the conscious consumer. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. So-
cial. Sci. 644 (1), 160–190.
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable
energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5),
2683–2691.