A property owner wants to move the residents
in his building in the green direction. After reading a note in the newspaper
about how getting information of neighbour’s electricity bill can cause a
reduction in household energy consumption, he decided to start a campaign to reduce
water consumption in his building. After a couple of months, the overall water
consumption of the building experienced a significant reduction, but with no clear
explanation, electricity utilization grew implying a less efficient use of
electricity.
The hypothetical situation is based in a
study published in 2013 in which evidence consistent with the moral licensing effect
was found in relation to environment-friendly campaigns. (Tiefenbeck, Staake, Roth, &
Sachs, 2013) As
those in Tiefenbeck et al study, residents of this hypothetical building entered
in self-indulgent behaviours, rewarding themselves with careless attitudes once
they saw themselves making an effort to act properly in a completely different behaviour.
Although the intended effect was achieved, it fired a different behaviour in
the opposite direction.
In this essay, I will discuss the
importance of spillovers in relation to behavioural interventions that affect the
original purpose. For the analysis, I will use a concrete example: the charge
placed on carrier bags picked at store. The purpose of that policy is to “nudge”
shoppers to adopt re-usable bags reducing environmental damage.
In the following paragraphs, I will first
characterize a behavioural spillover and discuss briefly why they happen. Then I
will review the type of spillovers identified with examples related to the case
of the carrier bag charge. I will bring evidence of one of such programs in
Wales, and discuss other examples. Finally, I will discuss the ways in which spillovers
may back-fire or promote other behaviours in relation to the intended original
behaviour.
As Dolan and Galizzi define, a spillover requires
the existence of two different behaviours that occur one after the other, and have
some kind of relation by means of some “underlying
motive”. (Dolan & Galizzi, 2015) Different environment conditions may cause the emergence of such patterns,
and across the literature some of them have been carefully characterized.
But prior to advance into that, it is important
to understand that spillovers are at the very basis of human behaviour. The way
we act must be seen as a continuous flow of actions in which one situation
concatenates with the other. In such stream, no single behaviour should be
regarded in solitude, or as Dolan and Galizzi put it: “no behaviour sits in a vacuum”. Daniel Kahneman found the study of
that interaction “one of the most
exciting pursuits in psychological research” (Kahneman, 2011).
Spillovers have been characterized both by
economics and psychology using different terms. Categories as “assimilation”
and “compensatory” behaviour, or “positive” and “negative externalities”, refer
to those unexpected effects that may come after an original situation. Dolan
and Galizzi (2015) provide a characterization of such phenomena in the
behavioural science space, differentiating between behaviours that can work in
the same direction (promoting spillover), or in the contrary (permitting and
purging spillovers). An interesting distinction is presented regarding the
negative spillover effect. Permitting spillovers refer to those cases in which
people reach some level of exhaustion that led them to have less self-control,
or when they feel that their previous behaviour earned them the right to
misbehave. On the other side, purging spillovers refer to the case in which
people feel the need to restore their moral balance once they have done
something they feel bad.
Several context conditions may facilitate
the emergence of spillovers. As Steinhorst and Matthies demonstrated in relation
to energy consumption, personal norms seem to mediate the spillover in a pro-environmental
behaviour. (Steinhorst & Matthies, 2016) In general, spillovers seem to be affected by the cost of the
behaviours, the attention placed in them, its proximity, the nature of its
motivation and the mindset surrounding the situation. (Dolan & Galizzi, 2015)
To illustrate more the point, it is useful
to analyse the case of the carrier bag charge. Many countries implemented policies
to reduce the use of plastic bags, but in particular in Wales, a Single-Use
Carrier Bag Charge (SUCBC) policy required all businesses to charge shoppers for
each bag intended for a single use. Although this was an imposition, it still
counts as a nudge as with a US$ 0,08
charge per single use bag, it does not “significantly
change economic incentives” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008)
Thomas, Poortinga and Sautkina studied the
potential spillovers in relation to this policy regarding other
pro-environmental attitudes. Taking advantage of a national survey, they
compared Wales citizens beliefs regarding environment with those from England
and Scotland. They concluded that although the SUCBC was successful in
encouraging bag re-use, it had minimal changes in the beliefs regarding other
environmental attitudes. (Thomas, Poortinga, & Sautkina,
2016)
In Brazil, a similar policy is enacted. Companies
charge for the use of plastic bags, what is considered as a “green” policy. As
in the case presented by Steinhorst et al., spillover behaviours are mediated
by the beliefs of the individuals. Those who are concerned about the
environment looking for consistency, find in that practice a way to reaffirm their
coherence and engage in even more pro-environmental attitudes buying and
exhibiting their “green-reusable-bags”. Those bags act as signs that let them show
to the world how pro-social and committed with the environment they are and
acting as the same time as a reminder to look for green products inside the
store. A clear path for a promoting spillover that let individuals build and radiate
an image that make them feel good about themselves and push them to actions
consistent with that narrative.
However, part of the Brazilian shoppers does
not link the charge with the environment. As Dolan and Galizzi explained, the
underlying motive and the focus of attention plays a role in mediating the spillover
effects. In this case, the carrier bag charge does not have a significant effect
in subsequent behaviours. A big part of the shoppers, interpret this just as
another pricing strategy without any salient association to a pro-environmental
activity. As Steinhorst et al. discuss, if further behavioural change regarding
pro-environmental behaviours is intended, then a communication strategy may
leverage in such policy. Brazilian citizens are well aware of the importance of
environmental matters. Taking advantage of such strong ecological norms in
other fields may help in positive spillovers.
It is important to note that this last path
may also backfire. As it was mentioned, negative spillovers may also be activated,
moral licensing is a powerful
mechanism. In a lab-field experiment, a group of subjects where monitored to
see their behaviour after effortful physical tasks. (Dolan & Galizzi, 2014) Evidence showed that people engage in more self-indulgent
behaviours if they feel more satisfied with their performance. This kind of behaviour
is fed by a peculiar mental accounting of the effect of our acts. When ordering
in a restaurant, people tend to overestimate the effect in calories of their saving
in their first dish and self-indulge in the dessert, undoing all the effect.
In the carrier bag charge, those
individuals that are not fully aware of the effect of their behaviour in the
environment, may fall in the same kind of fallacy. By seeing at themselves as
well behaved pro-environmental citizens that carry their own re-usable bag,
they may feel authorized to enter in not very “green” activities regarding the
things they purchase inside the store.
Once attention is directed to the pro-environmental
characteristic of the carrier bag charge, another negative spillover effect may
also be activated, the “what the hell” effect.
People who is not keen on environmental matters, once they do not take their “re-usable”
bag with them, and are “fined” for doing so, may exacerbate the extent of their
failure and exercise even less self-control on their subsequent behaviours. This
kind of behaviour has been documented in food choices, where the mere presence
of healthy food make unhealthy options more similar worsening the overall decision.
(Wilcox, Vallen, Block, &
Fitzsimons, 2009)
Along the preceding paragraphs I have
discussed the spillover effects regarding behavioural interventions. Any
behavioural intervention requires to look at the preceding and subsequent
behaviours as the actions are part of a continuous flow. Spillovers can act in
many ways and are mediated by individual’s mindset and attention. While
discussing the case of charging the carrier bag in stores, it was presented the
case of positive, neutral and negative spillovers, but was highlighted the
important role of attention in shaping both the magnitude and sign of the
spillover.
In all, spillovers are of big importance in
designing a behavioural intervention. A nudge targets a specific and observable
behaviour that usually is part of a larger behaviour to be modified. For that
reason, using a narrow definition of the targeted behaviour that does not
consider the whole picture, may lead to an unsuccessful or counterproductive
intervention.
Dolan,
P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2014). Because I’m Worth It: A Lab-Field Experiment on the
Spillover Effects of Incentives in Health. CEP Discussion Papers.
Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp1286.html
Dolan, P., & Galizzi, M.
M. (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their
implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47,
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking
, Fast and Slow (Abstract). Book.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Steinhorst, J., &
Matthies, E. (2016). Monetary or environmental appeals for saving electricity?
-Potentials for spillover on low carbon policy acceptability. Energy Policy,
93, 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.020
Thaler, R. H., &
Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Focus.
Thomas, G. O., Poortinga,
W., & Sautkina, E. (2016). The Welsh Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge and
behavioural spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47,
126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.008
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.021
Wilcox, K., Vallen, B.,
Block, L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2009). Vicarious Goal Fulfillment: When the
Mere Presence of a Healthy Option Leads to an Ironically Indulgent Decision. Journal
of Consumer Research, 36(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1086/599219
