Introduction

Promoting sustainable behaviour hinges on understanding what motivates people to take pro-environmental actions. It is not just about personal beliefs and attitudes; social norms and perceived control over actions also play significant roles. When individuals feel a sense of responsibility towards the environment or hold intrinsic values like altruism, their behaviours naturally reflect these convictions. Societal expectations profoundly shape our choices, underscoring the importance of values, beliefs, norms, and a sense of control in driving sustainable actions.

Yet, these intentions can face hurdles due to cognitive biases that hinder environmentally friendly behaviours. That’s where normative and moral considerations come in, nudging people towards more sustainable choices. Effective interventions tap into these motivations through strategies like social norms, personalised feedback, and aligning with individuals’ intrinsic values. Highlighting the broader environmental benefits of individual actions strengthens these norms. When people see how their pro-environmental behaviours benefit their communities and future generations, it fosters a stronger sense of duty and social responsibility. This perspective shift encourages prioritising long-term ecological gains over short-term rewards.

Behavioural science provides critical insights into resolving conflicts between normative goals and personal gain. Understanding human decision making quirks helps craft messages that appeal to both intrinsic values and practical benefits. While financial incentives can be effective, they should be thoughtfully integrated to avoid undermining intrinsic motivations. Norm nudging, leveraging social norms to influence behaviour, works best when aligned with people’s identities and local community norms. Tailoring interventions to fit specific contexts enhances their relevance and impact, while ongoing encouragement and addressing practical barriers create supportive environments for sustainable choices.

Environmental Psychology Foundations

Paul Stern’s (2000) Theory of Environmentally Significant Behaviour (ESB) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding what drives eco-friendly actions. This theory differentiates between environmental activism, such as participating in organisations and movements, and everyday behaviours like recycling and conserving energy. Stern emphasises both psychological factors and context in shaping these behaviours.

Key determinants of ESB include personal attitudes and beliefs, social norms, perceived behavioural control, and habits. Personal attitudes and beliefs, such as environmental concerns and intrinsic values like altruism, profoundly influence behaviour. Social norms, reflecting the expectations and actions of others, play a critical role; seeing others engage in green behaviours makes similar actions more likely. Perceived behavioural control, or confidence in one’s ability to perform eco-friendly actions, is crucial for motivation. Additionally, habits often bypass deliberate decision making, either supporting or hindering sustainable practices.

In his paper “What Psychology Knows About Energy Conservation” (1992), Stern reviews research on the cognitive, affective, and social factors affecting energy-saving behaviours. Key insights include the importance of information and feedback, empowering individuals to make informed decisions. While financial incentives can be effective, their impact is often short-term unless combined with other strategies. Sustainable behaviour change requires more than economic benefits alone. Social norms and peer influences are powerful motivators, as individuals are influenced by the behaviours and expectations of those around them.

Stern’s “Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory” (1999) links personal values, beliefs, and norms to support for environmental movements. This theory posits that core values like altruism lead to environmental beliefs. Beliefs about the consequences of environmental degradation and personal responsibility trigger norms, motivating individuals to act out of moral obligation.

Stern’s research provides a robust framework for designing effective interventions. Combining financial incentives with normative and informational strategies ensures sustained behavioural impact. For example, highlighting both cost savings and environmental benefits of energy-efficient appliances aligns economic self-interest with environmental values. Tailored messaging that resonates with individuals’ values enhances communication campaigns, as personalised messages are more likely to drive behaviour change. Reinforcing norms through community engagement nurtures collective responsibility and action, with community projects and public commitments strengthening sustainable behaviour norms.

Researchers like Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Wokje Abrahamse have expanded Stern’s theory, integrating psychological insights into environmental policy and practice. Their research underscores the interplay between individual motivations and broader contextual factors, emphasising the role of infrastructure and policy in shaping pro-environmental behaviours. Effective interventions must consider these situational constraints. Comprehensive models that account for personal, social, and contextual factors are essential for designing interventions that provide a holistic understanding of behaviour.

On balance, Paul Stern’s theories and research provide a foundational understanding of the psychological and contextual determinants of environmentally significant behaviour when addressing the complexities of behavioural intervention design. Integrating these insights with the works of Steg, Vlek, and Abrahamse enables the design of interventions that leverage normative influences, provide personalised feedback, and align with individuals’ values and beliefs, thus promoting widespread pro-environmental behaviour.

An Integrated Framework to Explain Environmental Behaviour

Understanding the cognitive barriers and drivers behind pro-environmental behaviour requires integrating various theoretical frameworks in environmental psychology (see in particular Steg et al., 2014). These theories emphasise the role of attitudes, norms, values, and beliefs in shaping eco-friendly actions.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) explains how intentions to engage in environmental behaviours are influenced by attitudes, social norms, and perceived control (Ajzen, 1991). It highlights barriers like negative attitudes or perceived lack of control that might hinder sustainable practices.

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) focuses on threat appraisal and coping mechanisms. It suggests that individuals who see environmental threats as severe and believe in their efficacy to address them are more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviours (Rogers, 1975). Barriers here include underestimating the severity of environmental issues or feeling powerless.

The Norm Activation Model (NAM) emphasises personal norms and moral obligations triggered by awareness of consequences, motivating environmentally responsible actions (Schwartz, 1977). Barriers can involve a lack of awareness about the impact of one’s behaviour or a diminished sense of personal responsibility.

The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct differentiates between descriptive norms (what others commonly do) and injunctive norms (what is morally right), showing how social influences shape behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990). Barriers may include conformity to unsustainable social norms or failing to recognise the potential for normative change.

The Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory links personal values, ecological beliefs, and norms, suggesting that individuals driven by biospheric values feel a moral obligation to act sustainably (Stern et al., 1999). Barriers might manifest as conflicting personal values or a lack of connection between personal values and environmental issues.

To sum up, these theoretical frameworks provide insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying environmental behaviour and acknowledge barriers that can impede sustainable actions. By understanding these barriers – such as negative attitudes, perceived lack of control, or conformity to unsustainable norms – interventions can be tailored to promote and sustain pro-environmental behaviours. Integrating these theories offers a comprehensive approach to fostering lasting environmental change by addressing both drivers and barriers within individuals’ cognitive frameworks.

Normative and Moral Concerns

Moral and normative considerations significantly motivate individuals towards pro-environmental behaviour, as highlighted by various studies, including Allcott and Rogers’ (2014) examination of behavioural interventions over time.

Moral considerations stem from personal values and ethical beliefs about environmental stewardship. People with strong environmental morals often feel a duty to minimise ecological harm (Stern et al., 1999). This moral drive leads to actions like recycling, reducing energy consumption, and advocating for eco-friendly policies.

Normative concerns, on the other hand, arise from societal expectations and perceived social norms. Social norms prescribe acceptable behaviours within a community (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Observing others engage in pro-environmental actions creates pressure to conform to these norms to maintain social acceptance or avoid disapproval.

Research by Allcott and Rogers (2014) demonstrates how behavioural interventions influence both moral convictions and normative motivations. Short-term interventions, such as informational campaigns and social marketing, effectively raise awareness and prompt immediate behavioural changes (Allcott, 2011). For example, providing real-time feedback on energy usage or comparing usage with peers can activate normative influences, encouraging energy-saving behaviours.

However, sustaining these changes long-term requires more than short bursts of awareness. Allcott and Rogers (2014) argue that maintaining pro-environmental behaviours over time needs structural changes in policies and social norms. Sustainable behaviour shifts demand continual reinforcement of moral considerations and normative expectations.

For instance, promoting renewable energy through economic incentives and community-wide initiatives can embed pro-environmental norms into everyday decision making. Policies that integrate environmental considerations into societal frameworks institutionalise sustainable practices, aligning personal moral convictions with normative pressures.

Ultimately, while moral convictions drive personal commitments to environmental protection, normative influences guide behaviours through social expectations and peer pressure. Effective behavioural interventions harness these motivations, addressing immediate changes through awareness and ensuring long-term sustainability through structural and normative reinforcement.

Aligning Conflicting Motivations in Intervention Design

Balancing pro-environmental behaviour with competing motivations requires addressing both normative (social and moral) goals and gain goals (economic and hedonic). People often struggle between focusing on environmental outcomes and seeking immediate personal benefits. To encourage sustainable behaviour, incentives should complement intrinsic motivations. Non-monetary rewards alongside financial incentives can help ensure long-term commitment to eco-friendly actions. Principles from behavioural economics, like leveraging loss aversion, are effective in addressing these motivational conflicts by highlighting the avoidance of environmental harm.

When promoting pro-environmental behaviour, monetary incentives raise important questions about their impact on other motivations. Financial rewards, such as cash incentives for recycling or tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades, appeal to economic self-interest (Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000). However, research shows that while monetary incentives can drive short-term change, they may weaken intrinsic motivations rooted in moral or social norms (Frey and Jegen, 2002). This “crowding-out” effect occurs when external rewards replace internal drivers, potentially reducing the sustainability of behaviours once incentives are removed (Deci et al., 1999). Thus, integrating incentives with broader strategies is crucial (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009).

Studies on incentives and penalties (Gillingham et al., 2013), as well as commitment devices and public pledges (Lokhorst et al., 2013), are key for designing effective behavioural interventions. Thoughtfully designed incentives can support intrinsic motivations without displacing them, aligning with behavioural economics principles that use loss aversion to emphasise avoiding environmental harm.

Monetary incentives can stimulate pro-environmental behaviours, but their success depends on being part of comprehensive strategies. Combining them with educational initiatives, reinforcement of social norms, or structural changes can mitigate risks and promote sustainable change (Van der Werff et al., 2013). A holistic approach that supports both external incentives and internal motivations is essential for fostering long-term environmental actions.

Effective interventions must consider whether individuals make reasoned decisions or act habitually. Reasoned choices involve conscious decision making guided by information and values, promoting behaviours aligned with environmental beliefs and benefits (Steg and Vlek, 2009; Stern et al., 1995). Conversely, habitual behaviours are automatic responses triggered by environmental cues, requiring interventions that reshape contexts and reinforce sustainable practices (Verplanken and Wood, 2006; Neal et al., 2012).

Tailoring interventions to these behavioural patterns enhances their impact. Information provision and value alignment are crucial for reasoned choices, enhancing understanding and addressing cognitive barriers (Bamberg and Möser, 2007). For habitual behaviours, strategies focus on restructuring environments to promote sustainable routines over time (Wood and Neal, 2009).

Integrating incentives, penalties, commitment devices, and public pledges into behavioural interventions requires strategic alignment with behavioural contexts and target audiences. Combining financial incentives with commitment devices can mitigate the crowding-out effect, reinforcing intrinsic motivations and social norms simultaneously (Thøgersen, 2006; Lokhorst et al., 2013). Sequential use of incentives and commitment devices ensures initial engagement and long-term habit formation, contributing to sustained environmental stewardship (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009).

To sum up, effective behavioural interventions for promoting pro-environmental behaviour rely on a nuanced integration of economic incentives and psychological motivations. Addressing these elements enables enduring behavioural change, contributing to environmental sustainability through informed and adaptive strategies.

Kickstarting Behaviour Shifts with Norm Nudging?

Norm nudging, which leverages social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviour, is effective under certain conditions, as supported by scientific research. Understanding these conditions helps explain why some interventions succeed while others fail.

Norm nudges work by informing people about common behaviours and beliefs within their social groups, encouraging them to align their actions with these perceived norms. While different studies (Fielding et al., 2013; Czajkowski et al., 2019) show their efficacy, not all norm nudges succeed equally. Effective norm nudges adjust perceptions of what others endorse and practise, whether by correcting misperceptions or emphasising environmentally friendly behaviours.

Success depends on context-specific factors such as neighbourhood dynamics, where visible behaviours in public spaces and private homes significantly impact collective environmental action (Bouman et al., 2020). Tailoring norm nudges to local contexts enhances credibility and relevance, which is crucial for fostering lasting pro-environmental behaviours.

Firstly, the visibility of norms is crucial. Research suggests that making eco-friendly behaviours more visible and highlighting their prevalence can significantly influence actions (Schultz et al., 2007). For example, displaying public signage or providing real-time feedback on energy-saving practices can enhance normative influence.

Secondly, the relevance of norms to social identity is essential. Studies indicate that individuals are more likely to conform to norms that align with their self-concept and social group identities (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Tailoring messages to emphasise that “people like you engage in conservation efforts” can enhance alignment and behaviour change.

Additionally, consensus within social networks amplifies normative influence. Research shows that widespread agreement among peers or community members regarding a behaviour’s importance fosters a stronger social norm (Goldstein et al., 2008). This consensus reinforces the normative message and encourages widespread adoption of pro-environmental behaviours.

Positive framing and feedback also boost norm nudging effectiveness. Studies highlight that providing positive reinforcement for desired behaviours, such as recycling or reducing energy consumption, strengthens their appeal (Nolan et al., 2008). Celebrating achievements and highlighting collective efforts can also sustain motivation and reinforce norms over time.

However, challenges arise when interventions encounter conflicting norms or mixed messages. Research indicates that contradictory societal cues or ambiguous signals can undermine alignment with pro-environmental norms (Schultz et al., 2015). Individuals may hesitate to adopt sustainable behaviours if they perceive inconsistency in societal expectations.

Practical barriers and perceived costs can hinder change despite normative pressures. Research suggests that access to recycling facilities, affordability of eco-friendly products, and perceived inconvenience significantly influence decisions (Barr et al., 2010). Addressing these barriers is crucial for translating normative influence into tangible actions.

Individual differences in susceptibility to social pressure and varying influences across contexts must also be considered. While norm nudging can exert a powerful influence, its effectiveness may fluctuate based on personal beliefs, situational factors, and changing societal norms over time (Goldstein et al., 2008).

On balance, integrating insights from scientific research on social norms enhances the precision and effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting pro-environmental behaviour. By aligning norms with social identities, fostering community consensus, providing positive reinforcement, and addressing barriers, interventions can fully utilise norm nudging to foster enduring environmental change.

The Psychology of Energy Conservation

Understanding the psychological drivers behind energy conservation is crucial for promoting sustainable actions. Central to this is the concept of reasoned pro-environmental choices, where decisions are made consciously based on knowledge, values, and beliefs about environmental impacts. Highlighting the importance of informed decision making is essential for fostering long-term behavioural change.

Research shows that individuals who understand the environmental consequences of their actions and hold strong pro-environmental values are more likely to engage in energy-saving behaviours (Stern, 2000). These reasoned choices are guided by evaluating the benefits of conservation, not only for oneself but also for the broader environment.

To design effective behavioural interventions, this understanding is key. First, enhancing individuals’ knowledge and awareness about energy consumption and its environmental implications is crucial. Providing clear, accessible information about the benefits of energy conservation empowers individuals to make informed decisions that align with their pro-environmental values.

Second, interventions should focus on cultivating and reinforcing pro-environmental values and beliefs. Highlighting the alignment between personal values, such as altruism and concern for future generations, and energy-saving behaviours can strengthen individuals’ motivation to act sustainably (Stern, 2000).

Third, incorporating tools that facilitate reasoned decision making into interventions is essential. Tools like energy consumption feedback not only inform individuals about their usage patterns but also encourage reflection on how their behaviours contribute to broader environmental goals (Allcott, 2011).

Moreover, integrating social norms and community-based approaches can amplify the impact of reasoned pro-environmental choices. Public commitments and community projects that emphasize the collective benefits of energy conservation can foster a sense of shared responsibility and enhance the effectiveness of individual actions (Thøgersen, 2012).

Addressing reasoned pro-environmental behavioural choices in interventions helps policymakers and practitioners design more effective strategies that resonate with individuals’ values and motivations. This approach not only increases the likelihood of immediate behaviour change but also helps form sustained habits and attitudes toward energy conservation.

Actionable Recommen­dations

1. Integrate Financial Incentives with Normative and Informational Strategies: Combine financial incentives such as rebates and tax credits with normative messaging and information on environmental benefits to boost motivation and maintain behaviour change.
2. Tailor Messaging to Align with Personal Values and Beliefs: Customise messages that connect pro-environmental actions with individuals’ intrinsic values like altruism and environmental stewardship to enhance motivation and uphold moral obligations.
3. Promote Collective Responsibility through Community Engagement: Support community-based projects, public commitments, and social norms that encourage pro-environmental behaviours to foster a collective sense of responsibility and strengthen sustainable practices.
4. Provide Personalised Feedback and Goal Setting: Implement systems for personalised feedback on energy usage and goal setting to empower individuals, track progress, and promote continued commitment to eco-friendly behaviours.

Conclusion

Promoting sustainable behaviour requires a deep understanding of the psychological and contextual factors that drive pro-environmental actions. These factors include personal attitudes, beliefs, social norms, perceived control, and habits. Environmental concerns and intrinsic values, such as altruism, play significant roles, while social norms – reflecting the expectations and actions of others – are also crucial.

Integrating various theoretical frameworks highlights the importance of values, beliefs, norms, and perceived control in motivating sustainable behaviour. It also acknowledges cognitive barriers that may hinder these actions. Normative and moral considerations are essential for driving individuals towards sustainability. Effective interventions leverage these motivations through social norms, personalised feedback, and alignment with intrinsic values. Tailored messaging and community engagement foster a collective sense of responsibility, reinforcing sustainable practices.

To strengthen normative goals, interventions should emphasise the collective environmental benefits of individual actions. Highlighting how pro-environmental behaviours positively impact communities and future generations reinforces a sense of moral duty and social responsibility. This approach encourages individuals to prioritise ecological outcomes over immediate gains.

Behavioural science insights are crucial in resolving conflicts between normative and gain goals. By understanding cognitive biases and motivational drivers, interventions can frame environmental actions to appeal to both intrinsic values and practical benefits. For example, leveraging principles from behavioural economics, such as loss aversion, can highlight the long-term costs of environmental degradation, compelling individuals to act in line with normative goals.

While monetary incentives can be effective, they must be integrated with broader strategies to avoid undermining intrinsic motivations. Combining financial rewards with educational initiatives and reinforcing social norms promotes lasting behavioural change. It is essential to consider whether individuals make reasoned decisions or act out of habit when designing effective interventions.

Norm nudging, which uses social norms to influence behaviour, works best when it resonates with social identities and community norms. Tailoring interventions to local contexts enhances their relevance and impact. Providing positive reinforcement for desired behaviours and addressing practical barriers further strengthens normative goals by cultivating supportive environments conducive to sustainable choices.

Overall, promoting pro-environmental behaviour requires a multifaceted approach. By addressing both the psychological drivers and the practical barriers, interventions can foster enduring habits and attitudes towards sustainability, ensuring long-term environmental benefits.

 

References

Abrahamse, W. (2019), Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour, London: Academic Press

Abrahamse, W. (2023), Why do some behaviour change interventions no work as well as expected?, in B. Gatersleben and N. Murtagh (eds.), Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

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

Allcott, H. and S. Mullainanthan (2010), Behaviour and energy policy, Science, 327 (2019), 1204-1205.

Allcott, H. (2011), Social norms and energy conservation, Journal of Public Economics, 95 (2011), 1082-1095.

Allcott, H. and T. Rogers (2014), The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation, American Economic Review, 104 (10), 3003-3037.

Allcott, H. and J. B. Kessler (2019), The welfare effects of nudges: A case study of energy use social comparisons, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11 (1), 236-276.

Bamberg, S. and G. Möser (2007), Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.

Barr, S., A. W. Gilg, and G. Shaw (2010), Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re)framing environmental practice in an age of climate change, Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 503-512.

Bouman, T., L. Steg and S. J. Zawadzki (2020), The value of what others value: When perceived biospheric group values influence individuals’ pro-environmental engagement, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 1-10.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and C. A. Kallgren (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), 1015-1026.

Cialdini, R. (2003), Crafting normative messages to protect the environment, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.

Czajkowski, M., N. Hanley, K. Nyborg, and K. Stavrova (2019), Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environmental behavior: The case of household recycling, Ecological Economics, 156, 294-305.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and R. M. Ryan (1999), A Meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

Fielding, K. S., D. J. Terry, B. M. Masser, and M. A. Hogg (2013), Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behavior to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices, British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 412-429.

Frey, B. S., and R. Jegen (2002), Motivation crowding theory, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589-611.

Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G., and K. Palmer (2009), Energy efficiency economics and policy, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(1), 597-620.

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

Lokhorst, A. M, C. Werner, H. Staats, E. van Dijk, and J. L. Gale (2013), Commitment and behavior change: A meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research, Environment and Behavior, 45 (1), 3-34.

Neal, D. T., W. Wood, J. S. Labrecque, and P. Lally (2012), How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 492-498.

Nolan, J. M., P. W. Schultz, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius (2008), Normative social influence is underdetected, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-923.

OECD (2017), Tackling Environmental Problems with the Help of Behavioural Insights, Paris: OECD Publishing

Rogers, R. W. (1975), A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change, Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.

Schultz, P. W., J. M. Nolan, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius (2007), The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms, Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.

Schultz, W. and S. Mertens (2023), If you want to change behaviour, start with the environment, in B. Gatersleben and N. Murtagh (eds.), Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Schwartz, S. H. (1977), Normative influences on altruism, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.

Steg, L. and C. Vlek (2009), Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda, Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009), 309-317.

Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer, and G. Perlaviciute (2014), An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors, and goals, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.

Stern, P. C. (2000), Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407-424.

Stern, P. C., T. Dietz T., T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano and L. Kalof (1999), A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6 (1999), 81-97.

Thøgersen, J. (2006), Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247-261.

Thøgersen, J. and T. Crompton (2009), Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigns, Journal of Consumer Policy, 32(2), 141-163.

Van der Werff, E., L. Steg and K. Keizer (2013), The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34 (2013), 55-63.

Van Leuvan, N., L. Highleyman, R. Fujita, and A. Kellerman (2022), Making Shift Happen. Designing for Successful Environmental Behavior Change, New Society Publishers

Van Valkengoed, A. M., W. Abrahamse, and L. Steg (2022), To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour, Nature Human Behaviour, 6 (11), 1482-1492.

Verplanken, B. and W. Wood (2006), Interventions to break and create consumer habits, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90-103.

Wood, W. and D. T. Neal (2007), A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface, Psychological Review, 114 (4), 843-863.

Wood, W. and D. T. Neal (2009), The habitual consumer, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 579-592.