Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior

Open access
Lindenberg, Siegwart, Steg, Linda·2007·Journal of Social Issues

Abstract

This article discusses new developments about goal‐dependent framing and multiple goal frames (sometimes also called “multiple motives”), which are highly relevant for understanding environmental behavior. We introduce goal‐framing theory, which postulates that goals “frame” the way people process information and act upon it. Three goal frames are distinguished: a hedonic, gain, and normative goal frame. In general, multiple goals are active at any given time, which may (or may not) be compatible; that is, the strength of the focal goal may be influenced by other goals that are in the background. Based on an extensive review of studies in environmental psychology, we suggest those conditions under which each goal frame may be dominant in influencing environmental behavior. In the environmental context, normative goal frames imply acting pro‐environmentally, while gain and hedonic goal frames often result in not acting in an environmentally sound manner. Next, we argue that pro‐environmental behavior may be promoted by strengthening normative goals or by making gain and hedonic goals less incompatible with normative goals. Finally, based on goal‐framing theory, we suggest questions to be addressed in future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L.
Venue
Journal of Social Issues
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-16
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
117-137
ISSN
  • 0022-4537 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4560
OpenAlex
W2113008285
Cited by
1,374
References
8
FWCI
78.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.