The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Not All Green Behaviors Are Equal: Efficiency Practices Reduce Moral Licensing While Curtailment Practices Increase It
Abstract
Not all pro-environmental behaviors are equally effective in fostering sustainable habits. Psychological mechanisms, such as moral licensing, can paradoxically reduce the positive impact of well-intentioned actions. In this preregistered quasi-experimental study (N = 514), we examined how curtailment behaviors (e.g., recycling) and efficiency behaviors (e.g., adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet) differently influence moral credentials and subsequent pro-environmental actions. Results showed that salient curtailment behaviors lowered guilt and perceived environmental impact after unsustainable actions, creating a potential licensing effect, whereas efficiency behaviors mitigated this effect and promoted further sustainable behavior. Crucially, feelings of guilt and perceived environmental impact predicted later pro-environmental engagement. These findings highlight that encouraging high-impact efficiency behaviors may prevent moral licensing and support more consistent, sustainable choices, offering actionable insights for interventions aimed at fostering lasting environmental behavior change.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101469 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102415 · DOI
- 10.1515/ppb-2015-0054 · DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.321 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10669-017-9624-y · DOI
- 10.1177/1043463103154002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003 · DOI
- 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0023566 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1437 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013916517706730 · DOI
- IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, , Pörtner H.-O, , Roberts D.C, , Tignor M, , Poloczanska E.S, , Mintenbeck K, , Alegría A, , Craig M, , Langsdorf S, , Löschke S, , Möller V, , Okem A, , Rama B., eds.). IPCC.
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013916513488784 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013916512467532 · DOI
- 10.1080/0887044042000196737 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101731 · DOI
- 10.1089/eco.2012.0031 · DOI
- 10.1080/02650487.2019.1607450 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/amp0000624 · DOI
- 10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013916517718022 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-022-03458-0 · DOI
- 10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-014-1278-x · DOI
- 10.1111/jasp.12214 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15324834basp0304_4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.025 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.011 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3 · DOI
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aab210 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Pasca, L., & Moreno-Gata, S.
- Venue
- Ecopsychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2026-04-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 331-340
- ISSN
- 1942-9347
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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