Cited by 0

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

Pasca, Laura, Moreno-Gata, Sofía·2026·Ecopsychology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/19429347261441083

Cites

1 of 1 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

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.003 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101469 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102415 · DOI
  6. 10.1515/ppb-2015-0054 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/wcc.321 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s10669-017-9624-y · DOI
  9. 10.1177/1043463103154002 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003 · DOI
  11. 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/a0023566 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1437 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0013916517706730 · DOI
  17. 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.
  18. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0013916513488784 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/0013916512467532 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/0887044042000196737 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101731 · DOI
  23. 10.1089/eco.2012.0031 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/02650487.2019.1607450 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1037/amp0000624 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/0013916517718022 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s10584-022-03458-0 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s10584-014-1278-x · DOI
  34. 10.1111/jasp.12214 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002 · DOI
  36. 10.1207/s15324834basp0304_4 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.025 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.011 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3 · DOI
  40. 10.1088/1748-9326/aab210 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Pasca, L., & Moreno-Gata, S.
Venue
Ecopsychology
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