From past to present (for a better future): The moderating role of cognitive mindset on spillover effects in environmental behaviors

Abstract

Research literature about the environmental spillover effect produced mixed results, revealing that an initial pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is likely to promote either other PEBs (i.e., positive spillover) or pro-environmental inactions and harming behaviors (i.e., negative spillover). Such inconsistency suggests a possible crucial role of moderating variables. In two experimental studies (N Study 1 = 141, N Study 2 = 124), we investigated whether the recall of past environmental behavior (water-saving vs. water-wasting) affects future intention to perform PEBs (Study 1) and actual PEBs (Study 2), depending on participants’ cognitive mindset (manipulated in Study 1 and measured in Study 2). Results showed that the cognitive mindset is a significant moderator of spillover effects. Compared to a holistic one, an analytical mindset is more likely to result in a greater willingness to engage in future PEBs (Study 1) and actual PEB (Study 2) when past PEB is salient. The main contributions of the studies, limitations and possible future research directions are discussed.

Full text

Vol:.(1234567890)
Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02917-2
1 3
From pasttopresent (for abetter future): The moderating role
ofcognitive mindset onspillover effects inenvironmental behaviors
FedericaSpaccatini1 · PaoloRiva1 · JulietteRichetin1 · EglePorcelli1 · LucaPancani1 · RobertaCapellini1 ·
SimonaSacchi1
Accepted: 13 February 2022 / Published online: 25 February 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Research literature about the environmental spillover effect produced mixed results, revealing that an initial pro-environmental
behavior (PEB) is likely to promote either other PEBs (i.e., positive spillover) or pro-environmental inactions and harm-
ing behaviors (i.e., negative spillover). Such inconsistency suggests a possible crucial role of moderating variables. In two
experimental studies (N Study 1 = 141, N Study 2 = 124), we investigated whether the recall of past environmental behavior
(water-saving vs. water-wasting) affects future intention to perform PEBs (Study 1) and actual PEBs (Study 2), depending
on participants’ cognitive mindset (manipulated in Study 1 and measured in Study 2). Results showed that the cognitive
mindset is a significant moderator of spillover effects. Compared to a holistic one, an analytical mindset is more likely to
result in a greater willingness to engage in future PEBs (Study 1) and actual PEB (Study 2) when past PEB is salient. The
main contributions of the studies, limitations and possible future research directions are discussed.
Keywords Spillover effect· Pro-environmental behavior· Cognitive mindset· Holism· Water consumption
The urgent need to induce people to more environmental-
friendly and sustainable behaviors has increasingly grown
(e.g., Carfora etal., 2017; Thøgersen & Noblet, 2012). A
promising strategy to produce significant and long-term
changes in citizens’ attitudes and behaviors towards the
environment lies in the spillover effect. The spillover effect
is the mechanism through which an initial pro-environmental
behavior (hereafter PEB) triggers other PEBs (Nilsson etal.,
2016; Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith, 2018). However, this lit-
erature has generated mixed results, revealing that an initial
PEB can promote either other PEBs or pro-environmental
inactions and anti-environmental behaviors (hereafter AEBs;
Nilsson etal., 2016; for a recent meta-analysis, see Maki
etal., 2019). Understanding the impact and the direction
of the spillover effect is fundamental to develop efficient
environmental programs; thus, further research is needed
to understand the circumstances under which an initial PEB
triggers a virtuous circle.
In this context, the present research has been conducted to
extend the research literature on spillover effects in three rel-
evant ways. First, the available research on spillover effects
has provided mixed evidence on the likelihood that a first
PEB could result in further PEBs, leading to the need for
an in-depth investigation of the possible moderators that
can disentangle the conditions under which spillover effect
could arise. We considered the cognitive mindset (analytic
vs. holistic mindset) as a dispositional variable that has
never been investigated in this context. Second, evidence
on the spillover effect relied mostly on correlational research
designs (for some exceptions, see Baca-Motes etal., 2013;
Gholamzadehmir etal., 2019; Thøgersen & Olander, 2003;
* Federica Spaccatini
federica.spaccatini@unimib.it
Paolo Riva
paolo.riva1@unimib.it
Juliette Richetin
juliette.richetin@unimib.it
Egle Porcelli
e.porcelli1@campus.unimib.it
Luca Pancani
luca.pancani@unimib.it
Roberta Capellini
roberta.capellini@unimib.it
Simona Sacchi
simona.sacchi@unimib.it
1 Department ofPsychology, University ofMilano-Bicocca,
P.zza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126Milan, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15859Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
Tiefenbeck etal., 2013). Even though correlational data
provided useful insight on the phenomenon, experimental
and longitudinal designs (for recent examples, see Lacasse,
2019; Sintov etal., 2019) are required to improve knowledge
on the mechanism related to the spillover effect (Verfuerth &
Gregory-Smith, 2018). Therefore, in the present research, we
conducted two studies adopting an experimental approach.
Finally, most of the existing studies on the spillover effect
have relied on self-reported behaviors or behavioral inten-
tions (for exceptions, see Baca-Motes etal., 2013; Tiefen-
beck etal., 2013), which might be affected by judgmental
and social desirability biases and thus, might not reflect real-
istic trends. In the present research, alongside traditional
self-reported behavioral intentions (Study 1), we included
objective behavioral measures (Study 2).
Spillover eects intheenvironmental
domain
In the environmental psychology literature, the spillover
effect can be defined as the extent to which engaging in
a PEB affects the probability of engaging in another PEB
(for recent reviews, see Nilsson etal., 2016; Verfuerth &
Gregory-Smith, 2018). The second behavior can consist
either in the repetition of the first behavior across time and
context (temporal and contextual spillover; e.g., Littleford
etal., 2014; Thøgersen & Olander, 2003) or in a different
PEB (behavioral spillover; e.g., Thøgersen & Noblet, 2012).
Positive spillover effects
Numerous studies tested whether a first PEB would posi-
tively spill over to a second PEB, providing evidence for
the virtuous escalator effect in a range of domains: from
waste management behavior to sustainable shopping style
(Thøgersen, 1999), from energy-saving behavior at work to
energy-saving behavior at home (Littleford etal., 2014;),
from “green” purchasing to a broader range of PEBs (Lan-
zini & Thøgersen, 2014), and from past PEBs to concerns
for climate change and support for sustainability policies
(Lacasse, 2016). Thus, a positive spillover effect among dif-
ferent PEBs is possible, with the first PEB affecting subse-
quent behaviors, behavioral intentions, and policy support.
However, a recent meta-analysis (Maki etal., 2019) revealed
that the positive spillover effect is stronger for behavioral
intentions than actual behavior. Moreover, the virtuous effect
is more likely when the previous and the subsequent PEB
are perceived as highly similar.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the antecedent of the
PEB is not always an actual PEB. Even making salient their
pro-environmental efforts and past PEBs (e.g., Cornelissen
etal., 2008; Lanzini & Thøgersen, 2014) or asking them to
commit to caring more about the environment (e.g., Baca-
Motes etal., 2013) triggered people to act pro-environmen-
tally. The research revealed that pro-environmental cueing
and labeling participants as “environmentalists” promoted
environmental attitudes, preference for environmental-
friendly products, concerns about climate change, and sup-
port for sustainability policies (Cornelissen etal., 2008;
Lacasse, 2016).
One of the most common explanations for positive spillo-
ver lies in need for consistency across behaviors, times, and
contexts, using psychological theories such as the Theory
of Dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and the Self-perception
Theory (Bem, 1972). According to the Theory of Disso-
nance (Festinger, 1957), incongruences among cognitions
lead people to experience internal discomfort. Thus, posi-
tive spillover might be a strategy to avoid the uneasiness
of dissonance. Instead, the Self-perception Theory (Bem,
1972) posits that people infer attitudes by observing their
past behaviors; thus, a first PEB might suggest a broader
pro-environmental self-image, promoting the propensity to
engage in other PEBs.
The positive spillover concept can also identify a vicious
circle where an initial AEB might lead to other AEBs.
Albeit the environmental research literature has focused on
the positive spillover effect across PEBs, the literature on
moral conduct has offered evidence about the progression
of unethical behavior over time. For instance, Zhang etal.
(2014) demonstrated that some individuals are motivated
to repeat the ethical stance of a prior decision on subse-
quent ethical decision tasks, even when the first decision
was unethical. Further, this literature provided evidence for
the slippery-slope effect, according to which minor morally
questionable conduct gradually allows people to engage with
more severe immoral behaviors (e.g., Gino & Bazerman,
2009; Welsh etal., 2014). Thus, in a similar vein, a prior
AEB might create a de facto rule that guides and justifies
future anti-environmentally behavioral choices.
Negative spillover effects
Evidence for the positive spillover has not been consistently
found. Sometimes the first PEB results in a second antitheti-
cal behavior (Gholamzadehmir etal., 2019; Meijers etal.,
2019; Nilsson etal., 2016; Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith,
2018). Thus, the negative spillover effect is also possible,
with a first PEB promoting either subsequent pro-environ-
mental inaction or subsequent AEB (e.g., Mazar & Zhong,
2010; Sütterlin & Siegrist, 2014; Thøgersen & Crompton,
2009; Tiefenbeck etal., 2013). For instance, Mazar and
Zhong (2010) found that participants who shopped in a fic-
titious online store equipped with “green” (vs. conventional)
products were then more likely to act immorally to gain
personal profit. Negative spillover effects also emerged in a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15860 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
field study, revealing that consumers who received weekly
feedback about their water consumption (vs. control group
with no feedback) did reduce their water usage. However,
they also increased their energy consumption (Tiefenbeck
etal., 2013).
Another form of negative spillover pertains to more vir-
tuous situations in which past AEBs motivate future PEBs.
For example, highlighting the lack of past PEBs (vs. control
condition) increased the subsequent willingness to request
personal carbon footprint calculation (Gholamzadehmir
etal., 2019).
By considering pro-environmental behaviors as a form
of moral conduct, the explanation for the negative spillo-
ver generally lies in the concept of a balancing mechanism
about moral self-view regulation, particularly in the moral
licensing and cleansing effects. Thus, individuals who
initially acted pro-environmentally might feel licensed to
disengage from other environmental actions in the future
(Gholamzadehmir etal., 2019; Meijers etal., 2019; Zhong
etal., 2009). In contrast, individuals who initially behaved
anti-environmentally might feel the need to restore their self-
worth by behaving pro-environmentally (Gholamzadehmir
etal., 2019; Mazar & Zhong, 2010; Thøgersen & Crompton,
2009).
Moderators ofspillover eects
intheenvironmental domain
Overall, research has generated mixed results, showing that
past PEBs can promote or inhibit future PEBs. In light of
this, researchers tried to go a step further and investigated
whether and how individual differences facilitate positive
spillover effects. In this regard, internal values and norms
(e.g., Thøgersen & Olander, 2003), positive attitudes towards
the environment (e.g., Crompton & Thogersen, 2009), self-
efficacy (Lauren etal., 2016), and self-identity (e.g., Mei-
jers etal., 2019; van der Werff etal., 2013) seem to play a
crucial role, in line with consistency-based explanations of
the phenomenon. The endorsement of norms concerning the
care of the environment and more general positive attitudes
towards the environment have been found to predict posi-
tive spillover (Crompton & Thogersen, 2009; Thøgersen &
Olander, 2003).
A sizeable body of research provided consistent evidence
that a positive spillover is more likely to occur and a negative
spillover is less likely to happen when environmentalism is
crucial to one’s identity (e.g., Carfora etal., 2017; Cornelis-
sen etal., 2008; Lacasse, 2016; van der Werff etal., 2013).
Furthermore, negative spillover is more likely among people
who hold weaker environmental self-identity and who, after
a first PEB, feel licensed to disengage from further PEBs
(Meijers etal., 2019).
However, recent research suggests that the internalization
of environmentalism-related constructs does not always lead
to positive spillover. Indeed, Gholamzadehmir etal. (2019)
demonstrated that the frequency of past PEBs synergizes
with attitudes towards the environment in determining sub-
sequent PEB. People with stronger positive attitudes towards
the environment, who frequently acted PEB in the past (vs.
control condition), were less willing to request calculation of
their carbon footprint. In contrast, infrequent past PEB (vs.
control condition) functioned as a motivator that increased
information-seeking behavior for people holding weaker
positive attitudes towards the environment.
Overall, these dispositional variables focused on moti-
vational, normative, or identity-related aspects. However,
individual differences in cognitive aspects could equally
influence experiences. For example, the cognitive mindset,
known to play a relevant role in informing how people per-
ceive the world, might be determinant in triggering spillover
effects.
The cognitive mindset
A strand of research provided evidence that two different
systems of thought exist, known as the holistic and the ana-
lytic cognitive mindset (De Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017; Nisbett
etal., 2001). A holistic mindset is characterized by attention
to the context as a whole. Thus, the attention is centered
on the inextricable relationship between the focal object
and the context to which it belongs (Nisbett etal., 2001).
An analytic mindset is, instead, characterized by a prefer-
ence for details. Thus, the attention is oriented on the focal
object’s specific attributes, regardless of its context (Nisbett
etal., 2001). Besides individual differences, even different
cultures booster specific thought systems. Western cultures
rely more on an analytic mindset and Eastern cultures on
a holistic mindset (for reviews, see De Oliveira & Nisbett,
2017; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett etal., 2001).
Cognitive mindsets can be described as a trait – stable
personal-cultural-related characteristics – and state variables
– characteristics that are temporarily induced by the specific
situation (Förster & Dannenberg, 2010). In this regard, it
has been shown that several context-dependent variables
elicit a specific cognitive mindset (e.g., the familiarity with
the stimulus; one’s mood; ad hoc experimental tasks; for a
review, see Förster & Dannenberg, 2010). Indeed, numerous
experimental studies temporarily and successfully manipu-
lated and induced specific cognitive mindsets throughout the
adoption of tasks that function as procedural priming (e.g.,
Navon’s task, 1977; Förster & Dannenberg, 2010; Friedman
etal., 2003; Sacchi etal., 2016).
The divergences in cognitive mindsets influence not
only individual experiences due to differences in the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15861Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
construal of the self and others, and the interconnectedness
of the two, but also processes of perception, cognition,
and attention, motivations for action, and reasoning style
(e.g., Goto etal., 2010; Kitayama etal., 2009; Nisbett &
Miyamoto, 2005; Norenzayan etal., 2002).
We hypothesized that cognitive mindsets would be
determinant also in the domain of the environmental spill-
over effect. The literature emphasized relevant elements
of mindsets that would uniquely contribute to spillover
effects. For instance, attentive processes and a sense of
control over the event significantly differ among mindsets
(Nisbett etal., 2001). Analytical (vs. holistic) thinkers are
more attentive to the focal object than its relationship with
the context and perceive a greater sense of control and per-
sonal agency over the event (Cheng & Zhang, 2017; Mor-
ris & Peng, 1994). Thus, positive spillover would be more
likely for analytical thinkers who perceived greater con-
trol over the environment through their actions. Another
relevant distinctiveness among mindsets supporting our
assumption is the need for consistency and avoiding con-
tradictions. Holistic thinkers adopt a dialectical approach
to tolerate and reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions
and often apply the compromise principle. In contrast, ana-
lytical thinkers often rely on logical and rule-based princi-
ples, such as the law of noncontradiction, and, thus, they
feel the pressure to reduce and resolve inconsistencies and
contradictions (De Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017; Nisbett etal.,
2001; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Peng and Nisbett (1999)
experimentally demonstrated the difference between dia-
lectical and rule-based thinking in dealing with contradic-
tions. They asked Chinese and American participants to
rate the plausibility of one proposition either presented by
itself or contrasted with another discordant proposition.
When exposed to both propositions, trying to solve the
contradiction, American participants perceived the plau-
sible target statement as even more credible than when
exposed only to it. On the contrary, Chinese participants,
seeking a compromise, evaluated the more plausible prop-
osition as less plausible than when exposed to it singularly.
Furthermore, cognitive mindset influences the construal
of the self. Analytical individuals tend to hold an inde-
pendent and autonomous self, whereas holistic individuals
tend to hold a self-based interdependence with the context
and others (for reviews, see Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Zhu & Han, 2008). The core elements of self-esteem and
motivations to act for analytical thinkers are the consist-
ent expression of one’s capacities and essential attributes.
Instead, those attributes are less determinant for holis-
tic thinkers, who rely more on adjusting the self to situ-
ational contingencies (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Zhu & Han, 2008). Thus, analytical thinkers perceive a
sense of agency oriented to the self-identity affirmation.
In contrast, holistic thinkers perceive a sense of agency
oriented according to a specific situation’s contingencies.
The differences in dealing with inconsistency and the
construal of the self also imply differences in experiencing
cognitive dissonance. Analytical thinkers are more likely
to experience cognitive dissonance because they avoid
contradictions and are motivated to confirm their internal
positive attributes (e.g., efficacy and competence; Kitay-
ama etal., 2004). Holistic thinkers, tolerating inconsisten-
cies, are generally less sensitive to cognitive dissonance.
Kitayama etal. (2004) provided evidence of the cross-
cultural differences in experiencing cognitive dissonance.
In particular, in a set of studies, the authors adopted the
free-choice paradigm to study the cognitive dissonance
after choosing between two objects (i.e., post-decisional
spreading of alternatives). The results consistently
revealed that American participants experienced greater
cognitive dissonance than Asian participants regardless
of contextual cues. Asian participants reported cognitive
dissonance only in specific conditions (e.g., when social
others were primed).
On these bases and also considering that the positive
spillover lies in need for consistency across behaviors,
times, and contexts, we reasoned that cognitive mindsets
could thus modulate whether a first PEB leads to a sec-
ond PEB. Furthermore, it could also be possible that the
cognitive mindset and dispositional attitudes towards the
environment interact in prompting positive spillover.
Throughout different operationalizations, recent
research provided insights about the relevance of the cog-
nitive mindset on environmental cognition (e.g., Davis &
Stroink, 2015; Lezak & Thibodeau, 2016; Sacchi etal.,
2016; Spaccatini etal., 2021). For instance, systems
thinkers, people who hold a mindset based on interrela-
tion among elements (i.e., for a detailed definition, see
Davis & Stroink, 2015), possessed a stronger sense of con-
nection with nature, perceived the environmental risk as
higher, expressed more support to sustainable policies, and
attributed greater value to the ecosystem than non-systems
thinkers (Davis & Stroink, 2015; Lezak & Thibodeau,
2016). Sacchi etal. (2016) hypothesized that different
cognitive mindsets would be differently sensitive to envi-
ronmental risk’s psychological distance. Accordingly, the
authors demonstrated, by both assessing and manipulating
cognitive mindset, that the closer the climate change was,
the more analytical (vs. holistic) thinkers expressed the
sense of connection with the environment, positive atti-
tudes towards environmentalism, and pro-environmental
behavioral intentions (Sacchi etal., 2016). In brief, cog-
nitive mindsets influence experiences, even those related
to environmental issues, shaping attitudes and behavioral
intentions towards the natural environment.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15862 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
The Present Research
The current research’s primary aim was to investigate
whether cognitive mindset interacts with recalling a past
PEB (vs. AEB) in leading to the spillover effect. We
asked participants to recall a past water-related (water-
saving-PEB vs. water-wasting-AEB) behavior in two dif-
ferent experimental studies with two separate samples.
In Study 1, we manipulated the cognitive mindset and
assessed intentions to engage in future PEBs. In Study 2,
we assessed cognitive mindset (i.e., level of holism) and
objective PEBs (i.e., water and paper consumption).
Regarding a specific within-domain spillover effect, in
line with the results on behaviors’ similarity (Maki etal.,
2019), we hypothesized that recalling a past water-related
behavior would prompt a positive spillover effect (Hypoth-
esis 1). Thus, we expected that participants who recalled a
PEB (i.e., water-saving vs. water-wasting) would express
more willingness to engage in future water-related PEBs
(Study 1) and reduce their subsequent water consumption
(Study 2). In contrast, participants who recalled an AEB
(i.e., water-wasting vs. water-saving) would reduce their
intention to engage in future water-related PEBs (Study 1)
and increase their water consumption (Study 2). The same
hypothesis was formulated regarding paper consumption,
which is still a PEB but in a different domain than the ini-
tial PEB. Assuming a broader and generalizable effect of
the process, recalling a past water-related behavior (PEB
vs. AEB) would positively (Hypothesis 2) spill over to the
willingness to engage in future paper-related PEBs (Study
1) and consumption of paper hand towels and paper sheet
(Study 2).
Based on the evidence of the influence of the cognitive
mindset on environmental cognition, attitude, and behavio-
ral intentions, we hypothesized that the cognitive mindset
would play an important role in the environmental spill-
over effects. We expected that the relationship between
recalling past water-related behavior (i.e., water-saving vs.
water-wasting) and participants’ willingness to engage in
future (Study 1) and observable (i.e., reducing water and
paper consumptions; Study 2) PEBs would be moderated
by cognitive mindsets. Specifically, cognitive dissonance
functions as a motivator for positive spillover. Moreover,
analytical (vs. holistic) thinkers are more sensitive to the
discomfort caused by inconsistencies and cognitive dis-
sonance. Therefore, we hypothesized that recalling past
water-related PEB would foster positive spillover for peo-
ple who are characterized by an analytical (vs. holistic)
mindset (Hypothesis 3).
Finally, on the one hand, the positive spillover effect is
more likely to occur when environmentalism is relevant
to self-identity (e.g., Carfora etal., 2017; Crompton &
Thogersen, 2009). On the other hand, we argued that posi-
tive spillover would be more likely for analytical thinkers.
Thus, in an exploratory way, we tested whether people’s
attitudes towards the environment and their cognitive
mindset interact to produce spillover effects. Alternatively,
there could be a ceiling effect. People with greater envi-
ronmental concerns could be less sensitive to influence
exerted by their cognitive mindset because they are already
attentive to act consistently in a sustainable way.
The local ethics committee has approved both experi-
ments, and informed consent was obtained from all par-
ticipants. In particular, before taking part in the study,
participants have been informed of their rights to refuse to
participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate
at any time during the study without reprisal. The studies
were conducted following the ethical standards defined by
the Declaration of Helsinki. The raw data supporting the
findings of these studies are openly available in OSF at
https:// osf. io/ 9prxd/.
Study 1
Design andparticipants
A 2 (cognitive mindset: analytic vs. holistic) × 2 (valence
of the recall: water-saving – PEB vs. water-wasting – AEB)
between-participants research design was adopted. Before
data collection, the required sample size was computed
based on a power analysis (G*Power 3.1; Faul etal., 2007).
Considering the main effects of our independent variables
and the two-way interactions, we needed at least 128 par-
ticipants to observe a medium between-group effect size
(f = 0.25, with α = 0.05 and power = 0.80). The par ticipants
were recruited using a snowball procedure and the link of
the online questionnaire was circulated through e-mail and
social networks. A hundred and fifty-one participants (52.3%
female; Mage = 23.89, SDage = 11.93) voluntarily took part
in an online study. All participants were Italians, except for
five individuals who had a good knowledge of the Italian
language.
Materials andProcedure
Data collection was conducted online using the software
Qualtrics. On the first screen, participants were informed
about any relevant aspect of the study and their right to
refuse to participate. They then confirmed that they under-
stood the instructions well and expressed their consent to
participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of the four experimental conditions, obtained crossing
two factors, induced cognitive mindset (analytic vs. holistic)
and the valence of the recalled behavior (water-saving – PEB
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15863Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
vs. water-wasting – AEB). First, participants’ cognitive
mindset (analytical vs. holistic) was manipulated through
a perception task used effectively in prior studies (e.g.,
Liberman & Förster, 2009; Sacchi etal., 2016). Navon’s
task (1977) was used to prime either a holistic or analytical
cognitive mindset between participants by instructing them
to focus their attention on either the global features or the
details of the presented image. Participants were presented
with 14 typical Navon’s stimuli (Navon, 1977). Each figure
was composed of global letters formed by the configura-
tion of local letters. They were instructed to indicate which
letter was represented in the figure, choosing between two
options. Whereas the correct option for participants in the
analytical condition always referred to the smaller local let-
ters, the correct option for participants in the holistic condi-
tion always referred to the bigger global letter (see Fig.1 for
an example). Thus, to select the proper answer, participants
were forced to focus on the global (holistic cognitive mindset
condition) or the local (analytical cognitive mindset condi-
tion) level.
Then, we manipulated the valence of water-related past
behavior. Participants randomly assigned to the PEB condi-
tion were asked to write about an experience they engaged
in a water-saving behavior. In contrast, those assigned to the
AEB condition were asked to write about an experience in
which they engaged in a water-wasting behavior.
Finally, participants were presented with a short ad-hoc
questionnaire aimed to assess their willingness to reduce
water and paper consumption. Three items were created to
capture intentions to reduce water consumption (e.g., “If I
were to brush my teeth, I would be careful about turning off
the tap while doing it”). Four items were developed to assess
future paper-related PEBs. Two items measured intention
to recycle paper (e.g., “If I were to throw the paper sheet
in the trash, I would throw it in recycling bin”). Two items
measured intention to reduce paper consumption (e.g., “If
I were to buy a train ticket, I would rather prefer to buy an
electronic ticket”). These items were administered in a ran-
domized order and rated on a scale ranging from 1 (= not
at all likely) to 7 (= very likely). After the questionnaire,
participants were provided with a written debrief and were
invited to contact authors for any doubt. Finally, they were
thanked for their participation.
Results
Preliminary analyses
We first checked whether the content of the participants’
recall was consistent with their experimental condition.
Eight participants failed the recalling task, either reporting
a past event inconsistent with their experimental condition
or non-reporting any past event. Furthermore, we checked
whether participants made errors in performing the Navon
task. Two participants did not perform the Navon’s task.
Thus, their data was removed from the subsequent analy-
ses, which were conducted on the remaining sample of a
hundred forty-one participants (52.5% female; Mage = 23.54,
SDage = 11.77). We ran a sensitivity power analysis (e.g.,
Perugini etal., 2018) to test whether our final sample was
sufficient to detect the key hypothesized effects. Based on
Fig. 1 Examples of Navon’s
stimuli used to manipulate the
cognitive mindset (Study 1)
Whichletter do you seein this image?
[analyticcondition]
▢F
▢Z
▢H
▢L
[holisticcondition
]
▢F
▢E
▢T
▢L
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15864 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
this sample of 141 participants, a sensitivity analysis with
power set at 0.80 and alpha equal to 0.05 allows us determin-
ing the effect size that can be reliably detected, correspond-
ing to f = 0. 2376. For ease of interpretation, transforming
this value as Cohen’s d yields 0.475. In short, this means that
our experiment had sufficient power to detect a lower than
medium effect size reliably.
Reliability analyses showed a sufficient level for water
reduction intentions (Cronbach’s α = 0.64), paper recycling
intentions (r = 0.25, p = 0.003), and paper reduction inten-
tions (r = 0.27, p = 0.001). We computed the variables,
respectively, of water reduction intentions, paper reduction
intentions and paper recycling intentions as mean scores.
Table1 reports the descriptive statistics and bivariate
correlations.
Effects ofcognitive mindset andpastbehavior recall
onbehavioral intentions
A 2 (cognitive mindset: analytic vs. holistic) × 2 (valence
of the recall: water-saving—PEB vs. water-wasting- AEB)
between-participants ANOVA was conducted on each
dependent variable. See Table2 for means and standard
deviations.
For the water reduction intentions, neither the cognitive
mindset, F(1,137) = 0.66, p = 0.418, ηp
2 = 0.005, nor the
valence of the recall, F(1,137) = 1.92, p = 0.168, ηp
2 = 0.014
emerged as significant. Thus, our first hypothesis was not
confirmed. However, as hypothesized (H3) there was a sig-
nificant interaction between the cognitive mindset and the
valence of the recall, F(1,137) = 4.35, p = 0.039, ηp
2 = 0.031
(see Fig.2).
Post-hoc comparisons showed that participants who
recalled a water-saving behavior expressed greater will-
ingness to reduce water consumption when exposed to the
analytical condition compared to the holistic condition,
t(70) = 2.35, p = 0.01, d = 0.51, 95% CI [0.08, 0.95]. In con-
trast, the difference between the analytic and the holistic
condition was not significant for those recalling a water-
wasting event, t(67) = 0.82, p = 0.42, d = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28,
0.67].
As for the ANOVA conducted on paper reduction
intentions, the cognitive style, F(1,137) = 1.74, p = 0.190,
ηp
2 = 0.013, the valence of recall, F(1,137) = 0.08, p = 0.778,
ηp
2 = 0.001, and the two-way interaction, F(1,137) = 0.10,
p = 0.757, ηp
2 = 0.001, did not show a significant effect. The
ANOVA on paper recycling intentions did not reveal signifi-
cant effects of the cognitive style, F(1,137) = 0.93, p = 0.336,
ηp
2 = 0.007, of the valence of recall F(1,137) = 0.46,
p = 0.500, ηp
2 = 0.003, and of the interaction between them,
F(1,137) = 0.18, p = 0.674, ηp
2 = 0.001. Thus, our hypoth-
eses on the effects of respectively the valence of the recall
(H2) and its interaction with cognitive mindset (H3) were
not confirmed.
Discussion
Study 1 provided initial evidence that the cognitive mindset
moderates the relationship between past PEB and willing-
ness to engage in future PEBs. Counter to our hypotheses,
the recall’s valence did not impact future behavioral inten-
tions. However, as hypothesized, the cognitive mindset syn-
ergizes with the valence of the recall of PEBs to produce
spillover effects. Specifically, participants in the analytical
cognitive mindset condition after recalling a past water-
related PEB (vs. water-wasting behavior) expressed more
willingness to engage in future water-related PEBs. This
effect did not emerge for participants in the holistic cogni-
tive mindset condition.
Furthermore, the lack of interactive effect between
recall and cognitive mindset on future paper-related PEBs
might indicate that the effect is specific to the recalled PEB
domain. Thus, we further explored this aspect in Study 2.
In particular, Study 2 aimed to test further the moderating
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and Correlations Among Key Variables
(Study 1)
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Variables M SD 1 2 3
1. Water reduction intentions 5.47 1.65 1
2. Paper reduction intentions 5.89 1.80 .21* 1
3. Paper recycling intentions 6.18 1.32 .41*** .24** 1
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of dependent measures as a
function of cognitive style and valence of the recall (Study 1)
Valence of the recall
Water-saving behav-
ior
Water-
wasting
behavior
Combined
Outcome M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Water reduction intentions
Analytic mindset 6.08(1.27) 5.12(1.87) 5.57(1.67)
Holistic mindset 5.28(1.61) 5.47(1.69) 5.37(1.64)
Combined 5.66(1.50) 5.28(1.78)
Paper reduction intentions
Analytic mindset 5.71(1.83) 5.70(1.92) 5.70(1.86)
Holistic mindset 6.01(1.81) 6.19(1.62) 6.09(1.72)
Combined 5.87(1.81) 5.92(1.79)
Paper recycling intentions
Analytic mindset 6.16(1.11) 6.41(1.18) 6.29(1.14)
Holistic mindset 6.04(1.42) 6.10(1.58) 6.07(1.48)
Combined 6.10(1.27) 6.27(1.37)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15865Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
role of the cognitive mindset on the spillover effect, extend-
ing Study 1 in two ways. First, Study 1’s results and most
of the research literature on the spillover effect relied on
self-reported behavioral intentions. In Study 2, we intro-
duced objective behavioral measures. Second, dispositional
variables such as positive attitudes towards the environment
(e.g., Crompton & Thogersen, 2009) and environmental self-
identity (e.g., Carfora etal., 2017) moderate spillover effects.
Moreover, cognitive mindsets influence self-construal
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Zhu & Han, 2008). We thus
extended previous research literature by exploring whether
pro-environmental self-identity interacts with the cognitive
mindset to produce positive spillover effects.
Study 2
Design andparticipants
A between-participant research design was adopted, with
the valence of the recall of past water-related behavior as
an independent variable (PEB vs. AEB). We conducted a
power analysis for sample size estimation (G*Power 3.1;
Faul etal., 2007). With an α = 0.05 and power = 0.80, the
projected sample size needed to detect a medium effect size
(f2 = 0.15) for regression with three predictors (the independ-
ent variable, the individual variable, and their interaction)
was at least of 77 participants. To test our hypotheses, we
advertised the study on campus throughout Sona System©,
the online participant management system that the Depart-
ment uses. A hundred twenty-six Italian participants who
did not participate in Study 1 (65.1% female, 91.3% student,
Mage = 23.13, SDage = 3.63) were recruited and voluntarily
participated in the study.
Materials andProcedure
Participants were tested individually. Each experimental
session took about 30min within the university lab. As in
Study 1, before taking part in the study, participants were
informed about any relevant aspect of the study and their
right to refuse to participate. They then confirmed that they
understood the instructions well and expressed their consent
to participate in the study. According to the cover story, par-
ticipants were informed that researchers were conducting a
marketing study to test the features of new liquid soap and
that they were interested in understanding possible consum-
ers’ attitudes towards this soap and classifying consumers
according to their specific characteristics. Thus, participants
were told that they would participate in three different tasks:
filling in a questionnaire, evaluating and testing the new liq-
uid soap, and drawing a logo for this product.
Before the experimental manipulation, participants
completed a questionnaire to collect their basic sociodemo-
graphic information (age, gender, nationality) and measure
moderator variables. Six items from the subscale Locus of
Attention of the Analysis-Holism Scale (Choi etal., 2007)
were used to assess our main moderating variable, that is,
participants’ analytic versus holistic thinking tendency (e.g.,
“It is more important to pay attention to the whole than its
parts”, Cronbach’s α = 0.75). Then, we included a measure
of participants’ sense of connection with the natural envi-
ronment, administering ten items of the Commitment to the
Environment Scale by Davis etal., (2009; e.g., “I feel very
attached to the natural environment”; Cronbach’s α = 0.85).
Finally, participants’ environmental activism was assessed
through six items of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale
(Dono etal., 2010; e.g., “In the political election I vote for a
candidate because s/he is in favor of strong environmental
protection”; Cronbach’s α = 0.80).
Fig. 2 Interaction among cogni-
tive mindset and the valence of
the recall on water reduction
intentions (Study 1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
*
water-saving water-wasting
analytic
holistic
RECALL CONDITION
COGNITIVE MINDSE
T
waterreductionintentions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15866 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
As in Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to
either the PEB condition (n = 64) and asked to describe a
past event in which they engaged in a water-saving behavior;
or the AEB condition (n = 62) and asked to describe a past
event in which they engaged in a water-wasting behavior.
To increase the cover story’s credibility, participants com-
pleted a Marketing Scale assessing their consumption habits
and preferences after recalling and describing their experi-
ence. Then, to justify the recalling task, participants were
told that the marketing agency would analyze their writing
style to capture those personality features of their consump-
tion behavior. Participants were then presented with a liquid
soap pack and asked to judge the package’s likeability and
the aroma of the soap as a part of the cover story. These filler
items were excluded from further analyses.
The dependent variables were then measured. The first
behavioral variable was water consumption. An assistant
researcher brought participants, one at a time, to a sink and
asked them to wash a dish with the soap they had previ-
ously evaluated. The research assistant provided each par-
ticipant with the same quantity of soap. To measure our
dependent variable (i.e., water consumption), the sink was
equipped with a water meter (not easily visible by partici-
pants). Before and after each washing-up task, the research
assistant recorded the values reported on the water meter
under the sink. We computed a water consumption index by
subtracting the value reported before the task from the one
reported after. Higher values of the water consumption index
indicated greater water consumption. This procedure and
the water-related measure were previously used by Richetin
etal. (2016).
The second dependent variable was paper hand towels
consumption. To measure it, the research assistant made
sure that the same quantity of paper hand towels was placed
beside the sink for every participant. The number of paper
hand towels each participant used to dry their hands were
counted to form an index of paper hand towels consumption.
Following this, as a concurrent measure of participants’
paper sheet consumption, participants were given 4min to
draw at least one logo for the soap they used. Each partici-
pant was provided with the same amount of paper sheets.
After the drawing-log task, the paper sheet consumption
index was calculated by dividing the number of drawn logos
by the number of paper sheets used by each participant.
After the logo task, participants were then thanked and
fully debriefed.
Results
As in Study 1, we first checked whether the content of the
participants’ recall was consistent with their experimental
condition. Two participants failed the recalling task, either
reporting a past event inconsistent with their experimental
condition or not reporting any past event. Thus, their data
was removed from the subsequent analyses, which were con-
ducted on the remaining sample of a hundred twenty-four
participants (66.1% female; Mage = 23.15, SDage = 3.65), who
were equally distributed between the two experimental con-
ditions (i.e., n = 62 participants per condition). Based on this
sample of 124 participants, a sensitivity analysis with power
set at 0.80 and alpha equal to 0.05 allows us determining the
effect size that can be reliably detected with three predic-
tors, corresponding to f = 0.0908. For ease of interpretation,
transforming this value as Cohen’s d yields 0.182. It means
that our experiment had the power to detect a lower than
small effect size reliably. Table3 reports the descriptive sta-
tistics and the bivariate correlations, Table4 reports means
and standard deviations of dependent variables divided by
experimental conditions.
We ran a series of moderation analyses to test our hypoth-
eses about the effect of recalling past water-related PEB
Table 3 Descriptive statistics
and Correlations Among Key
Variables (Study 2)
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.Holism 4.96 0.99 1
2. Connection with environment 5.30 0.91 .08 1
3. Environmental activism 2.08 0.98 .10 .33*** 1
4. Water consumption 2.82 1.50 -.11 -.05 -.10 1
5. Paper hand towels consumption 2.11 1.20 .03 -.05 -.06 .20* 1
6. Paper sheet consumption 1.10 0.64 -.07 -.14 -.10 .01 .07 1
Table 4 Means and Standard deviations of dependent variables
divided by experimental condition
Water consump-
tion
Paper hand tow-
els consump-
tion
Paper sheet
consump-
tion
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Water-wasting
recall
2.80 (1.56) 2.21 (1.36) 1.18 (.89)
Water-saving
recall
2.84 (1.48) 2.02 (1.01) 1.08 (.51)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15867Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
(vs. AEB) on water (H1) and paper consumption (H2) and
whether participants’ holism moderated the relationships
between the type of recall and actual behaviors towards
water and paper, respectively (H3). We conducted mod-
eration analyses using the PROCESS macro (Model 1) for
SPSS with 5000 bootstrapping resamples (Hayes, 2018).
For each behavior (water consumption, hand towels paper
consumption, paper sheet consumption), we considered the
type of recall (0 = AEB; 1 = PEB) as the predictor and the
z-scores of participants’ holism as the moderator.
The first model, computed on the water consumption
index, did not confirm our hypothesis (H1), thus the type
of recall did not significantly impact water consumption
behavior, b = -0.01, SE = 0.27, t = -0.02, p = 0.985, 95% CI
[-0.53, -0.52]. The effect of participants’ holism emerged
as significant, b = -0.48, SE = 0.20, t = -2.39, p = 0.019, 95%
CI [-0.87, -0.08]. Furthermore, as a partial support for our
hypothesis (H3), the interaction between the experimen-
tal condition and participants’ holism on water consump-
tion behavior reached significance (see Fig.3), b = 0.58,
SE = 0.27, t = 2.15, p = 0.034, 95% CI [0.05, 1.11]. However,
the simple slope analysis only revealed a tendency.There
was a positive tendency (i.e., lower water consumption in
the water-saving condition than in the water-wasting condi-
tion) for participants with a lower level of holism (-1SD),
b = -0.58, SE = 0.38, t = -1.53, p = 0.128, 95% CI [-1.34,
0.17]. In constrast, there was an opposite negative tendency
(i.e., higher water consumption in the water-saving condi-
tion than in the water-wasting condition) for those with a
higher level of holism (+ 1SD), b = 0.57, SE = 0.38, t = 1.52,
p = 0.131, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.32]. To test further our hypoth-
esis (H3), we, then, made a comparison between the two
beta-scores. This test showed that the difference between
the positive tendency for participants with a lower level of
holism and the opposite negative tendency for those with a
higher level of holism was significant, z = 7.12, p < 0.001.
The second and the third models were computed on the
paper hand towels consumption index and the paper sheet
consumption index. Contrary to our expectations (H2 and
H3), the main and interaction effects were non-significant,
ps > 0.134. Overall, the tested model showed that the effect
of holism and the experimental condition was specific to
the water-related behavior. In contrast, it did not affect other
environmental-related behaviors (i.e., paper consumption).
To explore possible effects of the individual variables
(i.e., connection with the environment and environmental
activism), we ran additional moderation models (Model 3).
The experimental condition (0 = PEB; 1 = AEB) was entered
as a predictor, z-scores of participants’ holism as a first mod-
erator, connection with the environment and environmental
activism – respectively – as a second moderator, and water
consumption as the dependent variable. These models did
not show any significant interactions. In particular, the
three-way interactions between participants’ holism and
the valence of the recall with respectively connection with
the environment, b = -0.53, SE = 0.30, t = -1.78, p = 0.077,
95% CI [-1.12, 0.06], and environmental activism, b = -0.15,
SE = 0.31, t = -0.47, p = 0.638, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47] did not
show significant effect on participants’ water consumption.
Discussion
Study 2 provided further evidence that the cognitive mind-
set moderated the relationship between recalling past water-
related PEB and subsequent water-related PEB. Even though
the interaction between the valence of the recall and the cog-
nitive mindset on subsequent water-related PEB emerged,
Fig. 3 Interaction between cog-
nitive mindset and the valence
of the recall on actual water
consumption (Study 2)
RECALL CONDITION
1
2
3
4
5
Water-wastingWater-saving
WATER CONSUMPTION
LEVEL OF HOLIS
M
Low
High
Medium
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15868 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
none of the levels of holism reached significance. However,
our analysis revealed a tendency towards a positive spillover
effect for people with an analytical mindset and, conversely,
a tendency towards a negative spillover effect for people
with a holistic mindset. Further, in line with Study 1, the
interaction between the valence of the past recalled PEB and
participants’ holism was significant but only within the same
environmental domain (i.e., water consumption), suggesting
the effect’s specificity. Finally, our model revealed that the
cognitive mindset, the valence of the recall, and the envi-
ronmentalism variables did not produce a significant effect.
General Discussion
The urgent imperative of promoting a more sustainable and
eco-friendlier lifestyle among citizens has driven academics’
and policymakers’ recent efforts to identify strategies for
long-term attitudinal and behavioral changes. Among these
strategies, existing research provided evidence of the so-
called spillover effect, a mechanism through which an initial
PEB triggers other environmentally sustainable behaviors
(Nilsson etal., 2016; Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith, 2018).
However, the literature has offered contradictory findings
of spillover effects, revealing that an initial PEB can either
promote or inhibit other PEBs (Maki etal., 2019; Nilsson
etal., 2016). This inconsistency revealed the need to investi-
gate possible moderator variables that would disentangle the
conditions under which spillover effects could arise.
The present research has been conducted with the specific
aim of testing, for the first time, whether people’s cognitive
mindset would moderate spillover effects. Across two stud-
ies, we provided initial evidence that the cognitive mindset
moderates the relationship between past PEB and willing-
ness to engage in future PEBs (Study 1) and objective PEBs
(Study 2).
As far as direct spillover effects are concerned, neither
Study 1 nor Study 2 supported our hypotheses about posi-
tive spillover effects. Although literature provided both evi-
dence of positive (e.g., Cornelissen etal., 2008; Lanzini &
Thøgersen, 2014) as well as negative (e.g., Gholamzadehmir
etal., 2019; Nilsson etal., 2016; Tiefenbeck etal., 2013)
spillover effects, there are also other research studies which
met a null-effect (Maki etal., 2019). However, as expected,
the spillover effect emerged when the interaction between
recalling past PEB and cognitive mindset was considered.
In Study 1, we found an interaction between the recall
of past PEB and cognitive mindset, with the positive spillo-
ver effect emerging for people induced to hold an analytical
mindset, but not for those induced to hold a holistic one.
This result corroborates the abundant literature suggesting
that different cognitive mindsets result in different processes
of perception and cognition (e.g., Nisbett & Miyamoto,
2005; Nisbett etal., 2001; Norenzayan etal., 2002; Sacchi
etal., 2016). A plausible explanation for the divergent effect
that cognitive mindsets produce on willingness to engage in
future PEBs lies in the relevant elements that qualify specific
mindsets. In this case, recalling past PEBs made previous
eco-friendly efforts particularly salient to analytical thinkers
(Sacchi etal., 2016). Their perception of control over their
environment (Cheng & Zhang, 2017) and the need to avoid
dissonance and contradictions (De Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017)
might have led them to express future behavioral intentions
that were consistent with what they recalled. Our result and
explanation are in line also with the rationale at the basis
of positive spillover. Indeed, the need for consistency and
avoiding unpleasant dissonance have been identified as core
characteristics of analytical thinkers and essential motivators
to positively spillover from past PEBs to future ones (e.g.,
Nilsson etal., 2016).
Furthermore, the spillover effect emerged only in the first
PEB domain, and it did not extend to other categories of
PEBs, such as future paper-related intentions. This result
is consistent with evidence showing that positive spillover
from a first PEB to intentions to engage in future PEBs was
more likely when the past and the future PEBs are perceived
as highly (vs. lowly) similar (Maki etal., 2019). Besides,
the specificity of the effect is also consistent with the fea-
tures of the analytical mindset. Thus, the observed spillover
effect was specific because analytical thinkers are focused
on water-related behaviors and, therefore, feel the need to
be consistent within the domain of water-related behavior.
On the contrary, recalling past PEBs did not influence future
willingness to engage in PEBs for holistic thinkers. Because
they are less concerned about dissonance and more atten-
tive to the whole configuration rather than on the specific
focal object, they are insensitive to the salience evoked by
the recall within as well as across PEBs domains (Nisbett
etal., 2001).
Study 2 sought to replicate and extend Study 1 by intro-
ducing objective PEB measures and exploring whether the
cognitive mindset and environmentalism jointly lead to the
spillover effect. Replicating Study 1, we found a significant
interaction between the cognitive mindset and the valence
of the recall on water consumption. However, a closer look
at this interaction revealed a more nuanced pattern of results
than Study 1. In particular, none of the holism levels were
significant. Despite the lack of significance, a closer look
revealed that analytical and holistic thinkers tended in the
opposite directions, and the beta-comparison emerged to be
significant. While recalling past water-related PEB tended
to foster a positive spillover effect for analytical thinkers,
it tended to facilitate a negative spillover effect for holistic
thinkers.
In line with the explanation of Study 1, the results from
Study 2 are consistent with the literature on both spillover
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15869Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
effect and cognitive mindset. On the one hand, the interac-
tive effect emerged only within the same category of PEBs
(i.e., water-related behaviors; Maki etal., 2019). On the
other hand, the positive spillover effect, which is motivated
by the need for consistency (e.g., Nilsson etal., 2016), tends
to characterize those individuals, i.e., analytical thinkers,
who are particularly oriented to avoid contradictions. Thus,
we reasoned that analytical thinkers tend to consume less
water after recalling a past water-related PEB because,
focused on a positive valence of the water-related issue, they
behaved to avoid dissonance and maximize consistency. The
determinant role of the saliency of information for analyti-
cal thinkers has been previously observed by Sacchi etal.
(2016). The authors revealed that the closer climate change
is perceived, and thus, salient, the more analytical thinkers
drew their concerns to environmental issues expressing more
pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions.
When considering holistic thinkers, we found the oppo-
site tendency. When they recalled an event in which they
were careful in using water, they tended to consume more
water. This tendency, albeit non-significant, seems to be
in line with specific features of a holistic mindset. Holistic
thinkers tended to consume more water because they are
more able to integrate information from the past to the pre-
sent, being less sensitive to the saliency evoked by the recall
and feeling to a lesser extent the need to act consistently
(De Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017; Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Zhu & Han, 2008). This explanation is in line with Sacchi
etal. (2016) work. Holistic thinkers were less sensitive to
the saliency of the closeness of climate change because they
were already more attentive to the whole configuration. This,
then, determined a weaker change of concerns for the envi-
ronment. Another possible explanation might be related to
the licensing effect underpinning negative spillover (Ghola-
mzadehmir etal., 2019; Meijers etal., 2019; Zhong etal.,
2009). According to the licensing effect, past PEBs discour-
age individuals from acting other PEBs, because they per-
ceive that they have already done their good deeds. It might
be particularly true for individuals less concerned with the
need for consistency, such as holistic thinkers.
Another sociopsychological framework worth to be men-
tioned is the Construal Level Theory (CLT; Liberman &
Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010). A core element of
CLT is the psychological distance, which is the perceived
spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical distance of an
event or an object from the self. The psychological distance
shapes the level of abstraction with which individuals men-
tally construe a stimulus, which, in turn, influences their
attitudes and behaviors (for a meta-analysis, see Soder-
berg etal., 2015). In particular, people mentally construe
a psychologically close stimulus by focusing on feasibility
(low-level construal) and psychologically distant stimulus
by focusing on general purpose (high-level construal). Both
cognitive mindsets and CLT have been adopted to study
environmental cognition (e.g., Griffioen etal., 2019; Rec-
zek etal., 2018; Ryoo etal., 2017; Sacchi etal., 2016; Spac-
catini etal., 2021). Research showed that holistic cognitive
mindset and high-level construal are related to more envi-
ronmental concerns, pro-environmental intentions, and pur-
chase intentions for eco-friendly products (Davis & Stroink,
2015; Griffioen etal., 2019; Lezak & Thibodeau, 2016; Rec-
zek etal., 2018). Furthermore, prior research suggested that
the construal level and the cognitive mindset are positively
related, with, for instance, primed cognitive mindset influ-
encing perceived psychological distance of events (Liber-
man & Förster, 2009). In the light of this evidence, it might
be possible that in our research, the cognitive mindset could
have activated a different level of construal, with aneffect
on the psychological distance of the recalled event. Given
that we could not test this possibility, future research should
disambiguate ths aspect, examining the relationship between
cognitive mindset and CLT on spillover effect properly.
Although CLT and cognitive mindset are related, they
refer to different constructs. Researchers investigated
whether and how they jointly affect human cognition. For
instance, Sacchi etal. (2016) provided evidence that the
closeness of climate change elicited more positive attitudes
and intentions towards the environment in analytical think-
ers but not in holistic thinkers. Other research on promotion
of sustainable behaviors provides evidence and inshights
that the two frameworks are different (e.g., Goldsmith
etal., 2016; Griffioen etal., 2019; Ryoo etal., 2017). A
key difference between cognitive mindset and CLT can be
inferred from the research by Ryoo and colleagues (2017).
The authors demonstrated that provincial descriptive norms
(i.e., how proximal people behave in a given situation; vs.
general descriptive norms, i.e., how people in general behave
in a given situation) encourage sustainable behaviors for
low-construal level thinkers. This happens because proxi-
mal people are perceived to be psychologically closer to the
self. However, while this study revealed that social others
influenced low-level thinkers’ intentions and behaviors, the
literature on cognitive mindsets highlighted that analytical
thinkers have an independent view of the self. Thus, their
behavior is driven by their internal attributes rather than by
others’ behaviors. In light of this difference, future research
should disambiguate the differences between construal levels
and cognitive mindsets to shed new light on which thinking
style is more effective in promoting positive spillover effect
and pro-environmental attitudes.
In Study 1, the positive spillover effect from past PEB
to future intention to engage in PEBs for analytical indi-
viduals emerged as fully significant; in Study 2, the more
analytical individuals showed only a tendency to positively
spillover from past PEB to actual PEB. Indeed, this pattern
of results is not so surprising, considering that the largest
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15870 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
and significant evidence for positive spillover was found for
behavioral intentions to act PEB, not for actual PEBs (Maki
etal., 2019).
However, while Study 1 and Study 2 provided convergent
evidence about the relationship between an analytical mind-
set and a positive spillover effect, results about the effect
of a holistic mindset on the spillover effect were less clear.
Indeed, in Study 1, the spillover effect did not emerge for the
holistic thinkers, whereas Study 2 highlighted that recalling
past PEB tended to spillover to water consumption nega-
tively. A possible explanation for this discrepancy might lie
in the nature of adopted measures and the pressure on the
consistency they evoked in participants. As noted, analytical
thinkers tend to be more sensitive to the need for consist-
ency than holistic thinkers. However, especially in Western-
analytical culture, this does not mean that holistic thinkers
are not sensitive to the pressure of consistency. This might
have – at least in part – influenced our results. In Study 1,
we asked participants to report their willingness to engage in
future PEBs. The explicit nature of this measure might have
driven both analytical and holistic thinkers towards consist-
ency. Instead, in Study 2, we relied on a behavioral measure,
which was more subtle given that participants did not know
that we were assessing the amount of water they consumed.
Perhaps this made it possible to find a more marked effect
for holistic thinkers.
The literature on the spillover effect and dispositional var-
iables showed that previous PEBs are significant predictors
of projected and actual PEBs in the future when environ-
mentalism is perceived as an essential part of self-identity
(e.g., Carfora etal., 2017; Meijers etal., 2019). We explored
whether it would be universally valid across different mind-
sets. Our results revealed that the cognitive mindset, the
valence of the recall, and the environmentalism variables
were not in a significant relationship. Thus, the interaction
between the cognitive mindset and the recall’s valence seems
to be stable and not affected by prior attitudes towards envi-
ronmental issues.
Nevertheless, this research, investigating the condition
under which a spillover effect could arise depending on
participants’ mindset, could have theoretical and practical
implications. Theoretically speaking, our research could
contribute to reconciling mixed results about the spillover
effect. Research literature demonstrated that a first PEB
could either promote or inhibit other PEBs (Nilsson etal.,
2016). Our research shed new light on one of the possible
reasons for the literature inconsistency. Whether past PEBs
activate or not the virtuous cycle of future PEBs, at least
in part, depends on the cognitive mindset, with an analytic
mindset being more likely to raise a positive spillover effect.
Furthermore, in both studies, the analytical thinkers’
spillover effect was restricted to water-related behavior and
intentions, and it did not arise for paper-related behaviors
and intentions. Even if this result aligns with the need for
consistency of analytical thinkers and recent evidence about
positive spillover (Maki etal., 2019), future studies should
better disentangle this aspect.
In Study 1, we randomized the order of presentation of
water-related and paper-related future behavioral intentions.
In contrast, in Study 2, this was not possible because of the
cover story and procedural constraints. Thus, future studies
should ascertain whether the effect of recalling PEBs on
actual PEBs might depend on the order of presentation of
tasks and try to replicate our results in other environmental
behavior domains such as transportations, plastic use, and
more. Finally, an analytical mindset might be more likely to
induce a positive spillover because analytical thinkers feel
higher pressure to avoid dissonance and be consistent. How-
ever, we did not assess participants’ need for consistency.
Thus, future research is needed to understand better why a
positive spillover is more likely for analytical thinkers than
for holistic thinkers.
In line with prior studies (Sacchi etal., 2016), we pro-
vided further evidence that the cognitive mindset is not only
a stable personal-cultural-related characteristic but that it
would also be temporarily manipulated and induced. Our
studies provided evidence that an analytical mindset, both
induced and measured, is more likely to foster a positive
spillover effect. Interventions and programs aimed at activat-
ing virtuous long-term cycles of PEBs should thus address
their efforts to increase the impact of their communication,
stimulating and inducing an adequate cognitive mindset.
Authors' contributions S. Sacchi and R. Capellini conceived the
research idea. S. Sacchi, R. Capellini and E. Porcelli ran the studies.
S. Sacchi conducted the data analysis and J. Richetin, P. Riva, and L.
Pancani had a significant input in the data analysis. F. Spaccatini wrote
the paper, the other authors read and commented on it. All authors
revised and approved the final version of the paper.
Availability of data and material The raw data supporting the findings
of these studies are openly available in OSF at https:// osf. io/ 9prxd/, and
materials used to collect data are available upon request to the authors.
Declarations
Ethics approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards. The present research protocol was approved by the Depart-
ment of Psychology (University of Milano-Bicocca) Ethic Committee
[Protocol number: RM-2020-253].
Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all indi-
vidual participants included in the studies.
Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15871Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E., & Nelson, L. D.
(2013). Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the
field. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070–1084. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 667226
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 6, 1–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0065-
2601(08) 60024-6
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., & Conner, M. (2017). Moderating
effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental
intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 53, 92–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jenvp. 2017. 07. 001
Casey, P. J., & Scott, K. (2006). Environmental concern and behavior in
an Australian sample within an ecocentricanthropocentric frame-
work. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(2), 57–67. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00049 53060 07304 19
Cheng, H. Y., & Zhang, S. Q. (2017). Examining the relationship
between -holistic/analytic style and classroom learning behav-
iors of high school students. European Journal of Psychol-
ogy of Education, 32(2), 271–288. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10212- 016- 0289-6
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in ana-
lytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67206
298568
Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., & Dewitte, S. (2008). Pos-
itive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing
common environmental behaviors as environmental. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 46–55. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. ijres mar. 2007. 06. 002
Crompton, T., & Thogersen, J. (2009). Simple and painless? The
limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 32(2), 141–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10603- 009- 9101-1
Davis, A. C., & Stroink, M. L. (2015). The relationship between sys-
tems thinking and the new ecological paradigm. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 33(4), 575–586. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
sres. 2371
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with
the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environ-
mental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2),
173–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2008. 11. 001
De Oliveira, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2017). Culture changes how we
think about thinking: from “human inference” to “geography of
thought”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 782–790.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91617 702718
Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between
environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social
identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 178–186.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2009. 11. 006
Faul, E., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavio-
ral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2),
175–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 93146
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row Peterson.
Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). GLOMOsys: A systems account
of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3),
175–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10478 40X. 2010. 487849
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Atten-
tional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
15, 277–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 419. 2003. 96514 20
Gholamzadehmir, M., Sparks, P., & Farsides, T. (2019). Moral licens-
ing, moral cleansing and pro-environmental behaviour: The mod-
erating role of pro-environmental attitudes. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 65, 101334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp.
2019. 101334
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unno-
ticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical
behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4),
708–719. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2009. 03. 013
Goldsmith, K., Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2016). Mental represen-
tation changes the evaluation of green product benefits. Nature
Climate Change, 6(9), 847–850. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nclim
ate30 19
Goto, S. G., Ando, Y., Huang, C., Yee, A., & Lewis, R. S. (2010). Cul-
tural differences in the visual processing of meaning: Detecting
incongruities between background and foreground objects using
the N400. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3),
242–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ scan/ nsp038
Griffioen, A. M., Handgraaf, M. J., & Antonides, G. (2019). Which
construal level combinations generate the most effective interven-
tions? A field experiment on energy conservation. PLoS ONE,
14(1), e0209469. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02094 69
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.).
The Guilford Press.
Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K.
(2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Com-
paring North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236–255. https:// do i.
org/ 10. 1037/ a0015 999
Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is
there any “free” choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures.
Psychological Science, 15(8), 527–533. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
0956- 7976. 2004. 00714.x
Lacasse, K. (2016). Don’t be satisfied, identify! Strengthening posi-
tive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an
“environmentalist” label. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
48, 149–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2016. 09. 006
Lacasse, K. (2019). Can’t hurt, might help: Examining the spillover
effects from purposefully adopting a new pro-environmental
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 259–287. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16517 748164
Lang, K. B. (2011). The relationship between academic major and
environmentalism among college students: Is it mediated by the
effects of gender, political ideology and financial security? The
Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 203–215. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00958 964. 2010. 547230
Lanzini, P., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Behavioural spillover in the envi-
ronmental domain: An intervention study. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 40, 381–390. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp.
2014. 09. 006
Lauren, N., Fielding, K. S., Smith, L., & Louis, W. R. (2016). You did,
so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15872 Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 191–199. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2016. 10. 004
Lezak, S. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and envi-
ronmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46,
143–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2016. 04. 005
Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self:
how global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psycho-
logical distance. Journal of personality and social psychology,
97(2), 203–216. https:// psycn et. apa. org/ doi/ 10. 1037/ a0015 671
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the
here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1126/ scien ce. 11619 58
Littleford, C., Ryley, T. J., & Firth, S. K. (2014). Context, control and
the spillover of energy use behaviours between office and home
settings. Jourrnal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 157–166.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2014. 06. 002
Maki, A., Carrico, A. R., Raimi, K. T., Truelove, H. B., Araujo, B., &
Yeung, K. L. (2019). Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behav-
iour spillover. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 307–315. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1038/ s41893- 019- 0263-9
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli-
cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98(2), 224–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X.
98.2. 224
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. (2010). Do green products make us better
people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494–498. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 09567 97610 363538
Meijers, M. H. C., Noordewier, M. K., Verlegh, P. W. J., Willems, W.,
& Smit, E. G. (2019). Paradoxical side effects of green adver-
tising: How purchasing green products may instigate licensing
effects for consumers with a weak environmental identity. Inter-
national Journal of Advertising, 38(8), 1202–1223. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 02650 487. 2019. 16074 50
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and
Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 67.6. 949
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global fea-
tures in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0010- 0285(77) 90012-3
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2016). Spillover effects
in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review
and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 23(4),
573–589. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13504 622. 2016. 12501 48
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holis-
tic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10),
467–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2005. 08. 004
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture
and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psy-
chological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0033- 295X. 108.2. 291
Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. W., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. (2002). Cul-
tural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive
Science, 26(5), 653–684. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1551 6709c
og2605_4
Otto, S., & Kaiser, F. G. (2014). Ecological behavior across the lifes-
pan: Why environmentalism increases as people grow older. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 331–338. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jenvp. 2014. 08. 004
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning
about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 54.9. 741
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2018). A Practical
Primer To Power Analysis for Simple Experimental Designs.
International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 20, 1–23.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5334/ irsp. 181
Reczek, R. W., Trudel, R., & White, K. (2018). Focusing on the forest
or the trees: How abstract versus concrete construal level predicts
responses to eco-friendly products. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 57, 87–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2018. 06. 003
Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Mondini, D., & Hurling, R. (2016). Con-
serving water while washing hands: The immediate and durable
impacts of descriptive norms. Environment and Behavior, 48,
343–364. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16514 543683
Ryoo, Y., Hyun, N. K., & Sung, Y. (2017). The effect of descriptive
norms and construal level on consumers’ sustainable behaviors.
Journal of Advertising, 46(4), 536–549. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
00913 367. 2017. 13965 14
Sacchi, S., Riva, P., & Aceto, A. (2016). Myopic about climate
change: Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environ-
mentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65,
68–73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2016. 03. 006
Sintov, N., Geislar, S., & White, L. V. (2019). Cognitive accessibil-
ity as a new factor in proenvironmental spillover: Results from
a field study of household food waste management. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 51(1), 50–80. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1177/ 00139
16517 735638
Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., &
Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance
on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
141(3), 525–548. https:// psycn et. apa. org/ doi/ 10. 1037/ bul00
00005
Spaccatini, F., Pancani, L., Richetin, J., Riva, P., & Sacchi, S. (2021).
Individual cognitive style affects flood-risk perception and miti-
gation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(3),
208–218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jasp. 12726
Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2014). The reliance on symbolically sig-
nificant behavioral attributes when judging energy consumption
behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 259–272.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2014. 07. 005
Thøgersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sus-
tainable consumption pattern. Journal Economic Psychology,
20(1), 53–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 4870(98) 00043-9
Thøgersen, J., & Olander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly
consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3),
225–236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0272- 4944(03) 00018-5
Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The
limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Jour-
nal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10603- 009- 9101-1
Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase
the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy, 51, 854–862.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2012. 09. 044
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or
for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavio-
ral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160–171.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2013. 01. 021
Thornton, L., Batterham, P. J., Fassnacht, D. B., Kay-Lambkin, F.,
Calear, A. L., & Hunt, S. (2016). Recruiting for health, medi-
cal or psychosocial research using Facebook: Systematic review.
Internet Interventions, 4, 72–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. invent.
2016. 02. 001
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psycho-
logical distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://
psycn et. apa. org/ doi/ 10. 1037/ a0020 319
Van der Werff, E., Steng, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). It is a moral issue:
The relationship between environmental self-identity, obliga-
tion-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behavior.
Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258–1265. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2013. 07. 018
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

15873Current Psychology (2023) 42:15858–15873
1 3
Verfuerth, C., & Gregory-Smith, D. (2018). Spillover of pro-environ-
mental behaviour. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika
(Eds.), Handbook of employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp.
455–484). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Welsh, D. T., Ordóñez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. (2014).
The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way
for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100(1), 114–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0036 950
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2010). Examining
trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behav-
iours across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42, 61–85.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16509 335163
Zhang, S., Cornwell, J. F., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Repeating the past:
Prevention focus motivates repetition, even for unethical deci-
sions. Psychological Science, 25(1), 179–187. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 09567 97613 502363
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K. A., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral selfregu-
lation: Licensing & compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psy-
chological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making
(pp. 75–89). Information Age.
Zhu, Y., & Han, S. (2008). Cultural differences in the self: From phi-
losophy to psychology and neuroscience. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1799–1811. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1751- 9004. 2008. 00133.x
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com