Spillover Effect of Digital Green Behavior: Mediation of Identity and Moderation of Psychological Ownership

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230519

Abstract

Abstract: Digital green behavior refers to digitizing the pro-environmental behaviors in people's daily life by means of information technology and recording, presenting and disseminating it in the internet world in the form of text, graphics and video, so as to endow it with symbolic, playful, social and other attributes. This study takes the green energy collection behavior of Alibaba ant forest as the research object to gain insight into the impact of previous digital green behavior on individuals' subsequent digital green behavior and the mechanism. Ant forest is an environmental public welfare project launched by Alibaba in China. It transforms the green life behaviors of Alipay users such as walking, public transportation, and online payment into digital green energy. When green energy is collected to a certain quantity, users can apply for planting trees or protecting a nature reserve. Based on the literature of pro-environmental behavior spillover effect, environmental self-identity and psychological ownership, this study constructed a conceptual model of digital green behavior spillover effect, and put forward four hypotheses. H1: Green energy collection behavior can positively affect ant forest support. H2: Environmental self-identity can mediate the impact of green energy collection behavior on ant forest support. H3: Psychological ownership can positively moderate the impact of green energy collection behavior on ant forest support. H4: Psychological ownership can positively moderate the impact of environmental self-identity on ant forest support.
This study adopted a 2 (green energy collection behavior: high, low) × 2 (psychological ownership: strong, neutral) between-subject experimental design. The mediating variable is environmental self-identity, and the dependent variable is ant forest support intention, including purchase intention of products from the ant forest and donation amount willing to provide for reserves. Relying on the "Credamo", a professional survey platform in China, we designed the questionnaire and used the sample tracking function, and finally got 199 valid answers. The study was divided into two stages. In the first stage, the questionnaire was distributed to find two groups of subjects with different levels of green energy collection behavior, and then the high-level and low-level groups were randomly divided into two groups respectively. In the second stage, the psychological ownership manipulation was carried out. Drawing on the practice of peck et al. (2021), we primed psychological ownership by highlighting that the reserve or trees are named by the subjects' nicknames.
The results showed that: (1) Green energy collection behavior had a significant positive impact on purchase intention and pro-environmental donation. (2) Environmental self-identity mediated the relationship between green energy collection behavior and support intention. (3) Psychological ownership moderated the impact of environmental self-identity on ant forest support intention. For those who primed strong psychological ownership, the positive impact of environmental self-identity on purchase intention was obviously stronger than the counterpart. In addition, in neutral conditions, environmental self-identity had no significant impact on pro-environmental donation, while in the condition of strong psychological ownership, environmental self-identity had a significant positive impact on pro-environmental donation. This study expands the research on pro-environmental behavior spillover, deepens the understanding of psychological ownership, and contributes a useful exploration for promoting human sustainable behavior through digital pro-environmental behavior.

Key words: digital green behavior, ant forest, pro-environmental behavior spillover, psychological ownership, environmental self-identity

摘要： 绿色行为的数字化是移动互联网时代的新现象,本研究聚焦蚂蚁森林的绿色能量收集行为,通过线上情境模拟研究揭示了数字化绿色行为的正向溢出效应及其影响机制。结果表明,个体的绿色能量收集行为能正向影响其对蚂蚁森林的进一步支持,环境自我身份在这种溢出效应中发挥了中介作用,心理所有权正向调节了绿色能量收集行为的溢出过程。这说明引导人们参与有趣易行的数字化绿色行为并提高其心理所有权,有助于促进其后续的亲环境行为。

关键词: 数字化绿色行为, 蚂蚁森林, 亲环境行为溢出, 心理所有权, 环境自我身份

She Shengxiang, Li Shicheng, Chen Jing, Sheng Guanghua. Spillover Effect of Digital Green Behavior: Mediation of Identity and Moderation of Psychological Ownership[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(5): 1180-1187.

佘升翔, 李事成, 陈璟, 盛光华. 数字化绿色行为溢出效应：身份感的中介和心理所有权的调节 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1180-1187.

References

[1] 李鹏娜, 王延伸, 杨金花, 孙彦. (2017). 行为决策理论在能源节约管理中的应用. 心理科学, 40(3), 760-765.
[2] Michele, K. S., & Gavin, R. B. (2007). 男性择偶策略改变的前提: 自感配偶价值提高. 心理学报, 39(3), 513-522.
[3] 王财玉. (2019). 谁更愿意购买绿色产品? 认识绿色消费者. 心理科学, 42(6), 1416-1421.
[4] 邢采, 刘婷婷, 张希. (2015). 危机情境下的亲社会行为: 求偶动机对危机救助意愿的影响. 心理科学, 38(1), 172-178.
[5] 徐嘉祺, 佘升翔, 田云章, 陈璟. (2019). 绿色消费行为的溢出效应: 目标视角的调节作用. 财经论丛, 12, 86-94.
[6] 徐嘉祺, 佘升翔, 田云章, 陈璟. (2020). 回收努力对绿色消费的溢出效应及其影响机理. 南京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 19(3), 94-103.
[7] 叶强, 高超越, 姜广鑫. (2022). 大数据环境下我国未来区块链碳市场体系设计. 管理世界, 38(1), 229-240.
[8] 郑晓莹, 彭泗清, 彭璐珞. (2015). "达"则兼济天下? 社会比较对亲社会行为的影响及心理机制. 心理学报, 47(2), 243-250.
[9] Bai S. Z., Wang Y., She S. X., & Wei S. (2021). Will costliness amplify the signalling strength of past pro-environmental behaviour? Exploratory study on autonomy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), Article 10216.
[10] Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
[11] Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
[12] Brügger, A., & Höchli, B. (2019). The role of attitude strength in behavioral spillover: Attitude matters-but not necessarily as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1018.
[13] Capstick S., Lorenzoni I., Corner A., & Whitmarsh L. (2014). Prospects for radical emissions reduction through behavior and lifestyle change. Carbon Management, 5(4), 429-445.
[14] Capstick S., Whitmarsh L., Nash N., Haggar P., & Lord J. (2019). Compensatory and catalyzing beliefs: Their relationship to pro-environmental behavior and behavioral spillover in seven countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 963.
[15] Dolan, P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 1-16.
[16] Elf P., Gatersleben B., & Christie I. (2018). Facilitating positive spillover effects: New insights from a mixed-methods approach exploring factors enabling people to live more sustainable lifestyles. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2699.
[17] Felix, R., & Almaguer, J. (2019). Nourish what you own: Psychological ownership, materialism and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 82-91.
[18] Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American.
[19] Galizzi, M. M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2019). How to measure behavioral spillovers: A methodological review and checklist. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 342.
[20] Güngör, A. S., & Çadırcı, T. O. (2022). Understanding digital consumer: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1829-1858.
[21] Lacasse, K. (2016). Don't be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an "environmentalist" label. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 149-158.
[22] Lauren N., Smith L. D. G., Louis W. R., & Dean A. J. (2019). Promoting spillover: How past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 235-258.
[23] Ma B. L., Li X. F., Jiang Z. J., & Jiang J. F. (2019). Recycle more, waste more? When recycling efforts increase resource consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 870-877.
[24] Maddux W. W., Yang H. Y., Falk C., Adam H., Adair W., Endo Y., & Heine S. J. (2010). For whom is parting with possessions more painful? Cultural differences in the endowment effect. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1910-1917.
[25] Peck J., Kirk C. P., Luangrath A. W., & Shu S. B. (2021). Caring for the commons: Using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 33-49.
[26] Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2018). Psychological ownership and consumer behavior. Springer.
[27] Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 810-834.
[28] Pierce J. L., Kostova T., & Dirks K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84-107.
[29] Pierce, J. L., & Peck, J. (2018). The history of psychological ownership and its emergence in consumer psychology. In J, Peck, & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 1-18). Springer.
[30] Poortinga W., Whitmarsh L., & Suffolk C. (2013). The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 240-247.
[31] Süssenbach, S., & Kamleitner, B. (2018). Psychological ownership as a facilitator of sustainable behaviors. In J. Peck, & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 211-225). Springer.
[32] Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy, 51, 854-862.
[33] Tiefenbeck V., Staake T., Roth K., & Sachs O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160-171.
[34] van der Werff E., Steg L., & Keizer K. (2013). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258-1265.
[35] van der Werff E., Steg L., & Keizer K. (2014). Follow the signal: When past pro-environmental actions signal who you are. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 273-282.
[36] Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439-459.
[37] Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249-268.
[38] Wei S., Xu J. Q., She S. X., Wang Y., & Zhang Y. (2021). Are recycling people also saving? Costliness matters. Frontier in Psychology, 11, Article 609371.
[39] Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
[40] Xu L., Zhang X. L., & Ling M. L. (2018). Spillover effects of household waste separation policy on electricity consumption: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 219-231.