The sound of silence: The importance of bystander support for confronters in the prevention of norm erosion.

Observing deviant behaviour can lead to 'norm erosion', where a norm is no longer seen as relevant and compliance with it is reduced. Previous research argues that social confrontations can mitigate norm erosion. However, this work has not considered the impact of bystanders to confrontations, who might influence the outcome by supporting-or failing to support-the person confronting a social rule breaker. We examine the effect of bystanders' reactions on preventing norm erosion across three experimental studies. We examined how supportive and non-supportive bystander reactions to a confronter impacted the perceived strength of a prosocial norm among participants and their behavioural intentions. We find that when bystanders explicitly supported the confronter against the rule breaker, the norm was perceived as stronger-and sometimes, compliance intentions were higher-than when bystanders did not respond to the confronter. A mini meta-analysis across the three studies reveals that the effect of bystander support on perceived norm strength is large and robust. Our work demonstrates that for the prevention of norm erosion, confrontations benefit greatly from being explicitly supported by bystanders.

"How do you know someone's vegan?" They won't always tell you. An empirical test of the do-gooder's dilemma.

A growing number of people (privately) endorse the benefits associated with adopting a meat-free diet. Yet, the societal transition to a more plant-based diet is taking place rather slowly. Why do people's private meat-free preferences fail to materialize in their daily food choices? One potential explanation is that vegetarians and vegans, at this time still a minority group, are worried about eliciting stigma and thus may not feel comfortable expressing their meat-free preferences during social interactions with meat-eaters. Their self-silencing could reinforce the notion that adopting a meat-free diet is nothing more than a niche phenomenon, and in turn discourage others from eliminating meat from their diet as well, thus perpetuating the non-vegetarian norm. Adapting the classic conformity paradigm by Asch, we found that vegetarian and vegan participants were hesitant to express their meat-free preferences. Vegan and vegetarian participants avoided signing a petition that promoted veg*an food options after a majority of confederates had declined to do so. When the experimenter endorsed veg*an food options, however, participants went against the majority, and did sign the petition. Together, these findings point to a pivotal role for exemplars and institutions: by signaling that there are allies who endorse a meat-free diet, they may liberate vegetarians and vegans to publicly express their deviant, meat-free preferences, and thus speed up wider societal change.

Can graphic warning labels reduce the consumption of meat?

The classification of red meat as "probably carcinogenic" and processed meat as "carcinogenic" was followed by pleas to place warning labels, akin to those used for tobacco products, onto meat products. These labels educate people about the health risks associated with the target behavior and are typically accompanied by graphic imagery that elicits disgust (e.g., a picture of blackened lungs). Although the emotion of disgust has been shown to be an effective tool to affect consumer attitudes toward meat, it remains unclear whether such graphic warning labels that recruit disgust would also affect people's intentions to reduce their meat consumption. Two experiments reveal that graphic warning labels, by recruiting disgust, can increase people's intention to reduce their current levels of meat consumption. However, by eliciting disgust, graphic warning labels can simultaneously trigger reactance: graphic images can make people feel they are being manipulated, thereby ironically decreasing meat-reduction intentions. In a final experiment, we aimed to circumvent reactance by providing disgusting information under the guise of trivia, thereby avoiding the perception that the disgusting information was meant to manipulate. Via this route, disgust becomes a potent tool to influence consumers' intentions to consume meat. Ethical concerns are discussed.

Collective patterns of social diffusion are shaped by individual inertia and trend-seeking.

Social conventions change when individuals collectively adopt an alternative over the status quo, in a process known as social diffusion. Our repeated trials of a multi-round experiment provided data that helped motivate the proposal of an agent-based model of social diffusion that incorporates inertia and trend-seeking, two behavioural mechanisms that are well documented in the social psychology literature. The former causes people to stick with their current decision, the latter creates sensitivity to population-level changes. We show that such inclusion resolves the contradictions of existing models, allowing to reproduce patterns of social diffusion which are consistent with our data and existing empirical observations at both the individual and population level. The model reveals how the emergent population-level diffusion pattern is critically shaped by the two individual-level mechanisms; trend-seeking guarantees the diffusion is explosive after the diffusion process takes off, but inertia can greatly delay the time to take-off.

No Way, That's Gross! How Public Exposure Therapy Can Overcome Disgust Preventing Consumer Adoption of Sustainable Food Alternatives.

Two prominently discussed sustainable food alternatives-lab-meat and edible insects-elicit disgust among consumers, thereby preventing acceptance. While providing prospective consumers with more information on, for instance, the environmental benefits of lab-meat has shown some success in increasing consumer acceptance, we argue that the disgust response-the main barrier to the societal acceptance of these foods-is not addressed. This is, we argue, because disgust is not the result of misperceptions (e.g., edible insects carry diseases) and thus unlikely to be overcome by information alone. Building on the latest insights into the social origins of disgust, this manuscript reviews an alternative strategy to foster the broader acceptance of sustainable food alternatives that currently elicit disgust. Specifically, we explain why and how public exposure could be a promising avenue for marketers to reduce consumers' disgust response and thus increase the acceptance of sustainable food alternatives.

Minority influence in climate change mitigation.

While the majority of people care about environmental quality, they keep engaging in carbon-intensive practices that exacerbate climate change. Can we expect humans to collectively change by themselves, from the bottom up? Social change is often initiated by minorities - individuals who challenge the status quo. The dominant literature paints a rather pessimistic picture about the ability of minorities to instigate change in the environmental domain: environmental activists, vegans, and other minority members often elicit social sanctions, thereby ironically reinforcing the majority's commitment to current, environmentally harmful norms. Recent findings, however, point towards more optimism: pro-environmental minorities can pave the way towards 'tipping points' and spontaneous social change. Policymakers can speed up this process by offering top-down support for minorities - by giving them 'voice'.

'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social psychological impact of moralizing COVID-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change.

COVID-19 mitigating practices such as 'hand-washing', 'social distancing', or 'social isolating' are constructed as 'moral imperatives', required to avert harm to oneself and others. Adherence to COVID-19 mitigating practices is presently high among the general public, and stringent lockdown measures supported by legal and policy intervention have facilitated this. In the coming months, however, as rules are being relaxed and individuals become less strict, and thus, the ambiguity in policy increases, the maintenance of recommended social distancing norms will rely on more informal social interactional processes. We argue that the moralization of these practices, twinned with relaxations of policy, may likely cause interactional tension between those individuals who do vs. those who do not uphold social distancing in the coming months: that is, derogation of those who adhere strictly to COVID-19 mitigating practices and group polarization between 'distancers' and 'non-distancers'. In this paper, we explore how and why these processes might come to pass, their impact on an overall societal response to COVID-19, and the need to factor such processes into decisions regarding how to lift restrictions.

When Do Morally Motivated Innovators Elicit Inspiration Instead of Irritation?

Innovators (i.e., consumers who are the first to adopt an innovation) are pivotal for the societal diffusion of sustainable innovations. But when are innovators most influential? Recent work suggests that morally motivated innovators (i.e., consumers who adopt an innovation out of concern for the welfare of others) can make fellow consumers who have not yet adopted that innovation feel morally inadequate. As a self-defense mechanism, those fellow consumers might dismiss these innovators and their choices. As a result, ironically, morally motivated innovators might discourage others to adopt sustainable innovations. In an experimental study, we replicate this pattern, but also show that moral innovators can elicit a more positive response as well. Specifically, our results offer initial evidence that morally motivated innovators may be more inspiring than self-interested innovators, provided that their actions do not directly pose a threat to the moral self-concept of observers. In sum, our research sheds empirical light on the conditions under which innovators are likely to facilitate, rather than slow down the transition to a more sustainable society.

Why Acting Environmentally-Friendly Feels Good: Exploring the Role of Self-Image.

Recent research suggests that engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior can feel good. Current explanations for such a link do not focus on the nature of environmentally-friendly behavior itself, but rather propose well-being is more or less a side-benefit; behaviors that benefit environmental quality (e.g., spending one's money on people rather than products) also tend to make us feel good. We propose that the moral nature of environmentally-friendly behavior itself may elicit positive emotions as well, because engaging in this behavior can signal one is an environmentally-friendly and thus a good person. Our results show that engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior can indeed affect how people see themselves: participants saw themselves as being more environmentally-friendly when they engaged in more environmentally-friendly behavior (Study 1). Furthermore, environmentally-friendly behavior resulted in a more positive self-image, more strongly when it was voluntarily engaged in, compared to when it was driven by situational constraints (Study 2). In turn, the more environmentally-friendly (Study 1) and positive (Study 2) people saw themselves, the better they felt about acting environmentally-friendly. Together, these results suggest that the specific self-signal that ensues from engaging in environmentally-friendly behavior can explain why environmentally-friendly actions may elicit a good feeling.

An exploratory study into the effects of extraordinary nature on emotions, mood, and prosociality.

Environmental psychology research has demonstrated that exposure to mundane natural environments can be psychologically beneficial, and can, for instance, improve individuals' mood and concentration. However, little research has yet examined the psychological benefits of extraordinary, awe-evoking kinds of nature, such as spectacular mountain scenes or impressive waterfalls. In this study, we aimed to address the underrepresentation of such extraordinary nature in research on human-nature interactions. Specifically, we examined whether watching a picture slideshow of awesome as opposed to mundane nature differentially affected individuals' emotions, mood, social value orientation (SVO), and their willingness to donate something to others. Our analyses revealed that, compared to mundane nature and a neutral condition, watching awesome natural scenes and phenomena had some unique and pronounced emotional effects (e.g., feeling small and humble), triggered the most mood improvement, and led to a more prosocial SVO. We found that participants' willingness to donate did not differ significantly for any of the conditions.

Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior.

Informational interventions (e.g., awareness campaigns, carbon footprint calculators) are built on the assumption that informing the public about the environmental consequences of their actions should result in increased pro-environmental intentions and behavior. However, empirical support for this reasoning is mixed. In this paper, we argue that informational interventions may succeed in improving people's knowledge about the negative environmental consequences of one's actions, but this knowledge will not gain motivational force if people do not consider protecting the environment an important personal value. In an experiment, we measured individual differences in value priorities, and either presented participants a movie clip that portrayed the negative environmental consequences of using bottled water, or a control movie. As predicted, we found that the environmental movie improved recipients' knowledge of the negative environmental impact of bottled water, but this knowledge only resulted in concomitant changes in intentions and acceptability of related policies among participants who strongly endorsed biospheric (i.e. environmental) values, while having no effect on those who care less about the environment. Interestingly, the results suggest that although informational interventions are perhaps not always successful in directly affecting less environmentally-conscious recipients, they could still have beneficial effects, because they make those who strongly care about the environment more inclined to act on their values.