People think it is fairer for governments to reward sustainable choices than to penalise less sustainable ones. But that gap narrows as sustainable behaviour becomes more common, mainly because penalties are then seen as fairer. These are the findings of research by Kobe Millet of VU Amsterdam and Bert Weijters of Ghent University.
The researchers presented each participant with one of 81 everyday choices. Do you buy loose vegetables or vegetables in plastic packaging? Do you commute by public transport or by car? Do you have a broken appliance repaired or buy a new one? Half of the participants then rated how fair they found a reward for the sustainable choice, while the other half rated a penalty for the less sustainable choice.
Overall, people considered rewards fairer than penalties. When the sustainable behaviour was still uncommon, participants generally found a penalty unfair. For behaviour that was already widely adopted, however, they were much more lenient: they were more likely to see a penalty as fair, and the gap with rewards became much smaller.
From free choice to social expectation
One possible explanation lies in social norms. "When more and more people adopt a particular sustainable behaviour, that behaviour not only becomes more common, but possibly also more socially expected," says Millet. "What was once a voluntary choice can gradually take on a more obligatory character." Anyone who still opts for the less sustainable option deviates from what others consider normal. In that case, a penalty may feel less like coercion and more like a legitimate measure.
Reward first, adjust later
The study offers policymakers a practical rule of thumb. As long as few people choose the sustainable option, subsidies and grants fit better with the voluntary nature of that choice. Once the behaviour becomes established, people are also more likely to see tougher measures, such as levies, as fair. According to the researchers, how common people believe a behaviour to be can therefore indicate when penalties are likely to gain more support. Millet does add a caveat: "This is of course no licence for strict policy. Some groups may be hit disproportionately hard. But the findings do suggest that how established a behaviour already is matters for policy."
The study, involving 2,401 participants, was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology and is open access.