Goals, reminders and rewards got people to do more green actions.
HelpedThe short version
Across 15 comparisons, setting goals, such as cutting power use by 20%, helped people act more green.

- 15
- studies pooled
- Recorded
- behaviour was recorded
- 5 tools
- tested
The review
Who took part
The paper does not say how many people took part or how old they were. It pooled 87 published studies from 1980 to 2009. Most measured recycling, saving energy or water, and travel.
What they did
Each study tried a way to get people to act more, such as goals, reminders, rewards or feedback. Most studies mixed several of these together. The other group got nothing extra or was measured only at the start.
What happened
On average, people did more green actions than the other group across 253 comparisons. Goals and reminders had among the largest average effects; instructions and feedback had among the smallest. The paper could not test which method worked best, so the ranking is a rough guide.
What the review found
- Helped
Across 15 comparisons, setting goals, such as cutting power use by 20%, helped people act more green.
Pooled analysis of 15 studies · vs people who got nothing extra · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Helped
Across 44 comparisons, reminders about when to act helped people act more green.
Pooled analysis of 44 studies · vs people who got no reminders · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Helped
Across 36 comparisons, rewards such as vouchers, bus passes and prizes helped people do more green actions.
Pooled analysis of 36 studies · vs people who got no reward · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Helped
Across 60 comparisons, feedback like power bills helped, though less than goals or reminders.
Pooled analysis of 60 studies · vs people who got nothing extra · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Behaviour was recorded
- Summary claims more than the results show
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
- The review didn't check the studies' quality or look for missing studies
Source
Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral Science: Meta-Analysis of Proenvironmental Behavior Experiments (2012)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916511402673 (opens in a new tab)

