Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

Low-carbon technology adoption is an essential element of energy transitions toward net-zero emissions around the world. To exploit the full potential of low-carbon technologies, households should ideally co-adopt multiple low-carbon technologies. Whereas previous research primarily investigated predictors of single-technology adoption in isolation, here we focus on the co-adoption of multiple low-carbon technologies, including solar photovoltaics, stationary batteries, heat pumps, and electric vehicles, to examine the interconnections between adoption decisions and the potential of certain technologies to serve as “entry points” for the co-adoption of multiple low-carbon technologies. Based on a sample of 1967 homeowners, we identified unique demographic and psychological variables associated with co-adoption. We moreover observed specific co-adoption patterns across time in that the adoption of one technology increased the likelihood of adopting another technology. This effect, however, was primarily driven by co-adoption in close temporal proximity, pointing to opportunities for targeted policies that support technology bundles.

Although positive emotions generally influence pro‐environmental behaviors positively, this is not always the case. Across one correlational and two experimental studies, we address this issue by investigating the temporal dimension of pro‐environmental actions and how emotions can affect them. In the first study, we focused on the temporal dilemma behind pro‐environmental behaviors, confirming the importance of “thinking about the future of the planet” for the adoption of various pro‐environmental behaviors. In the second study, we examined the effect of eliciting positive emotions and the mediating role of the temporal focus induced by emotions. In this second study, we observed the superior effectiveness of eliciting future positive emotions (hope) compared with present positive emotions (amusement) in the adoption of pro‐environmental behaviors. Finally, in a third study, we distinguished between integral and incidental hope, showing that the effect on pro‐environmental behaviors is the strongest when hope is experienced about the future of the planet compared with when there is a general unspecific hope. Overall, our findings show the importance of investigating the unique effect of positive emotions, providing clear indications for practitioners about the beneficial effect of integral hope in the environmental context.

Companies engaged in cause-related marketing (CRM) must demonstrate sincere commitment to gain consumer support. In this paper, we observe that consumers infer companies' commitment to the cause by the language used in the CRM promotional material. In a series of experiments, we compare the popular expression “we can make a difference” to “we hope to make a difference” in influencing consumers' response to the CRM. When consumers question company's motives—which can happen, for instance, when they do not perceive a congruency between the company and the supported cause (low firm/cause fit)—consumers seem to perceive the company to be less committed to the cause when the company says they “can” make a difference rather than “hope” to make a difference. Our conclusions offer implications for CRM by highlighting the importance of the words used and their semantic nuances to correctly reflect the company's motivations and thus communicate effectively.