More alike than unalike: Contextually aligned authority arguments amplify sustainable choices across cultures

Most research is conducted in Western societies, with few studies from Latin America. This oversight has led to a narrow understanding of the effectiveness that various sustainability-oriented interventions have in countries with different cultural values. As consumers play a vital role in mitigating climate change issues, this behavioral field experiment investigates whether reliance on the authority and commitment-consistency principles increases individuals' inclination to choose sustainably, and whether the effectiveness of these principles is culturally contingent. Participants from Ecuador and Norway ( N = 346) were randomized to one of three conditions (control vs. authority vs. commitment-consistency), with the latter two conditions containing a message tailored to its associated social influence principle. After replying to some survey items, participants made a choice between a more (vs. less) sustainable option. A chi-square test revealed that both social influence conditions jointly boosted choice likelihood of the more sustainable option relative to the control condition, supporting our initial preregistered hypothesis. However, contrary to our second preregistered hypothesis, a regression-based simple moderation analysis using the PROCESS macro (Model 1) showed no country moderation in the effectiveness of these social influence principles; instead, the results were largely attributable to the authority condition alone, which was considerably more effective than both other conditions across countries, regardless of participants' trust in authorities and their need for consistency. Our findings demonstrate the superiority of contextually aligned authority arguments as a viable way to foster pro-environmental behaviors.