Bagging a Greener Future: Social Norms Appeals and Financial Incentives in Promoting Reusable Bags Among Grocery Shoppers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study stands out for its innovative combination of social norms theory (including dynamic and static norms) with financial incentive messaging in the context of encouraging reusable bag usage. Particularly novel is the attention to dynamic injunctive norms, which are still underexplored in the literature. The study also uses an experimental design with a nationally representative sample, enhancing its relevance and impact.

It makes a notable contribution by addressing gaps in comparative effectiveness of social norms and financial incentives, as well as their potential synergistic effects. It builds on frameworks such as the FINS model and addresses ongoing debates about motivation crowding in/out. The discussion is quite robust and the use of multiple research questions/hypotheses enhance its theoretical depth.

In terms of structure, the paper is very well-structured, with clear divisions across introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis, and discussion. The hypotheses and research questions are logically developed and empirically tested. The language is accessible yet academically rigorous, and visuals/tables are effectively used to support interpretation.

The article’s main argument is well-developed and supported by data, though one potential weakness is that not all hypotheses were confirmed, which is something that the authors acknowledge. For instance, H2 and H3 were not supported, and dynamic injunctive norms did not significantly outperform their static counterparts. Yet, the authors transparently address these outcomes, offering theoretical explanations and suggestions for further inquiry.

The authors engage with a rich and current body of literature, including recent studies on dynamic norms, environmental behavior, and incentive framing. Citations include foundational works (e.g., Cialdini, Schultz) and cutting-edge studies published as recently as 2023. The review is comprehensive and well-integrated into the argumentation.

Overall, it is a rigorous and timely article with strong empirical grounding, theoretical insight, and practical relevance. It will likely appeal to scholars in environmental psychology, communication, public policy, and behavioral economics. Despite minor limitations, the study is methodologically sound, theoretically relevant, and practically impactful. 

 

Author Response

Comments 1:

The study stands out for its innovative combination of social norms theory (including dynamic and static norms) with financial incentive messaging in the context of encouraging reusable bag usage. Particularly novel is the attention to dynamic injunctive norms, which are still underexplored in the literature. The study also uses an experimental design with a nationally representative sample, enhancing its relevance and impact.

It makes a notable contribution by addressing gaps in comparative effectiveness of social norms and financial incentives, as well as their potential synergistic effects. It builds on frameworks such as the FINS model and addresses ongoing debates about motivation crowding in/out. The discussion is quite robust and the use of multiple research questions/hypotheses enhance its theoretical depth.

In terms of structure, the paper is very well-structured, with clear divisions across introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis, and discussion. The hypotheses and research questions are logically developed and empirically tested. The language is accessible yet academically rigorous, and visuals/tables are effectively used to support interpretation.

The article’s main argument is well-developed and supported by data, though one potential weakness is that not all hypotheses were confirmed, which is something that the authors acknowledge. For instance, H2 and H3 were not supported, and dynamic injunctive norms did not significantly outperform their static counterparts. Yet, the authors transparently address these outcomes, offering theoretical explanations and suggestions for further inquiry.

The authors engage with a rich and current body of literature, including recent studies on dynamic norms, environmental behavior, and incentive framing. Citations include foundational works (e.g., Cialdini, Schultz) and cutting-edge studies published as recently as 2023. The review is comprehensive and well-integrated into the argumentation.

Overall, it is a rigorous and timely article with strong empirical grounding, theoretical insight, and practical relevance. It will likely appeal to scholars in environmental psychology, communication, public policy, and behavioral economics. Despite minor limitations, the study is methodologically sound, theoretically relevant, and practically impactful. 

Response 1:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and generous assessment of our work. We are particularly encouraged by the recognition of our contribution to the literature on dynamic injunctive norms and the integration of social norms with financial incentive framing. We also thank the reviewer for acknowledging the rigor and clarity of our methodological and theoretical approach.

Regarding the point about unsupported hypotheses (H2 and H3), we are grateful that the reviewer recognized our efforts to address these results transparently in the discussion. We agree that the unexpected findings offer valuable avenues for future research, and we have ensured that our interpretations remain theoretically grounded and empirically cautious. Thank you again for the insightful and constructive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study explores how social norms and financial incentives influence intentions to use reusable grocery bags. Using a nationally representative U.S. sample (n=753), it compares static and dynamic norm messages, surcharges and discounts, and integrated approaches. Findings show injunctive and dynamic descriptive norms increase intentions more effectively than financial incentives alone. Integrated norm-incentive messages, particularly those involving injunctive norms, produce the strongest intentions, highlighting the value of motivational complementarity.

 

The authors should address the following aspects:

 

The study relies solely on self-reported behavioral intentions rather than actual observed behavior. This is a critical limitation since intentions do not always translate into real-world actions, especially for environmentally sustainable practices where convenience and habit often dominate. The use of hypothetical scenarios further distances participants from real decision-making contexts.

 

The authors should ensure that the paper is in the template and format of the journal; at the moment it is not. This should have been picked up by the editorial team. Authors, please check the journal’s website and read carefully the guidelines to authors, and ensure you are using the journal’s template.

 

Engagement with relevant literature: the authors should engage with the paper and work of Dr Skylar Benedict (Georgetown University); he published a fascinating article in Water MDPI on an analysis of water awareness campaign messaging in the case of Jordan, which discusses exactly how social norms and citizens’ behaviour can change when it comes to environmental – and natural resources – uses; this should be mentioned and discussed also in your paper’s introduction.

 

Although statistically significant, many effects (e.g., r = .07–.18) are relatively small. The modest variance explained (η² = .03) suggests limited practical significance. While combining injunctive norms and incentives increased intentions slightly, the real-world behavioral shift from such messaging could be negligible without stronger interventions.

 

The generic environmental control message was unexpectedly as effective as many targeted messages. This undermines the theoretical premise that tailored social or financial cues outperform generic appeals. It raises concerns about whether the norm/incentive messages were strong or distinct enough to produce a meaningful cognitive or emotional shift.

 

The manuscript prioritizes statistical testing over nuanced theoretical interpretation. Some contrasts, such as dynamic vs. static injunctive norms, showed no difference, but were insufficiently discussed. Moreover, the lack of support for several hypotheses (e.g., H2, H3) indicates mixed results that call for deeper reflection on theoretical robustness and message design.

 

The study treats its nationally representative sample as homogenous, without examining how cultural background, political ideology, or regional context might moderate message effectiveness. This is a missed opportunity given the increasing importance of personalized environmental communication strategies.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: This study explores how social norms and financial incentives influence intentions to use reusable grocery bags. Using a nationally representative U.S. sample (n=753), it compares static and dynamic norm messages, surcharges and discounts, and integrated approaches. Findings show injunctive and dynamic descriptive norms increase intentions more effectively than financial incentives alone. Integrated norm-incentive messages, particularly those involving injunctive norms, produce the strongest intentions, highlighting the value of motivational complementarity.

Response 1: We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the thoughtful and detailed feedback. We are encouraged by the recognition of our study’s design and findings and appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised. Below, we respond to each point in turn and have made corresponding changes in the revised manuscript, with all edits marked in red text.

The authors should address the following aspects:

Comments 2: The study relies solely on self-reported behavioral intentions rather than actual observed behavior. This is a critical limitation since intentions do not always translate into real-world actions, especially for environmentally sustainable practices where convenience and habit often dominate. The use of hypothetical scenarios further distances participants from real decision-making contexts.

Response 2: We appreciate this important point. In the revised manuscript (Section 4.2 Limitations and Future Research), we have explicitly acknowledged that the use of hypothetical scenario-based behavioral intentions represents a limitation of the study. We discuss the well-documented intention-behavior gap in environmental psychology and recommend that future research should extend the present findings by collecting actual behavioral data through field experiments (e.g., observing shoppers’ behaviors at grocery stores after exposure to message interventions).

Comments 3: The authors should ensure that the paper is in the template and format of the journal; at the moment it is not. This should have been picked up by the editorial team. Authors, please check the journal’s website and read carefully the guidelines to authors, and ensure you are using the journal’s template.

Response 3: We appreciate this helpful reminder. We have confirmed with the handling editor that while the journal recommends use of the official manuscript template, it is not required during the review process. That said, we are fully committed to ensuring that the final version complies with all formatting and style guidelines. We will apply the journal’s template and thoroughly revise formatting in coordination with the production team after the peer-review process is complete and revisions are finalized.

Comments 4: Engagement with relevant literature: the authors should engage with the paper and work of Dr Skylar Benedict (Georgetown University); he published a fascinating article in Water MDPI on an analysis of water awareness campaign messaging in the case of Jordan, which discusses exactly how social norms and citizens’ behaviour can change when it comes to environmental – and natural resources – uses; this should be mentioned and discussed also in your paper’s introduction.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have now reviewed Benedict’s article and integrated it into the Literature Review on page 3 (subsection 1.11). His work with Hussein on water awareness campaigns in Jordan provides important insight into how norm-based interventions can effectively influence resource conservation behaviors. Their analysis of how government messaging created "responsible water citizens" by connecting personal practices to broader societal benefits aligns well with our theoretical framework on social norms. While their study focused on water rather than plastic consumption, it offers valuable evidence for how well-designed awareness campaigns can transform social norms around resource usage, a principle directly relevant to our investigation of plastic bag reduction strategies. We appreciate this suggestion.

Comments 5: Although statistically significant, many effects (e.g., r = .07–.18) are relatively small. The modest variance explained (η² = .03) suggests limited practical significance. While combining injunctive norms and incentives increased intentions slightly, the real-world behavioral shift from such messaging could be negligible without stronger interventions.

Response 5: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We agree that the observed effect sizes, while statistically significant, are modest. We would like to note, however, that this pattern is consistent with findings from prior meta-analyses on environmental behavior change interventions, which often report small to moderate effects (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013; Nisa et al., 2019).

In the revised manuscript (Section 4.1 Implications and Section 4.2 Limitations), we explicitly acknowledge the modest effect sizes and emphasize that the results should be interpreted with appropriate caution. At the same time, we highlight that even small behavioral shifts can yield meaningful societal impact when interventions are scaled across large populations. We also recommend that future research explore strategies for enhancing intervention strength, such as incorporating more emotionally resonant, identity-based, or contextually tailored appeals.

Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029

Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M., & Faller, D. G. (2019). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nature Communications, 10(1), Article 4545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12457-2

Comments 6: The generic environmental control message was unexpectedly as effective as many targeted messages. This undermines the theoretical premise that tailored social or financial cues outperform generic appeals. It raises concerns about whether the norm/incentive messages were strong or distinct enough to produce a meaningful cognitive or emotional shift.

Response 6: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We have addressed this issue throughout the revised Discussion, Implications (Section 4.1), and Limitations and Future Research (Section 4.2) sections. In the Discussion, we explicitly acknowledge that tailored norm- and incentive-based messages did not consistently outperform the generic sustainability message. We situate this finding within the existing literature, noting that it both contrasts with prior studies showing the benefits of tailored appeals and aligns with research suggesting that generic sustainability messaging can be effective for well-publicized behaviors. We also propose several potential explanations, including message saturation, lack of perceived novelty, and insufficient emotional resonance.

In Section 4.1 Implications, we caution against assuming the inherent superiority of tailored appeals and recommend that future research and practice prioritize message salience, emotional relevance, and rigorous pre-testing to strengthen tailored interventions. In Section 4.2 Limitations, we further highlight the importance of examining psychological mediators, such as emotional arousal, identity relevance, message salience, and cognitive elaboration, that may influence how different message types are processed and received. We outline these factors as key directions for future research to advance more effective environmental messaging strategies.

Comments 7: The manuscript prioritizes statistical testing over nuanced theoretical interpretation. Some contrasts, such as dynamic vs. static injunctive norms, showed no difference, but were insufficiently discussed. Moreover, the lack of support for several hypotheses (e.g., H2, H3) indicates mixed results that call for deeper reflection on theoretical robustness and message design.

Response 7: We appreciate this constructive feedback. In the revised Discussion, we expanded the theoretical interpretation of the dynamic vs. static injunctive norm findings. We discuss how injunctive norms, as relatively stable moral beliefs, may require longer exposure or more direct social evidence to influence behavior, making dynamic framing less immediately persuasive compared to descriptive norms. We cite recent literature, such as Lee and Liu (2021), to support this theoretical interpretation. Additionally, we more carefully reflect on the implications of the null differences between tailored and generic messages and propose potential cognitive and emotional explanations in the Limitations section.

Lee, S. J., & Liu, J. (2021). Leveraging dynamic norm messages to promote counter-normative health behaviors: The moderating role of current and future injunctive norms, attitude and self-efficacy. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1991638

Comments 8: The study treats its nationally representative sample as homogenous, without examining how cultural background, political ideology, or regional context might moderate message effectiveness. This is a missed opportunity given the increasing importance of personalized environmental communication strategies.

Response 8: We appreciate this thoughtful observation and agree that message effectiveness can vary across individual-level characteristics. To clarify, our study did examine potential sources of individual variability through a preliminary multiple regression analysis (see Appendix D). Specifically, we tested a comprehensive set of predictors, including demographics (age, gender, race, marital status, education, income, religious beliefs, political ideology), grocery shopping habits, prior reusable bag use, environmental concern, and attitudes toward reusable bags, to identify meaningful covariates of behavioral intention. Four variables (age, prior bag usage, environmental concern, and attitude) emerged as significant predictors and were therefore included as covariates in the main experimental analyses.

That said, we recognize that this study does not explicitly test how cultural variables, such as regional identity, cultural orientation (e.g., individualism-collectivism), or cultural tightness-looseness, may moderate message effects.

In Section 4.2 Limitations and Future Research, we now explicitly acknowledge that while we controlled for several individual-level variables (e.g., age, prior bag use, environmental concern), the study did not examine moderation by cultural or ideological factors. We recommend that future research systematically investigate how variables such as cultural tightness-looseness and national/regional identity may moderate normative and incentive-based message effects, to advance more targeted and culturally responsive environmental communication strategies.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review this article. The authors examine the impact of social norms and financial incentive messages on the promotion of reusable bag use. Based on an online experiment with a nationally representative sample of the United States, respondents are presented with various hypotheses to identify the factors that influence their perceptions of the behavior of using reusable bags when shopping. Having read the authors' research and analysis, I would like to make the following comments and suggestions:

I. Originality:

The research topic of the article is relevant because, on the one hand, there is increasing talk about green technologies and the implementation of ecological systems in business processes, which are attempts to protect the environment. On the other hand, consumer behavior and the average person's understanding of it have not yet reached the stage of adoption of environmental protection. For the purposes of this article, the authors ask what factors can influence consumer behavior in grocery stores to use reusable bags, and in particular, what social prompts or calls for social norms can be used through economic levers and financial incentives. 753 respondents were interviewed in an online survey and the results were analyses using SPSS software.

II. Literature review:

The authors used 52 literary sources, of which 15 are from the last five years (2020-2025), i.e. less than 30%. It would be good if the authors could refer to more recent studies that would underline the relevance of the views on which the authors of the article are based. The literary sources are in the field of the research problem. It is recommended that the authors pay attention to the lists of cited sources and comply with the requirements of the journal.

III. Methodology:

The data for the survey comes from 753 respondents. For the purposes of their article, the authors present three hypotheses and five research questions. The first paragraph of subsection 2.2 is not clearly written and the authors need to pay attention to making the explanations related to the description of the indicators clearer. The whole section on methodology is rather fragmented into short sentences with individual indicators, which is more confusing for the average reader than helpful in understanding the logical sequence of the material collected and the methods used.

IV. Results and Discussion:

The results in the article are clearly stated. The results outside the article are difficult to read. However, the methods used to analyze the data are sound and the results are clearly explained. The discussion contains valuable reasoning and the author's original view of the results obtained. However, it would be good to support the conclusions with other similar studies where appropriate.

V. Quality of communication:

In conclusion, the topic is relevant and timely, but some weaknesses of the article can be pointed out to which the authors should pay more serious attention. It is necessary to strengthen the opinions of others, on which the authors can "step" in order to prove their own merits later. The authors should describe the material collected and the methods used in a more understandable way, so that the logic applied by the authors can be easily followed. Nevertheless, the article follows the logical sequence of the presentation and the authors reach interesting conclusions and make good recommendations on this basis. It would be desirable to include a section with a short text for future research in this direction.

Author Response

Comments 1: First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review this article. The authors examine the impact of social norms and financial incentive messages on the promotion of reusable bag use. Based on an online experiment with a nationally representative sample of the United States, respondents are presented with various hypotheses to identify the factors that influence their perceptions of the behavior of using reusable bags when shopping. Having read the authors' research and analysis, I would like to make the following comments and suggestions:

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for your thoughtful and encouraging comments on our manuscript. We are pleased that the reviewer finds the topic timely and relevant, especially in light of ongoing conversations around environmental sustainability and behavioral change. We also appreciate the summary of our study’s objectives and methods. Below, we respond to each of your comments and have made corresponding changes in the revised manuscript, with all edits marked in red text.

 

Comments 2: I. Originality:

The research topic of the article is relevant because, on the one hand, there is increasing talk about green technologies and the implementation of ecological systems in business processes, which are attempts to protect the environment. On the other hand, consumer behavior and the average person's understanding of it have not yet reached the stage of adoption of environmental protection. For the purposes of this article, the authors ask what factors can influence consumer behavior in grocery stores to use reusable bags, and in particular, what social prompts or calls for social norms can be used through economic levers and financial incentives. 753 respondents were interviewed in an online survey and the results were analyses using SPSS software.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer again for recognizing the originality and potential impact.

 

Comments 3: II. Literature review:

The authors used 52 literary sources, of which 15 are from the last five years (2020-2025), i.e. less than 30%. It would be good if the authors could refer to more recent studies that would underline the relevance of the views on which the authors of the article are based. The literary sources are in the field of the research problem. It is recommended that the authors pay attention to the lists of cited sources and comply with the requirements of the journal.

Response 3: Thank you for your helpful comments regarding the literature review. We appreciate your observation about the need to include more recent studies to further underscore the relevance and timeliness of our research. In response, we have updated the manuscript by incorporating eight new sources published between 2020 and 2025, particularly in areas related to norm-based messaging, sustainable consumer behavior, and financial incentives (including citations 13, 18, 20-23, 28, and 61). These additions strengthen the theoretical grounding of our study and highlight recent developments in the field.

Regarding citation formatting, we will ensure to work closely with the copy editor to fully comply with the journal’s style and formatting requirements once the reviewers are satisfied with our revisions and we proceed to the publication stage.

 

Comments 4: III. Methodology:

The data for the survey comes from 753 respondents. For the purposes of their article, the authors present three hypotheses and five research questions. The first paragraph of subsection 2.2 is not clearly written and the authors need to pay attention to making the explanations related to the description of the indicators clearer. The whole section on methodology is rather fragmented into short sentences with individual indicators, which is more confusing for the average reader than helpful in understanding the logical sequence of the material collected and the methods used.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful feedback regarding the clarity and organization of the Methodology section. In response, we have revised subsection 2.2 (Research Design and Procedures) to improve the logical flow and clarify the explanation of the measured indicators. Additionally, we have refined the 2.4 Measures subsection to enhance readability and better connect the description of the dependent variable and potential covariates, addressing concerns about fragmentation. We believe these changes have strengthened the overall clarity and coherence of the Methods section.

 

Comments 5: IV. Results and Discussion:

The results in the article are clearly stated. The results outside the article are difficult to read. However, the methods used to analyze the data are sound and the results are clearly explained. The discussion contains valuable reasoning and the author's original view of the results obtained. However, it would be good to support the conclusions with other similar studies where appropriate.

Response 5: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the clarity of our results and the soundness of the data analysis. We are also pleased that the discussion is deemed valuable and original.

In response to the suggestion regarding additional support for our conclusions, we have reviewed the literature further and incorporated additional relevant studies where appropriate (e.g., Abrahamse & Steg, 2013; Lee & Liu, 2021; Nisa et al., 2019). These references help contextualize our findings within the broader body of research on social norms and financial incentives, particularly in the context of promoting sustainable consumer behaviors. We believe these additions strengthen the discussion and enhance the theoretical contributions of our study.

Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029

Lee, S. J., & Liu, J. (2021). Leveraging dynamic norm messages to promote counter-normative health behaviors: The moderating role of current and future injunctive norms, attitude and self-efficacy. Health Communication. psyh. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1991638

Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M., & Faller, D. G. (2019). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nature Communications, 10(1), Article 4545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12457-2

 

Comments 6: V. Quality of communication:

In conclusion, the topic is relevant and timely, but some weaknesses of the article can be pointed out to which the authors should pay more serious attention. It is necessary to strengthen the opinions of others, on which the authors can "step" in order to prove their own merits later. The authors should describe the material collected and the methods used in a more understandable way, so that the logic applied by the authors can be easily followed. Nevertheless, the article follows the logical sequence of the presentation, and the authors reach interesting conclusions and make good recommendations on this basis. It would be desirable to include a section with a short text for future research in this direction.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for your overall thoughtful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are encouraged by the recognition of the topic’s relevance, the logical flow of our presentation, and the merit of our conclusions and recommendations.

In response to the suggestion for clearer communication, we have taken steps to strengthen the articulation of our methods and the logic guiding our analytical approach. We revised the Methods section to enhance clarity and flow, as detailed in our earlier response (please see Response to Comment 4 on Methodology).

Additionally, we have made a concerted effort to situate our findings more clearly within the context of prior research, highlighting points of convergence and divergence to underscore our study's contributions.

Lastly, in line with your recommendation, we have expanded Section 4.2 Limitations and Future Research to include specific, actionable directions for future research based on our findings and study limitations. We outline the need for field experiments, stronger and more emotionally resonant message designs, exploration of psychological mediators and moderators, and systematic testing of cultural and demographic moderators. We also conclude the section with a summarizing paragraph highlighting important opportunities for refining normative and incentive-based messaging strategies across diverse behavioral and cultural contexts.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has meaningfully improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The flow and argument is much stronger now