Author's personal copy To reduce and not to reduce resource consumption? That is two questions Juliette Richetin a, * , Marco Perugini a , Mark Conner b , Iqbal Adjali c , Robert Hurling d , Abhijit Sengupta d , Danica Greetham e a Faculty of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1 (U6), 20126 Milan, Italy b Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK c Modelling & Analytics Lloyds Banking Group, 5th Floor, 48 Chiswell Street, London EC1Y 4XX, UK d Unilever Discover, Colworth Science Park Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK e Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AX, UK article info Article history: Available online 8 January 2012 Keywords: Attitudinal models Doing Not doing Goals Pro-environmental behavioural prediction abstract Recent research shows that because they rely on separate goals, cognitions about not performing a behaviour are not simple opposites of cognitions about performing the same behaviour. Using this perspective, two studies (N ¼ 758 & N ¼ 104) examined the psycho-social determinants of reduction in resource consumption. Results showed that goals associated with reducing versus not reducing resource consumption were not simple opposites (Study 1). Additionally, the discriminant validity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs associated with reducing versus not reducing resource consumption was demonstrated (Study 1 & 2). Moreover, results revealed the incremental validity of both Intentions (to reduce and to not reduce resource consumption) for predicting a series of behaviours (Study 1 & 2). Finally, results indicated a mediation role for the importance of ecological dimensions on the effect of both Intentions on a mock TV choice and a mediation role for the importance of non ecological dimensions on the effect of Intention of not reducing on the same TV choice. Discussion is organized around the consequences, at both theo- retical and applied levels, of considering separate motivational systems for reducing and not reducing resource consumption. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In the general domain of attitudinal models of behavioural prediction such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB, Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1991, 2002a), very few studies have considered constructs related to both performing and not per- forming an action. Although some research has examined choices between two or more alternatives (e.g., Jaccard, 1981), since Fishbein’s (1980) original study in which he considered both the intention to quit smoking and the intention to smoke for pre- dicting smoking quit attempts, little research has pursued this line of investigation. More specific to environmental behaviour, some empirical work has been devoted to showing the simultaneous validity of constructs somehow related to performing and not performing an action (e.g., Letirand & Delhomme, 2005) or to considering constructs related to performing an ecological action and to performing a non ecological alternative. However, a main issue remains on choosing the best alternative in order to better predict behaviour. We argue that not performing a pro- environmental behaviour is the simplest alternative to perform- ing that behaviour. As the main theoretical reason for considering both alternatives when predicting behaviour, Richetin, Conner, and Perugini (2011) argue that cognitions concerning not doing are not the simple opposite of those for doing because performing or not performing an action for an individual can be based on different goals and involve different self-regulation strategies. Considering that those goals could be separate rather than oppo- sites, they provide psychological distinctiveness to performing and not performing an action. Applying this argument in the TPB framework (Ajzen, 1991, 2002a; Ajzen & Madden, 1986) they empirically demonstrated in different domains that individuals’ action can be influenced by both intentions to act and intentions not to act. Consistent with previous research that has shown that an ecological behaviour and a non ecological alternative are linked to different motivations (e., de Boer, Boersema, & Aiking, 2009) but including all alternatives, the present contribution explores * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 026448 3863; fax: þ39 026448 3788. E-mail addresses: juliette.richetin@unimib.it (J. Richetin), iqbal.adjali@ lloydsbanking.com (I. Adjali). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep 0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.01.003 Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 112e122