Many consumers have monetary or environmental motivations for saving energy. Indeed, saving energy
produces both monetary benefits, by reducing energy bills, and environmental benefits, by reducing
carbon footprints. We examined how consumers’ willingness and reasons to enroll in energy-savings
programs are affected by whether advertisements emphasize monetary benefits, environmental benefits,
or both. From a normative perspective, having 2 noteworthy kinds of benefit should not decrease a
program’s attractiveness. In contrast, psychological research suggests that adding external incentives to
an intrinsically motivating task may backfire. To date, however, it remains unclear whether this is the
case when both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are inherent to the task, as with energy savings, and
whether removing explicit mention of extrinsic motivation will reduce its importance. We found that
emphasizing a program’s monetary benefits reduced participants’ willingness to enroll. In addition,
participants’ explanations about enrollment revealed less attention to environmental concerns when
programs emphasized monetary savings, even when environmental savings were also emphasized. We
found equal attention to monetary motivations in all conditions, revealing an asymmetric attention to
monetary and environmental motives. These results also provide practical guidance regarding the
positioning of energy-saving programs: emphasize intrinsic benefits; the extrinsic ones may speak for
themselves.