Are energy conservation nudges more effective if they focus on benefits for the self, benefits for the planet, or both? And is it better to target one behaviour at a time, or many different behaviours simultaneously? In a longitudinal field study conducted jointly by the University of British Columbia and BC Hydro, we compared the impact of different washing machine decals on encouraging consumers to increase energy-efficient laundry behaviours: re-wearing clothes, combining loads, washing with cold water, and/or hang-drying clothes. In a mixed design, residential consumers (N=1,210) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions (see attached image): (1) control (no decal), (2) a plain decal control (no message), (3) decal focused on the impacts of micro-plastics on marine life + encouraging all four behaviours, (4) decal focused on the impacts of micro-plastics on clothing + encouraging all four behaviours, (5) decal focused on the impacts of micro-plastics on marine life and clothing + encouraging all four behaviours, or (6) decal focused on the impacts of micro-plastics on marine life and clothing + encouraging only hang-drying. Study participants were asked to place the decal on their washing machine and record (via QR code link) each time they did a load of laundry. Over a period of one year, we measured behavior change intentions, objective energy meter data (automatically recorded every hour), participants’ logs of their laundry behavior, and participants’ retrospective self-reports of their behaviour. Results show that 1) all four decal interventions increased energy efficiency behavior change intentions, but 2) the “environmental appeal” decals featuring marine life increased objective measures of behavior change, but the “self appeal” decals featuring clothing did not change objective measures, and 3) making multiple (complementary) behavior change requests was more effective than making a single behavior change request.