Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 149, Issue 3–4, pp 335–347 | Cite as

Assessing the relative importance of psychological and demographic factors for predicting climate and environmental attitudes

  • Liam F. Beiser-McGrath
  • Robert A. Huber
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we seek to identify robust predictors of individuals’ attitudes towards climate change and environmental degradation. While much of the extant literature has been devoted to the individual explanatory potential of individuals’ characteristics, we focus on the extent to which these characteristics provide robust predictions of climate and environmental attitudes. Thereby, we adjudicate the relative predictive power of psychological and sociodemographic characteristics, as well as the predictive power of combinations of these attributes. To do so, we use a popular machine learning technique, Random Forests, on three surveys fielded in China, Switzerland, and the USA, using a variety of outcome variables. We find that a psychological construct, the consideration of future consequences (CFC) scale, performs well in predicting attitudes, across all contexts and better than traditional explanations of climate attitudes, such as income and education. Given recent advances suggesting potential psychological barriers of behavioural change Public (Weaver, Adm Rev 75:806–816, 2015) and the use of psychological constructs to target persuasive messages (Abrahamse et al., J Environ Psychol 265–276, 2007; Hirsh et al., Psychol Sci 23:578–581, 2012), identifying important predictors, such as the CFC may allow to better understand public’s appetite for climate and environmental policies and increase demand for these policies, in an area where existing efforts have shown to be lacking (Bernauer and McGrath, Nat Clim Chang 6:680–683, 2016; Chapman et al., Nat Clim Chang 7:850–852, 2017).

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers and the editors that have greatly improved this manuscript. We would like to thank Thomas Bernauer for his contribution to the data collection in the China, Switzerland, and the US. We also thank Brilé Anderson for her contribution to the data collection in Switzerland. We would also like to thank Dennis Atzenhofer and Michael Hudecheck for their research assistance and the Strassenverkehrsamt Zürich for the cooperation throughout the data collection in Zurich.

Funding Information

The research for this article was funded by the ERC Advanced Grant ‘Sources of Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance’ (Grant: 295456) and supported by ETH Zürich.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2260_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (211 kb)
(PDF 211 KB)

References

  1. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C et al (2007) The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J Environ Psychol 27:265–276Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson B, Böhmelt T, Ward H (2017) Public opinion and environmental policy output: a cross-national analysis of energy policies in Europe. Environ Res Lett 12:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere S, Hersh E (2013) Gender, race, age and voting: a research note. Politics and Governance 1:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beiser-McGrath LF, Bernauer T (2018) Private provision of global public goods: how international reciprocity affects public support for climate policy. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang 6:680–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blocker TJ, Eckberg DL (1989) Environmental issues as women’s issues: general concerns and local hazards. Soc Sci Q 70:586–593Google Scholar
  9. Blocker TJ, Eckberg DL (1997) Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Soc Sci Q 78:841–858Google Scholar
  10. Borden RJ, Francis JL (1978) Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex differences in environmental concern. J Pers 46:190–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breiman L (2001) Random Forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruderer-Enzler H (2015) Consideration of future consequences as a predictor of environmentally responsible behavior: evidence from a general population study. Environ Behav 47:618–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman DA, Lickel B, Markowitz EM (2017) Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat Clim Chang 7:850–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clayton SD, Myers G (2015) Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Colby SL, Ortman JM (2014) Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. current population reports, P25-1143, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC P25-1143Google Scholar
  16. De Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J Cross-Cult Psychol 38:318–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P (2001) Umweltsoziologie: eine Einführung. Rororo Rowohlts Enzyklopädie, Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-VerlGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD (2016) Dynamics of communicator and audience power: the persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. J Consum Res 43:68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dür A, Mateo G (2014) Public opinion and interest group influence: how citizen groups derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy 21:1199–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ (2008) Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11:563–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fiorina MP, Abrams SA, Pope JC (2008) Polarization in the American public: misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics 70:556–560. 00193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  24. Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob Environ Chang 23:1001–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gifford R (2008) Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 49:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 18:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirsh JB, Dolderman D (2007) Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: a preliminary study. Personal Individ Differ 43:1583–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirsh JB, Kang SoK, Bodenhausen GV (2012) Personalized persuasion: tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychol Sci 23:578–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG et al (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huber RA, Anderson B, Bernauer T (forthcoming) Can social norm interventions promote voluntary pro environmental action? Environ Sci PolicyGoogle Scholar
  31. Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics 28:57Google Scholar
  32. ISSP Research Group (2012). International Social Survey Programme: Environment III - ISSP 2010Google Scholar
  33. Layman GC, Carsey TM, Horowitz JM (2006) Party polarization in American politics: characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9:83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee TM, Markowitz EM, Howe PD et al (2015) Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat Clim Chang 5:1014–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K, Gignac GE (2013) NASA faked the moon landing—therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol Sci 24:622–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and Regression by random Forest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
  37. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Chang 17:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matz SC, Kosinski M, Nave G et al (2017) Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:12714–12719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50:348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views on global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mindenberger M, Tingley D (2017) Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science. 1–29Google Scholar
  42. Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Howe PD et al (2017) The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales. Clim Chang 145:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Milfont TL, Sibley CG (2012) The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: associations at the individual and societal level. J Environ Psychol 32:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Milfont TL, Wilson J, Diniz P (2012) Time perspective and environmental engagement: a meta-analysis. Int J Psychol 47:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mohai P (1992) Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society & Natural Resources 5:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muchlinski D, Siroky D, He J et al (2016) Comparing random forest with logistic regression for predicting class-imbalanced civil war onset data. Political Analysis 24:87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oehl B, Schaffer LM, Bernauer T (2017) How to measure public demand for policies when there is no appropriate survey data? Journal of Public Policy 37:173–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pettus AM, Giles MB (1987) Personality characteristics and environmental attitudes. Popul Environ 9:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy Use. Environ Behav 36:70–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Retrieved from https://wwwR-projectorg/.
  51. Schmuck P, Schultz WP (eds) (2002) Psychology of sustainable development. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Shmueli G (2010) To Explain or to Predict?. Stat Sci 25:289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steg L, Berg AEvd, De Groot JIM (2013) Environmental psychology: an introduction. Malden, MA, WileyGoogle Scholar
  55. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K et al (2014) An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J Environ Psychol 38:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stern PC (1992) Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annu Rev Psychol 43:269–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS et al (1994) The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weaver RK (2015) Getting people to behave: research lessons for policy makers. Public Adm Rev 75:806–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wei W, Lu JG, Galinsky AD et al (2017) Regional ambient temperature is associated with human personality. Nature Human Behaviour 1:890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wlezien C (1995) The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending. Am J Polit Sci 39:981–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Postdoctoral Researcher, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.PhD Candidate, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations