Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 290–299 | Cite as

Predicting college students’ environmentally responsible behavior from personality, political attitudes, and place attachment: a synergistic model

  • Anthony G. Snider
  • Shanhong Luo
  • Emily Fusco
Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Much research has examined the effect of personality, political attitudes, and place attachment on environmental concerns and behavior intentions. However, the effects of these factors have largely been studied separately from one another. Moreover, little research has focused on their relationship to environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB) directly. In the current study, a moderated mediation model was proposed to capture the synergistic effects of personality, political attitudes, and place attachment on ERB. An undergraduate sample (N = 475) completed an online survey of Big Five personality, political attitudes, place attachment, and participation in ERB. Correlation analyses suggested that openness to new experiences, liberal attitudes, and place identity had reliable, statistically significant relations with ERB. The moderated mediation analyses provided support for the synergistic model. Specifically, openness’ effect on the adoption of ERB was mediated by liberal attitudes and this mediation effect was further moderated by place identity. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Place attachment Place identity Personality Openness Political attitudes Environmentally responsible behavior Moderated mediation 

References

  1. Bamberg S, Moser 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
  2. Bell RL, Lederman NG (2003) Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Sci Educ 87:352–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buttel FH, Flinn WL (1978) The politics of environmental concern. Environ Behav 10:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Eribaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eagly AH (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am Psychol 64:644–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  8. Halpenny EA (2010) Pro-environmental behaviors and park visitors: the effect of place attachment. J Environ Psychol 30:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawthorne M, Alabaster T (1999) Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental citizenship. Glob Environ Chang 9:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herman BC (2015) The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Sci Educ 99:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ, 18, 1–8Google Scholar
  13. Hirsh JB (2010) Personality and environmental concern. J Environ Psychol 30:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 102–139Google Scholar
  15. John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ (2008) Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 114–158Google Scholar
  16. Kahan DM (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. InRoeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaiser FG (1998) A general measure of ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:395–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2004) Goal-directed conservation behavior: the specific composition of a general performance. Personal Individ Differ 36:1531–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kandler C, Bleidorn W, Reimann R (2012) Left or right? Sources of political orientation: the roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. J Pers Soc Psychol 103:633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karp DG (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 21:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lester BT, Ma L, Lee O, Lambert JL (2006) Social activism in elementary science education: a science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. Int J Sci Educ 28:315–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo S (2009) Partner selection and relationship in early dating couples: the role of couple similarity. Personal Individ Differ 47:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Ecology: lets hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 28:583–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markowitz EM, Goldberg LR, Ashton MC, Lee K (2012) Profiling the ‘pro-environmental individual’: a personality perspective. J Pers 80:81–111.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCrae RR, Costa JPT (2008) The five-factor theory of personality. In: John OP, Robbins RW, Pervin LA (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 159–181Google Scholar
  27. McCrae RR, Terracciano A, 78 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005) Universal features of personality trait terms from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. J Pers Soc Psychol 88:29–44.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Mobley C, Vagias WM, DeWard SL (2010) Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: the influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav 42:420–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environ Behav 41:715–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olli E, Grendstad G, Wollebaek D (2001) Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context. Environ Behav 33:181–208Google Scholar
  32. Pilbeam B (2003) Natural allies? Mapping the relationship between conservativism and environmentalism. Polit Stu 51:490–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF (2007) Addressing moderated mediational hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar Behav Res 42:185–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prusell GR, Laursen B, Rubin KH, Booth-LaForce C, Rose-Krasnor L (2009) Gender differences in patterns of association between prosocial behavior, personality, and externalizing problems. J Res Pers 42:472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Sci Educ 88:4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith-Sebasto NJ, D'Acosta A (1995) Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behaviors in undergraduate students: a multistep process. J Environ Educ 27:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson KT, Peterson MN, Bondell HD, Moore SE, Carrier SJ (2014) Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Clim Chang 126:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swami V, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Snelgar R, Furnham A (2010) Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: a path analytic investigation of their determinants. Scand J Psychol 51:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tonge J, Ryan MM, Moore SA, Beckley LE (2014) The effect of place attachment on pro-environment behavioral intentions of visitors to coastal natural area tourist destinations. J Travel Res 54:730–743.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514533010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vaske JJ, Kobrin KC (2001) Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. J Environ Educ 32:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vollerberg WA, Iedema J, Raaijmakers QA (2001) Intergenerational transmission and the formation of cultural orientations in adolescence and young adulthood. J Marriage Fam 63:1185–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watson D, Klohen EC, Casillas A, Simms EN, Haig J, Berry DS (2004) Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assorting mating in newlywed couples. J Pers 72:1029–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams DR, Roggenbuck JW (1989) Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Parks Association symposium on leisure research, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For Sci 49:830–840Google Scholar
  48. Wiseman M, Bogner FX (2003) A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personal Individ Differ 34:783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xiao C, McCright AM (2007) Environmental concern and sociodemographic variables: a study of statistical models. J Environ Educ 38:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman LK (1996) Knowledge, affect, and the environment: 15 years of research (1979-1993). J Environ Educ 27:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations