Activating values for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: the role of religious fundamentalism and willingness to sacrifice
- 31 Downloads
A number of theories and hypotheses attempt to understand what influences pro-environmental behaviors. In social psychology, the values–beliefs–norms (VBN) theory is one of the most common approaches used to explain pro-environmental behaviors. But different sets of concepts have often been used in work based on large public opinion surveys. Here, we add to the VBN theory several variables—Christian religious fundamentalism, willingness to sacrifice, trust in scientists, biotechnology beliefs—that have been used in the public opinion literature in a step toward a more integrative theory. A sample of 518 U.S. adults completed an online questionnaire to provide data. Results confirm that, in the USA, biospheric altruism values had substantial indirect effects on pro-environmental behavior via willingness to sacrifice for biodiversity loss. But climate change beliefs and willingness to sacrifice for climate change did not exert direct or indirect effects on pro-environmental behavior. Interestingly, religious fundamentalism increased pro-environmental behavior net of other factors including political ideology, again acting primarily through biospheric altruism values. We hope that our findings encourage steps toward more integrated theory and the testing of more comprehensive models.
KeywordsPro-environmental behaviors Values–beliefs–norms theory Climate change Biotechnology Biodiversity loss
We thank Christina Azodi for the use of the biotechnology belief items she developed.
Funding is provided by the National Science Foundation, NASA, Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University, Sustainable Michigan Endowment Project, and Michigan AgBioResearch.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Azodi CB, Dietz T (2018) Public perceptions of biotechnology. Paper presented at the 2018 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Austin, TX, Feb 15-19, 2018Google Scholar
- Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157Google Scholar
- Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Saito KJSO (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open July–September 2015:1–13Google Scholar
- Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6:53–60Google Scholar
- Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Mascarenhas MJ (2016) Where the waters divide: neoliberal racism, white privilege and environmental injustice. Race Gend Cl 23:6–25Google Scholar
- Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Shao W (2016) Weather, climate, politics, or God? Determinants of American public opinions toward global warming. Environmental Politics 26 (1):71-96Google Scholar
- Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2013) American evangelicals and global warming. Global Environmental Change 23 (5):1009-1017Google Scholar
- Smith EK, Hempel LM, MacIlroy K (2017) What’s ‘evangelical’ got to do with it? Disentangling the impact of evangelical Protestantism on environmental outcomes. Environmental Politics 27 (2):292-319Google Scholar
- StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
- Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A social psychological theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97Google Scholar
- White L Jr (1973) Continuing the conversation. In: Barbour IG (ed) Western man and environmental ethics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 55–65Google Scholar