How Are Moral Foundations Associated with Climate-Friendly Consumption?

  • Annukka VainioEmail author
  • Jaana-Piia Mäkiniemi


We examined whether differences in climate-friendly choices between the supporters of left-wing and right-wing ideologies are based on different moral foundations. Moreover, we compared general and issue-specific endorsement of moral foundations applied to climate change. Study 1 examined the endorsement of general moral foundations of university students living in Finland (N = 272). Individualizing foundations were associated with increased climate-friendly choices and binding foundations were associated with decreased climate-friendly choices; the endorsement of moral foundations made the effect of political orientation disappear. In Study 2 we developed and tested an issue-specific measure of moral foundations (N = 350). The issue-specific endorsement of both types of foundations was directly associated with increased climate-friendly consumption. Binding foundations were associated with the avoidance of climate-friendly choices through right-wing orientation. These findings increase our understanding of differences between general and issue-specific moral concerns and their association to political orientation and pro-environmental behavior.


Climate change Moral foundations Moral relevance Political orientation Consumption Finland 


  1. Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., et al. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM ® SPSS ® Amos™ 21 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: AMOS Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Arnett, J. J., Ramos, K., & Jensen, L. A. (2001). Ideological views in emerging adulthood: Balancing autonomy and community. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). California: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach. Environment and Behavior, 32, 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emler, N. (1999). Moral character. In V. Derlaga, B. Winstead, & W. Jones (Eds.), Personality: Contemporary theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 376–404). Chicago: Nelson.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2011). Climate change report. Special eurobarometer, 372. Retrieved from
  16. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the prospect of “system-sanctioned” change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flere, S., & Lavrič, M. (2008). On the validity of cross-cultural social studies using student samples. Field Methods, 20, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haidt, J. (2010). How to translate the MFQ. Retrieved from
  23. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars. The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Geneva: IPCC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS One, 7, e42366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jamieson, D. (2009). Climate change, responsibility, and justice. Science and Engireening Ethics, 16, 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, K. M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., Vaisey, S., Miles, A., Chu, V., & Graham, J. (2014). Ideology-specific patterns of moral indifference predict intentions not to vote. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, M. D., & Song, G. (2014). Making sense of climate change: How story frames shape cognition. Political Psychology, 35, 447–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI. Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Mooresville: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Exceptions that prove the rule—using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Juujärvi, S. (2005). Care and justice in real-life moral reasoning. Journal of Adult Development, 12, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from
  35. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27, 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kvaløy, B., Finseraas, H., & Listhaug, O. (2012). The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. Journal of Peace Research, 49, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect imagery and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mäkiniemi, J.-P., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., & Pieri, M. (2013). The endorsement of the moral foundations in food-related moral thinking in three European countries. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 771–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mäkiniemi, J.-P., & Vainio, A. (2013). Moral intensity and climate-friendly food choices. Appetite, 66, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mäkiniemi, J.-P., & Vainio, A. (2014). Barriers to climate-friendly food choices among young adults in Finland. Appetite, 74, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mandic, S. (2008). Home-leaving and its structural determinants in Western and Eastern Europe: An exploratory study. Housing Studies, 23, 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Markowitz, E. M. (2012). Is climate change an ethical issue? Exploring young adults’ beliefs about climate and morality. Climatic Change, 114, 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgment. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R., & Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011a). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011b). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. (2013). MFQ30 (Moral foundations questionnaire). Retrieved from
  50. Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2007). Socio-cognitive conflict, emotions and complexity of thought in real-life morality. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nilsson, A., & Erlandsson, A. (2015). The Moral Foundations taxonomy: Structural validity and relation to political ideology in Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C., & Biel, A. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oreskes, N. (2014). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In J. F. C. DiMento & P. Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (2nd ed., pp. 105–148). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., et al. (2011). An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1833–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Straus, M. A. (2009). The national context effect: An empirical test of the validity of cross-national research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Research, 43, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tikir, A., & Lehmann, B. (2011). Climate change, theory of planned behavior and values: A structural equation model with mediation analysis. Climatic Change, 104, 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vainio, A. (2011). Religious conviction, morality and social convention among Finnish adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 40, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vainio, A. (2015). Finnish moral landscapes: A comparison of nonreligious, liberal religious and conservative religious adolescents. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Moral development in a global world: Research from a cultural-developmental perspective (pp. 46–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vainio, A., Mäkiniemi, J.-P., & Paloniemi, R. (2014). System justification and the perception of food risks. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 510–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vainio, A., & Paloniemi, R. (2013). Does belief matter in climate change action? Public Understanding of Science, 22, 382–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vaisey, S. (2014). The “attitudinal fallacy” is a fallacy: Why we need many methods to study culture. Sociological Methods and Research, 43, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64, 542–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals by heart. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1007–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of Tampere, School of ManagementTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations