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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ajzen I (2012) Values, attitudes, and behavior. In: Salzborn S, Davidov E, Reinecke J (eds) Methods, theories, and empirical applications in the social sciences: Festschrift for Peter Schmidt. Springer VS, Berlin, pp 33–38
Allen S, Dietz T, McCright AM (2015) Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 10:133–140
Arnold O, Kibbe A, Hartig T, Kaiser FG (2018) Capturing the environmental impact of individual lifestyles: evidence of the criterion validity of the general ecological behavior scale. Environ Behav 50:350–372
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, 2018
Boyd HH (1999) Christianity and the environment in the American public. J Sci Study Relig 38:36–44
Bronfman NC, Cisternas PC, López-Vázquez E, Maza CDL, Oyanedel JC (2015) Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 7:14133–14152
Chaisty P, Whitefield SJEP (2015) Attitudes towards the environment: are post-communist societies (still) different? Environ Politics 24:598–616
Clements JM, McCright AM, Xiao C (2014a) Green Christians? An empirical examination of environmental concern within the U.S. general public. Organ Environ 27:85–102
Clements JM, Xiao C, McCright AM (2014b) An examination of the “greening of Christianity” thesis among Americans, 1993–2010. J Sci Study Relig 53:373–391
Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339
Dietz T (2015) Environmental values. In: Brosch T, Sander D (eds) Oxford handbook of values. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 329–349
Dietz T, Whitley C (2018) Inequality, decisions and altruism. Soc Dev 4:282–303
Dietz T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases on environmental concern. Environ Behav 30:450–471
Dietz T, Leshko C, McCright AM (2013) Politics shapes individual choices about energy efficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:9191–9192
Downey L (2015) Inequality, democracy, and the environment. NYU Press, New York
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442
Eckberg DL, Blocker TJ (1996) Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. J Sci Study Relig 35:343–355
Fielding KS, Hornsey MJ (2016) A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front Psychol 7:121
Frick J, Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2004) Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personal Individ Differ 37:1597–1613
Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157
Gilg A, Barr S, Ford N (2005) Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37:481–504
Greeley A (1993) Religion and attitudes toward the environment. J Sci Study Relig 32:19–28
Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP (2013) Political ideology affects energy efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:9314–9319
Haller M, Hadler M (2008) Dispositions to act in favor of the environment: fatalism and readiness to make sacrifices in a cross-national perspective. Sociol Forum 23:281–311
Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Saito KJSO (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open July–September 2015:1–13
Hand CM, Van Liere KD (1984) Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Soc Forces 63:555–570
Holifield R, Chakraborty J, Walker G (2017) The Routledge handbook of environmental justice. Routledge, New York
Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6:53–60
Hunter LM (2000) A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and behaviors of native-born and foreign-born US residents. Popul Environ 21:565–580
Hunter LM, Toney MB (2005) Religion and attitudes toward the environment: a comparison of Mormons and the general US population. Soc Sci J 42:25–38
Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A (2004) Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors*. Soc Sci Q 85:677–694
Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2000) Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: a cross-cultural measure. J Appl Soc Psychol 30:952–978
Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New York
Kormos C, Gifford R (2014) The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol 40:359–371
Luchs MG, Mooradian TA (2012) Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: elucidating the gender effect. J Consum Policy 35:127–144
Lucht JM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7:4254–4281
Macias T (2015) Risks, trust, and sacrifice: social structural motivators for environmental change. Soc Sci Q 96:1264–1276
Marquart-Pyatt ST (2012) Explaining environmental activism across countries. Soc Nat Resour 25:683–699
Mascarenhas MJ (2016) Where the waters divide: neoliberal racism, white privilege and environmental injustice. Race Gend Cl 23:6–25
McCright AM, Xiao C (2014) Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research. Soc Nat Resour 27:1109–1113
McCright AM, Marquart-Pyatt ST, Shwom RL, Brechin SR, Allen S (2016) Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 21:180–189
Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles
Nawrotzki RJ (2012) The politics of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Organ Environ 25:286–307
Nawrotzki RJ, Pampel FC (2013) Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Popul Environ 35:1–25
Olofsson A, Öhman S (2006) General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environ Behav 38:768–790
Oreg S, Katz-Gerro T (2006) Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ Behav 38:462–483
Pampel FC, Hunter LM (2012) Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending in the United States. Am J Sociol 118:420–448
Peifer JL, Khalsa S, Howard Ecklund E (2016) Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States. Environ Politics 25:661–689
Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23:751–766
Schultz PW, Zelezny L, Dalrymple NJJE, Behavior (2000) A multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental concern. Environ Behav 32:576–591
Sherkat DE, Ellison CG (2007) Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. J Sci Study Relig 46:71–85
Shao W (2016) Weather, climate, politics, or God? Determinants of American public opinions toward global warming. Environmental Politics 26 (1):71-96
Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682
Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2013) American evangelicals and global warming. Global Environmental Change 23 (5):1009-1017
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):292-319
StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College Station
Steg L (2016) Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:277–292
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348
Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new environmental paradigm in social psychological perspective. Environ Behav 27:723–745
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 6:81–97
Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55
Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K (2013a) It is a moral issue: the relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Glob Environ Chang 23:1258–1265
Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K (2013b) The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J Environ Psychol 34:55–63
Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K (2014) I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ Behav 46:626–657
White L Jr (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–1207
White L Jr (1973) Continuing the conversation. In: Barbour IG (ed) Western man and environmental ethics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 55–65
Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S (2010) Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol 30:305–314
Wolske KS, Stern PC, Dietz T (2017) Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res Soc Sci 25:134–151
Xiao C, McCright AM (2015) Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ Behav 47:17–37
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.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1VIF and SEM results
Appendix 2 Short description of biotechnologies
The five biotechnology applications were developed by Christina Azodi (Azodi and Dietz 2018): “Biopharmaceuticals,” “Herbicide-resistant crops,” “Biofortified crops,” “Horn free dairy cattle,” and “Gene drives.” The short descriptions of these applications are as follows:
“Biopharmaceuticals” are medical drugs produced by genetically modified bacteria to produce synthetic insulin more affordable.
“Herbicide-resistant crops” are genetically modified to be resistant to certain kinds of herbicides that allow farmer to increase productivity with lower costs.
“Biofortified crops” are genetically modified to increase their nutritional values such as a vitamin-A–enriched rice for undernourished children.
“Horn free dairy cattle” are genetically modified to suppress their natural horn growth, which eliminates the need for painful and expensive horn removal procedures in calves.
“Gene drive” is a way to introduce a gene or trait into a population and ensure it spreads to the whole population. For example, a genetically modified mosquito with a sterilization gene could be used to kill populations of mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus.
About this article
Cite this article
Chung, M.G., Kang, H., Dietz, T. et al. Activating values for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: the role of religious fundamentalism and willingness to sacrifice. J Environ Stud Sci 9, 371–385 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-019-00562-z
- Pro-environmental behaviors
- Values–beliefs–norms theory
- Climate change
- Biodiversity loss