Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a notable exception see Lee et al. (2015).

  2. Full item wording is located in the supplementary information (see Section SI.1).

  3. The properties of these sample are summarised in the supplementary information (see Section SI.2). For a comparison of sample and population, see Section SI.3 in the supplementary information.

  4. For full description of these variables see Section SI.1. Due to the political landscape in China, we could neither ask party identification nor political ideology.

  5. Our test and train data are constructed by randomly splitting our data in half.

  6. In a bivariate regression, the R2 is equal to Pearson’s r, squared.

  7. One can think of these being the “settings” of the model.

References

  • 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 27:265–276

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere S, Hersh E (2013) Gender, race, age and voting: a research note. Politics and Governance 1:132–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beiser-McGrath LF, Bernauer T (2018) Private provision of global public goods: how international reciprocity affects public support for climate policy. Working Paper

  • Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang 6:680–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocker TJ, Eckberg DL (1989) Environmental issues as women’s issues: general concerns and local hazards. Soc Sci Q 70:586–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocker TJ, Eckberg DL (1997) Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Soc Sci Q 78:841–858

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden RJ, Francis JL (1978) Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex differences in environmental concern. J Pers 46:190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random Forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer-Enzler H (2015) Consideration of future consequences as a predictor of environmentally responsible behavior: evidence from a general population study. Environ Behav 47:618–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman DA, Lickel B, Markowitz EM (2017) Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat Clim Chang 7:850–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton SD, Myers G (2015) Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 P25-1143

  • 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 38:318–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:330–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P (2001) Umweltsoziologie: eine Einführung. Rororo Rowohlts Enzyklopädie, Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl

  • Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD (2016) Dynamics of communicator and audience power: the persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. J Consum Res 43:68–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:1199–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ (2008) Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11:563–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina MP, Abrams SA, Pope JC (2008) Polarization in the American public: misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics 70:556–560. 00193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob Environ Chang 23:1001–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford R (2008) Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 49:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 18:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh JB, Dolderman D (2007) Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: a preliminary study. Personal Individ Differ 43:1583–1593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh JB, Kang SoK, Bodenhausen GV (2012) Personalized persuasion: tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychol Sci 23:578–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG et al (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:622–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber RA, Anderson B, Bernauer T (forthcoming) Can social norm interventions promote voluntary pro environmental action? Environ Sci Policy

  • Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics 28:57

    Google Scholar 

  • ISSP Research Group (2012). International Social Survey Programme: Environment III - ISSP 2010

  • Layman GC, Carsey TM, Horowitz JM (2006) Party polarization in American politics: characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9:83–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TM, Markowitz EM, Howe PD et al (2015) Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat Clim Chang 5:1014–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:622–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and Regression by random Forest. R News 2:18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 114:12714–12719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50:348–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 52:155–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindenberger M, Tingley D (2017) Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science. 1–29

  • 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 145:539–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont TL, Sibley CG (2012) The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: associations at the individual and societal level. J Environ Psychol 32:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont TL, Wilson J, Diniz P (2012) Time perspective and environmental engagement: a meta-analysis. Int J Psychol 47:325–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai P (1992) Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society & Natural Resources 5:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 37:173–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettus AM, Giles MB (1987) Personality characteristics and environmental attitudes. Popul Environ 9:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy Use. Environ Behav 36:70–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Retrieved from https://wwwR-projectorg/.

  • Schmuck P, Schultz WP (eds) (2002) Psychology of sustainable development. Springer, New York

  • Shmueli G (2010) To Explain or to Predict?. Stat Sci 25:289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Berg AEvd, De Groot JIM (2013) Environmental psychology: an introduction. Malden, MA, Wiley

  • 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 38:104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (1992) Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annu Rev Psychol 43:269–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 66:742–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver RK (2015) Getting people to behave: research lessons for policy makers. Public Adm Rev 75:806–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei W, Lu JG, Galinsky AD et al (2017) Regional ambient temperature is associated with human personality. Nature Human Behaviour 1:890–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien C (1995) The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending. Am J Polit Sci 39:981–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liam F. Beiser-McGrath.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 211 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beiser-McGrath, L.F., Huber, R.A. Assessing the relative importance of psychological and demographic factors for predicting climate and environmental attitudes. Climatic Change 149, 335–347 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2260-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2260-9

Navigation