Advertisement

Activating values for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: the role of religious fundamentalism and willingness to sacrifice

  • Min Gon Chung
  • Hana Kang
  • Thomas DietzEmail author
  • Patricia Jaimes
  • Jianguo Liu
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Pro-environmental behaviors Values–beliefs–norms theory Climate change Biotechnology Biodiversity loss 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Christina Azodi for the use of the biotechnology belief items she developed.

Funding

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.

References

  1. 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 33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 10:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 50:350–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Boyd HH (1999) Christianity and the environment in the American public. J Sci Study Relig 38:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfman NC, Cisternas PC, López-Vázquez E, Maza CDL, Oyanedel JC (2015) Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 7:14133–14152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaisty P, Whitefield SJEP (2015) Attitudes towards the environment: are post-communist societies (still) different? Environ Politics 24:598–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements JM, McCright AM, Xiao C (2014a) Green Christians? An empirical examination of environmental concern within the U.S. general public. Organ Environ 27:85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements JM, Xiao C, McCright AM (2014b) An examination of the “greening of Christianity” thesis among Americans, 1993–2010. J Sci Study Relig 53:373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz T (2015) Environmental values. In: Brosch T, Sander D (eds) Oxford handbook of values. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 329–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz T, Whitley C (2018) Inequality, decisions and altruism. Soc Dev 4:282–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases on environmental concern. Environ Behav 30:450–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietz T, Leshko C, McCright AM (2013) Politics shapes individual choices about energy efficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:9191–9192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downey L (2015) Inequality, democracy, and the environment. NYU Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 56:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckberg DL, Blocker TJ (1996) Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. J Sci Study Relig 35:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fielding KS, Hornsey MJ (2016) A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front Psychol 7:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frick J, Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2004) Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personal Individ Differ 37:1597–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Gilg A, Barr S, Ford N (2005) Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37:481–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greeley A (1993) Religion and attitudes toward the environment. J Sci Study Relig 32:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP (2013) Political ideology affects energy efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:9314–9319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 23:281–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Saito KJSO (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open July–September 2015:1–13Google Scholar
  26. Hand CM, Van Liere KD (1984) Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Soc Forces 63:555–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holifield R, Chakraborty J, Walker G (2017) The Routledge handbook of environmental justice. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6:53–60Google Scholar
  29. Hunter LM (2000) A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and behaviors of native-born and foreign-born US residents. Popul Environ 21:565–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunter LM, Toney MB (2005) Religion and attitudes toward the environment: a comparison of Mormons and the general US population. Soc Sci J 42:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A (2004) Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors*. Soc Sci Q 85:677–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2000) Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: a cross-cultural measure. J Appl Soc Psychol 30:952–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kormos C, Gifford R (2014) The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol 40:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA (2012) Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: elucidating the gender effect. J Consum Policy 35:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lucht JM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7:4254–4281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macias T (2015) Risks, trust, and sacrifice: social structural motivators for environmental change. Soc Sci Q 96:1264–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marquart-Pyatt ST (2012) Explaining environmental activism across countries. Soc Nat Resour 25:683–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mascarenhas MJ (2016) Where the waters divide: neoliberal racism, white privilege and environmental injustice. Race Gend Cl 23:6–25Google Scholar
  40. McCright AM, Xiao C (2014) Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research. Soc Nat Resour 27:1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 21:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  43. Nawrotzki RJ (2012) The politics of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Organ Environ 25:286–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nawrotzki RJ, Pampel FC (2013) Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Popul Environ 35:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olofsson A, Öhman S (2006) General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environ Behav 38:768–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oreg S, Katz-Gerro T (2006) Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ Behav 38:462–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pampel FC, Hunter LM (2012) Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending in the United States. Am J Sociol 118:420–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peifer JL, Khalsa S, Howard Ecklund E (2016) Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States. Environ Politics 25:661–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 23:751–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 32:576–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sherkat DE, Ellison CG (2007) Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. J Sci Study Relig 46:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shao W (2016) Weather, climate, politics, or God? Determinants of American public opinions toward global warming. Environmental Politics 26 (1):71-96Google Scholar
  53. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2013) American evangelicals and global warming. Global Environmental Change 23 (5):1009-1017Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  57. Steg L (2016) Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new environmental paradigm in social psychological perspective. Environ Behav 27:723–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 23:1258–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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 34:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 46:626–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. White L Jr (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. White L Jr (1973) Continuing the conversation. In: Barbour IG (ed) Western man and environmental ethics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 55–65Google Scholar
  67. 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 30:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 25:134–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xiao C, McCright AM (2015) Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ Behav 47:17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Department of Educational AdministrationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Geocognition Research Laboratory, Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations