IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v9y2019i4d10.1007_s13412-019-00562-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Min Gon Chung

    (Michigan State University)

  • Hana Kang

    (Michigan State University)

  • Thomas Dietz

    (Michigan State University)

  • Patricia Jaimes

    (Michigan State University)

  • Jianguo Liu

    (Michigan State University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Min Gon Chung & Hana Kang & Thomas Dietz & Patricia Jaimes & Jianguo Liu, 2019. "Activating values for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: the role of religious fundamentalism and willingness to sacrifice," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 371-385, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:9:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s13412-019-00562-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-019-00562-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-019-00562-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-019-00562-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Lawrence C. Hamilton & Joel Hartter & Kei Saito, 2015. "Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    3. Thomas Macias, 2015. "Risks, Trust, and Sacrifice: Social Structural Motivators for Environmental Change," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1264-1276, November.
    4. Michael Luchs & Todd Mooradian, 2012. "Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 127-144, March.
    5. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Cristóbal De la Maza & Juan Carlos Oyanedel, 2015. "Understanding Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a Chilean Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tuyen Tiet & Nguyen To-The & Tuan Nguyen-Anh, 2022. "Farmers’ behaviors and attitudes toward climate change adaptation: evidence from Vietnamese smallholder farmers," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 14235-14260, December.
    2. Benjamin S. Lowe & Susan K. Jacobson & Glenn D. Israel & Anna L. Peterson, 2023. "Association of Religious End Time Beliefs with Attitudes toward Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Charles Caldwell & Natalie Probstein & Tanhum Yoreh, 2022. "Shades of green: environmental action in places of worship," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 430-452, September.
    4. Sebastian Binyamin Skalski & Teresa Loichen & Loren L. Toussaint & Patrycja Uram & Anna Kwiatkowska & Janusz Surzykiewicz, 2022. "Relationships between Spirituality, Religious Fundamentalism and Environmentalism: The Mediating Role of Right-Wing Authoritarianism," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-11, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    2. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    3. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    4. Joan Costa‐Font & Caroline Rudisill & Elias Mossialos, 2008. "Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1273-1288, October.
    5. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    6. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    7. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    8. Lam-Huu-Phuoc Nguyen & Nguyen-Bich-Thy Bui & Thi-Ngoc-Cam Nguyen & Chin-Fei Huang, 2022. "An Investigation into the Perspectives of Elementary Pre-Service Teachers on Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Haywantee Ramkissoon, 2021. "Social Bonding and Public Trust/Distrust in COVID-19 Vaccines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-6, September.
    10. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    11. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    12. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    13. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    15. Yu Hao & Yingting Wang & Qiuwei Wu & Shiwei Sun & Weilu Wang & Menglin Cui, 2020. "What affects residents' participation in the circular economy for sustainable development? Evidence from China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1251-1268, September.
    16. Baraldi, Anna Laura & Fosco, Giovanni, 2024. "Clearing the Air: Women in Politics and Air Pollution," MPRA Paper 121377, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    19. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    20. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:9:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s13412-019-00562-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.