Differential psychology focuses on how individuals vary in the way they think, feel and act by measuring differences that distinguish them as more similar to themselves over time and across situations than other individuals. In this article I review and discuss available evidence on key individual differences associated with protection and exploitation of the natural environment. The discussion centres on personality traits, basic human values, time perspective and system-justifying ideological orientations. Environmental protection has been shown to be consistently related to higher levels of Openness to Experience and Agreeableness (and somewhat Honesty-Humility) traits, Self-Transcendence and Openness to Change values and future thinking. Conversely, environmental exploitation is consistently related to higher levels of conservative political orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Individual differences research provides useful theoretical information that can have applied benefits in designing communication strategies to bring individuals less prone to protect the natural environment on board. Issues with jangle fallacy (measures with different names might not necessarily assess different things) and directions for future research are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
AltemeyerB. (2003). What happens when authoritarians inherit the earth? A simulation. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00020.x
4.
ArnockyS.MilfontT. L.NicolJ. (2014). Time perspective and sustainable behaviour: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 556–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512474987
5.
ArnockyS.StroinkM.DeCiccoT. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.005
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2020). Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure — And why those objections fail. European Journal of Personality, 34(4), 492–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2242
7.
BainP.MilfontT.KashimaY.BilewiczM.DoronG.GarðarsdóttirR.GouveiaV.GuanY.JohanssonL.PasqualiC.Corral-VerdugoV.AragonesJ.UtsugiA.DemarqueC.OttoS.ParkJ.SolandM.StegL.GonzálezR.MadsenO.SaviolidisN. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2814
8.
BaldwinM.LammersJ. (2016). Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(52), 14953–14957. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113
9.
BaumertA.SchmittM.PeruginiM.JohnsonW.BlumG.BorkenauP.CostantiniG.DenissenJ. J. A.FleesonW.GraftonB.JayawickremeE.KurziusE.MacLeodC.MillerL. C.ReadS. J.RobertsB.RobinsonM. D.WoodD.WrzusC. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2115
10.
BoerD.FischerR. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1113–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031347
11.
BöhmG.PfisterH.-R. (2015). Attentional focus and anticipated emotions in the face of future environmental risks: Should I take the train or drive my car? / Foco atencional y emociones anticipadas en vista de riesgos ambientales futuros: ¿debería ir en tren o en mi coche?Psyecology, 6(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.1002204
12.
BordenR. J.FrancisJ. L. (1978). Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex differences in environmental concern. Journal of Personality, 46(1), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb00610.x
13.
BoumanT.StegL.KiersH. A. L. (2018). Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564
14.
Calvo-SalgueroA.Aguilar-LuzónM.Salinas-Martínez-de-LeceaJ.García-MartínezJ. (2014). Gender, masculinity and femininity as ecocentrism and anthropocentrism predictors / Género, masculinidad y feminidad como predictores del ecocentrismo y el antropocentrismo. Psyecology, 5(2–3), 284–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.942509
15.
CislakA.CichockaA.WojcikA.MilfontT. L. (press). Words not deeds: National narcissism, national identification, and support for greenwashing versus genuine proenvironmental campaigns. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101576
16.
ClaytonS. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In ClaytonS.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). MIT Press.
17.
CoelhoJ. A. P. M.GouveiaV. V.MilfontT. L. (2006). Valores humanos como explicadores de atitudes ambientais e intenção de comportamento pró-ambiental [Human values as predictors of environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior]. Psicologia Em Estudo, 11(1), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722006000100023
18.
Corral-VerdugoV.Fraijo-SingB.PinheiroJ. Q. (2006). Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 40(2), 139–147. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-22402-001
CortésB. (2014). Examining environmental psychology through a gender lens / Mirando la psicología ambiental con lentes de género. Psyecology, 5(2–3), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.942511
21.
CraikK. H.McKechnieG. E. (1977). Editor’s introduction: Personality and the environment. Environment and Behavior, 9(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657792001
22.
CruzS. M. (2017). The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.010
23.
DesrochersJ. E.AlbertG.MilfontT. L.KellyB.ArnockyS. (2019). Does personality mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism?Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.026
DietzT.SternP. C.GuagnanoG. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000402
26.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80004-6
27.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.009
28.
DuriezB.Van HielA.KossowskaM. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the socio-political context and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00419.x
29.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435
30.
FranzenA.VoglD. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009
31.
GiddensJ. L.SchermerJ. A.VernonP. A. (2009). Material values are largely in the family: A twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 428–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.008
32.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
33.
GoldbergL. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
34.
GraçaJ.CalheirosM. M.OliveiraA.MilfontT. L. (2018). Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 129, 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.007
HernándezB. (2021). Place attachment: Antecedents and consequences (Antecedentes y consecuencias del apego al lugar). Psyecology, 12(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2020.1851879
37.
HirshJ. B.DoldermanD. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1583–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.015
38.
HopwoodC. J.SchwabaT.MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G.BleidornW. (press). Personality change and sustainability attitudes and behaviors. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211016260
39.
JacksonL. M.BitacolaL. M.JanesL. M.EssesV. M. (2013). Intergroup ideology and environmental inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12035
40.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.RipbergerJ. T.SilvaC. L.CarlsonD. E.GuptaK.CarlsonN.Ter-MkrtchyanA.DunlapR. E. (2020). Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0719-y
41.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford.
42.
JylhäK. M.CantalC.AkramiN.MilfontT. L. (2016). Denial of anthropogenic climate change: Social dominance orientation helps explain the conservative male effect in Brazil and Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.020
43.
KaiserF. G.ByrkaK. (2011). Environmentalism as a trait: Gauging people’s prosocial personality in terms of environmental engagement. International Journal of Psychology, 46(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.516830
44.
KimI.HammondM. D.MilfontT. L. (press). Do past-focused environmental messages promote pro-environmentalism to conservatives? A pre-registered replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101547
45.
Kim-PongT.MilfontT. L. (2020). Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101474.
46.
KingM. J.KatzD. P.ThompsonL. A.MacnamaraB. N. (2019). Genetic and environmental influences on spatial reasoning: A meta-analysis of twin studies. Intelligence, 73, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.01.001
47.
KleppestøT. H.CzajkowskiN. O.VassendO.RøysambE.EftedalN. H.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.KunstJ. R.ThomsenL. (2019). Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17741–17746. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818711116
48.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1001–1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512.x
MarkowitzE. M.GoldbergL. R.AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 81–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x
51.
McCartneyK.HarrisM. J.BernieriF. (1990). Growing up and growing apart: A developmental meta-analysis of twin studies. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.226
52.
MilfontT. L. (2010a). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In Corral-VerdugoV.García-CadenaC. H.Frías-ArmentM. (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice (pp. 19–42). Nova Science.
53.
MilfontT. L. (2010b). The psychological meaning of preservation and utilization attitudes: A study using the natural semantic network technique. Psyecology, 1(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119710790709559
54.
MilfontT. L. (2012). The psychology of environmental attitudes: Conceptual and empirical insights from New Zealand. Ecopsychology, 4(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0058
55.
MilfontT. L. (2021). Where do pro-environmental tendencies fit within a taxonomy of personality traits? In A. Franzen & S. Mader (Eds.), Research Handbook on Environmental Sociology (pp. 102–121). Edward Elgar Publishing.
56.
MilfontT. L.AbrahamseW.MacDonaldE. (2021). Scepticism of anthropogenic climate change: Additional evidence for the role of system-justifying ideologies. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110237
57.
MilfontT. L.BainP. G.KashimaY.Corral-VerdugoV.PasqualiC.JohanssonL.-O.GuanY.GouveiaV. V.GarðarsdóttirR. B.DoronG.BilewiczM.UtsugiA.AragonesJ. I.StegL.SolandM.ParkJ.OttoS.DemarqueC.WagnerC.LebedevaN.EinarsdóttirG. (2018). On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: A 25-nation study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722832
58.
MilfontT. L.BainP. G.SouzaR. V. L.GouveiaV. V.KashimaY. (2014). Examining how projections about the future of society are related to present-day climate change action. Psico, 45(3), 361–370. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:354498
59.
MilfontT. L.DaviesC. L.WilsonM. S. (2019). The moral foundations of environmentalism: Care — and fairness-based morality interact with political liberalism to predict pro-environmental actions. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v14i2.32633
60.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001
61.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
62.
MilfontT. L.EvansL.SibleyC. G.RiesJ.CunninghamA.LinkovI. (2014). Proximity to coast is linked to climate change belief. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e103180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103180
63.
MilfontT. L.GouveiaV. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.001
MilfontT. L.MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2016). Values stability and change in adulthood: A three-year longitudinal study of rank-order stability and mean-level differences. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 572–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245
66.
MilfontT. L.RichterI.SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.FischerR. (2013). Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1127–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490805
67.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.006
68.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.044
69.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2010). Testing the moderating role of the components of norm activation on the relationship between values and environmental behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109350506
70.
MilfontT. L.WilsonJ.DinizP. K. C. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.647029
71.
MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2017). Normative personality trait development in adulthood: A 6-year cohort-sequential growth model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000121
72.
MoussaouiL. S.DesrichardO.MilfontT. L. (2020). Do environmental prompts work the same for everyone? A test of environmental attitudes as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03057
73.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
74.
RevelleW. (2000). Individual differences. In Kazdin, A. E., (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 249–253). American Psychological Association.
75.
RevelleW.WiltJ.CondonD. (2011). Individual differences and differential psychology: A brief history and prospect. In Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA.Von StummS. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 3–38). Wiley-Blackwell.
76.
RheeS. H.WaldmanI. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 490–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.490
77.
SchultzP. W.GouveiaV. V.CameronL. D.TankhaG.SchmuckP.FranekM. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
78.
SchultzP. W.StoneW. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward the environment. Environment and Behavior, 26(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916594261002
79.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance. An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
82.
SoutterA. R.BatesT. C.MõttusR. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, Proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019
StanleyS. K.MilfontT. L.WilsonM. S.SibleyC. G.WetherellG. (2019). The influence of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism on environmentalism: A five-year cross-lagged analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(7), e0219067. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219067
85.
StegL.de GrootJ. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81–92). Oxford University Presshttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005 .
TwitoL.Knafo-NoamA. (2020). Beyond culture and the family: Evidence from twin studies on the genetic and environmental contribution to values. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.029
88.
VerhulstB.NealeM. C.KendlerK. S. (2014). The heritability of alcohol use disorders: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(5), 1061–1072. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714002165
89.
VilarR.AraujoR. C. R.LiuJ. H. (2020). Values, social dominance orientation (SDO), and pro-environmental beliefs: A 20-nation study. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c45by
90.
VilarR.MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2020). The role of social desirability responding in the longitudinal relations between intention and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101457
91.
VukasovićT.BratkoD. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017
92.
WhitburnJ.LinklaterW.AbrahamseW. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381
93.
WidigerT. A. (Ed). (2017). The Oxford handbook of the five factor model. Oxford University Press.
94.
WilsonE. O.KellertS. R. (2013). The biophilia hypothesis. Shearwater.
95.
WolskoC.AriceagaH.SeidenJ. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
96.
XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2015). Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513491571
97.
ZeleznyL. C.ChuaP.-P.AldrichC. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177
