Empirical research on the effect of religion on attitudes toward the environment remains divided into two opposing points of view, which claim a positive or negative effect on pro-environmental attitudes. This study analyses these relationships in a Spanish sample from a multidimensional perspective. The results of this study show, this time in a European context, the negative relationship between religious literalism and concern for the environment previously found in studies based on American samples. They also show the negative influence of specific aspects of expressions of Judaeo-Christian religiosity, especially the rigidity characteristic of some non-traditional dimensions of religiosity, which arguably can be present without the co-presence of biblical literalism, and also the positive effect of quest-oriented religiosity and approaches focusing on existential well-being. The unique contributions of these variables in explaining concern for the environment are mapped to specific variances in the outcome variables.
AmérigoM. (2009, January). Preocupación por el medio ambiente. Revisión y propuestas de investigación [Concern for the environment. Review and proposals for research]. Paper presented at the 10th Conference on Environmental Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.
2.
AmérigoM.AragonésJ. I., & GarcíaJ. A. (2012). Explorando las dimensiones de la preocupación ambiental. Una propuesta integradora [Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern. An integrative proposal]. Psyecology, 3(3), 299–311.
3.
AmérigoM.AragonésJ. I.De FrutosB.SevillanoV., & CortésB. (2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 97–103.
4.
AmérigoM.GuevaraL.PalavecinosM., & MuñozJ. (2011). Actitudes, conducta y preocupación ambiental en estudiantes universitarios chilenos y españoles. Un estudio exploratorio. In HidalgoM. C.Fernández-RamírezB.MartosM. J., & SalvadorC. M. (Eds.), Espacios urbanos y sostenibilidad: claves para la ciencia y la gestión ambiental [Urban spaces and sustainability: keys for environmental science and management] (pp. 321–330). Almería: Editorial Universidad de Almería.
5.
ArpW., & BoeckelmanK. (1997). Religiosity. A source of black environmentalism and empowerment?Journal of Black Studies, 28, 255–267.
6.
BatsonC. D., & VentisW. L. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 29–45.
7.
BatsonC. D., & VentisW. L. (1982). The religious experience. A social-psychological perspective.New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BlochJ. P. (1998). Alternative spirituality and environmentalism. Review of Religious Research, 40(1), 55–73.
9.
BraggE. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 93–108.
10.
DavieG. (2007). The Sociology of Religion.London: Sage.
11.
DittmarH. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be.Hemel Hempstead, UK/New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf/St. Martin's Press.
12.
DjupeP. A., & HuntP. K. (2009). Beyond the Lynn White thesis: Congregational effects on environmental concern. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 670–686. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01472.x
13.
EckbergD. L., & BlockerT. J. (1989). Varieties of religious involvement and environmental concerns: Testing the Lynn White thesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 509–517. doi: 10.2307/1386580
14.
EckbergD. L., & BlockerT. J. (1996). Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 343–355. doi: 10.2307/1386410
15.
FisherC. S. (2014). Meditation in the wild: Buddhism's origin in the heart of nature.Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Changemakers Books.
16.
FontaineJ. R.DuriezB.LuytenP., & HutsebautH. (2003). The internal structure of the Post-Critical Belief scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 501–518. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00213-1
17.
GiffordR., & NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034
18.
GiffordR., & SussmanR. (2012). Environmental attitudes. In ClaytonS. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 65–80). New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
GreeleyA. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 19–28. doi: 10.2307/1386911
20.
GuthJ. L.GreenJ. C.KellstedtL. A., & SmidtC. E. (1995). Faith and the environment: Religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 364–382. doi: 10.2307/2111617
21.
GuthJ. L.GreenJ. C.SmidtC. E.KellstedtL. A., & PolomaM. (1997). The bully pulpit: The politics of Protestant clergy.Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
22.
GuthJ. L.KellstedtL. A.SmidtC. E., & GreenJ. C. (1993). Theological perspectives and environmentalism among religious activists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 373–382. doi: 10.2307/1387177
23.
HairJ.BlackB.BabinB.AndersonR., & TathamR. (2006). Multivariate data analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
HandC., & Van LiereK. (1984). Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Social Forces, 63, 555–570. doi: 10.1093/sf/63.2.555
25.
HillP. C. (2013). Measurement assessment and issues in the psychology of religion and spirituality. In PaloutzianR. F., & ParkC. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 48–74). New York: The Guilford Press.
26.
HutsebautD. (1996). Post-critical belief. A new approach to the religious attitude problem. Journal of Empirical Theology, 9, 48–66. doi: 10.1163/157092596X00132
27.
IgnatowG. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society. Environment and Behavior, 38, 441–461. doi: 10.1177/0013916505280791
28.
JohnstoneC. (2008). Ecología profunda [Deep ecology]. Mundo Nuevo, 9(57), 6–9.
29.
KanagyC. L., & WillitsK. (1993). A greening of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 674–683.
30.
LewisC. A.MaltbyJ., & DayL. (2005). Religious orientation, religious coping and happiness among UK adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1193–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.002
31.
LindenbergS. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity and goal-framing processes. In FetchenhauerD.FlacheA.BuunkB., & LindenbergS. (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behaviour. An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 23–44). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
32.
MacionisJ. J., & PlummerK. (2011). Sociología [Sociology]. Madrid: Pearson Educación. McDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the Five Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153–197. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00094
33.
Moyano-DíazE.CornejoF. A., & GallardoI. (2011). Creencias y conductas ambientales, liberalismo económico y felicidad [Beliefs and environmental behaviours, economic liberalism and happiness]. Acta colombiana de Psicología, 14(2), 69–77.
34.
Muñoz-GarcíaA. (2013). Is religion independent of students’ approaches to learning?Studia Psychologica, 55(3), 215–220.
35.
Muñoz-GarcíaA., & SaroglouV. (2008). Believing literally versus symbolically: Values and personality correlates among Spanish students. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 29, 233–241. doi: 10.1080/13617670802465755
36.
PetersonM. N., & LiuJ. (2008). Impacts of religion on environmental worldviews: The Teton Valley case. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 704–718.
37.
Ramírez de la FeM. C. (2006). Una adaptación española de la escala de orientación religiosa de Batson y Ventis [A Spanish adaptation of the Religious Orientation Scale of Batson and Ventis]. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 59(1-2), 309–318.
38.
RaudseppM. (2003). Some sociodemographic and sociopsychological predictors of environmentalism. In International association for people-environment studies conference (pp. 133–144). Ashland, OH, US: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
39.
ReichK. H. (2007). Stage-structural approach to religious development. In DowlingE. M., & ScarlettW. G. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of religious and spiritual development (pp. 432–438). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
40.
SchultzP. W. (2000). Empathizing with Nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.
41.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
42.
SchultzP. W.ZeleznyL., & DalrympleN. J. (2000). A multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 32, 576–591.
43.
ShaikoR. G. (1987). Religion, politics and environmental concern. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 244–262.
44.
StegL., & VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
45.
ThompsonS. C. G., & BartonM. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.
46.
Van PachterbekeM.KellerJ., & SaroglouV. (2012). Flexibility in existential beliefs and worldviews. Introducing and measuring existential quest. Journal of Individual Differences, 33(1), 2–16.
47.
WeigelR. (1977). Ideological and demographic correlates of proecology behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 39–47. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1977.9713294
48.
WhiteL. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203–1207. doi: 10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
