Religiosity Moderates the Link Between Environmental Beliefs and Pro-Environmental Support: The Role of Belief in a Controlling God

Abstract

The current research examines differences in what motivates environmentally sustainable behavior between more and less religious people in the United States. We found that religiosity moderates the extent to which environmental beliefs predict pro-environmental support. Specifically, environmental beliefs predicted pro-environmental support less strongly among more religious people than less religious people (Studies 1 and 2). Using a correlational (Study 2) and an experimental (Study 3) design, we further found that one particular aspect of religiosity—believing in a controlling god—reduced the importance of personally held environmental beliefs in shaping one’s support for pro-environmental actions. Our findings suggest that motivation to act based on personal beliefs may be attenuated among people who are religious because they believe in an external source of control. Sociocultural factors, such as religion, shape the psychological underpinnings of social actions, and the present research underscores the importance of understanding psychological diversity in promoting support toward environmental sustainability.

Keywords

religion culture sustainability environmental beliefs pro-environmental action

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atran

Norenzayan

(2004). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(6), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000172

Biel

Nilsson

(2005). Religious values and environmental concern: Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00297.x

Botero

C. A.

Gardner

Kirby

K. R.

Bulbulia

Gavin

M. C.

Gray

R. D.

(2014). The ecology of religious beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(47), 16784–16789. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408701111

Campbell

T. H.

Kay

A. C.

(2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963

Clayton

Devine-Wright

Swim

Bonnes

Steg

Whitmarsh

Carrico

(2016). Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039482

Cohen

A. B.

(2015). Religion’s profound influences on psychology: Morality, intergroup relations, self-construal, and enculturation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553265

Cohen

A. B.

Malka

Hill

E. D.

Thoemmes

Hill

P. C.

Sundie

J. M.

(2009). Race as a moderator of the relationship between religiosity and political alignment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208328064

Daniels

D. P.

Krosnick

J. A.

Tichy

M. P.

Tompson

(2012). Public opinion on environmental policy in the United States. In Kraft

Kamieniecki

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. environmental policy (pp. 461–486). Oxford University Press.

Diener

Tay

Myers

D. G.

(2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1278–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024402

10.

Eckberg

D. L.

Blocker

T. J.

(1989). Varieties of religious involvement and environmental concerns: Testing the Lynn White thesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 509–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386580

11.

Ehret

P. J.

Sparks

A. C.

Sherman

D. K.

(2017). Support for environmental protection: An integration of ideological-consistency and information-deficit models. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1256960

12.

Eom

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009

13.

Eom

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

Ishii

(2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1331–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660078

14.

Eom

Papadakis

Sherman

D. K.

Kim

H. S.

(2019). The psychology of pro-environmental support: In search of global solutions for a global problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854099

15.

Feinberg

Willer

(2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177

16.

Fransson

Gärling

(1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0141

17.

Galinsky

A. D.

Magee

J. C.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Whitson

J. A.

Liljenquist

K. A.

(2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633

18.

Gebauer

J. E.

Wagner

Sedikides

Neberich

(2013). Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: Evidence for the “self-centrality breeds self-enhancement” principle. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x

19.

Gifford

(2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

20.

Gifford

(2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 541–579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048

21.

Graham

Haidt

(2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353415

22.

Greeley

(1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386911

23.

Hand

C. M.

Van Liere

K. D.

(1984). Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Social Forces, 63(2), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579062

24.

Hayes

B. G.

Marangudakis

(2001). Religion and attitudes towards nature in Britain. The British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020023073

25.

Heath

Gifford

(2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998

26.

Hornsey

M. J.

Harris

E. A.

Bain

P. G.

Fielding

K. S.

(2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2943

27.

Howe

L. C.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600

28.

Johnson

K. A.

Cohen

A. B.

Okun

M. A.

(2016). God is watching you. . . but also watching over you: The influence of benevolent God representations on secular volunteerism among Christians. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(4), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000040

29.

Johnson

K. A.

Liu

R. L.

Minton

E. A.

Bartholomew

D. E.

Peterson

Cohen

A. B.

Kees

(2017). US citizens’ representations of God and support for sustainability policies. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.16.108

30.

Kanagy

C. L.

Willits

F. K.

(1993). A “greening” of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3), 674–683.

31.

Kay

A. C.

Shepherd

Blatz

C. W.

Chua

S. N.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2010). For God (or) country: The hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021140

32.

Khenfer

Roux

Tafani

Laurin

(2017). When God’s (not) needed: Spotlight on how belief in divine control influences goal commitment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.005

33.

Kim

H. S.

Lawrie

S. I.

(2019). Culture and motivation. In Cohen

Kitayama

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 268–291). Guilford Press.

34.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1

35.

Kormos

Gifford

(2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003

36.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Jasko

Chernikova

Milyavsky

Babush

Baldner

Pierro

(2015). The rocky road from attitudes to behaviors: Charting the goal systemic course of actions. Psychological Review, 122(4), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039541

37.

Landry

Gifford

Milfont

T. L.

Weeks

Arnocky

(2018). Learned helplessness moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003

38.

Laurin

Kay

A. C.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

(2012). Divergent effects of activating thoughts of God on self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025971

39.

Milfont

T. L.

Page

(2013). A bibliometric review of the first thirty years of the Journal of Environmental Psychology. PsyEcology, 4(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2013.10773866

40.

Milfont

T. L.

Schultz

P. W.

(2016). Culture and the natural environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.009

41.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852

42.

Newell

B. R.

McDonald

R. I.

Brewer

Hayes

B. K.

(2014). The psychology of environmental decisions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623

43.

Norenzayan

Shariff

A. F.

Gervais

W. M.

Willard

A. K.

McNamara

R. A.

Slingerland

Henrich

(2016). The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14001356

44.

Pearson

A. R.

Schuldt

J. P.

Romero-Canyas

(2016). Social climate science: A new vista for psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616639726

45.

Pearson

A. R.

Schuldt

J. P.

Romero-Canyas

Ballew

M. T.

Larson-Konar

(2018). Diverse segments of the US public underestimate the environmental concerns of minority and low-income Americans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(49), 12429–12434. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804698115

46.

Petrocelli

J. V.

Clarkson

J. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Hendrix

K. S.

(2010). Perceiving stability as a means to attitude certainty: The role of implicit theories of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 874–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.012

47.

Pisano

Lubell

(2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515600494

48.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

49.

Sasaki

J. Y.

Kim

H. S.

(2011). At the intersection of culture and religion: A cultural analysis of religion’s implications for secondary control and social affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021849

50.

Schuldt

J. P.

Pearson

A. R.

Romero-Canyas

Larson-Konar

(2017). Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change. Climatic Change, 141(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1893-9

51.

Shariff

A. F.

Norenzayan

(2011). Mean gods make good people: Different views of God predict cheating behavior. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.556990

52.

Shariff

A. F.

Willard

A. K.

Andersen

Norenzayan

(2016). Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314568811

53.

Sherkat

D. E.

Ellison

C. G.

(2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00341.x

54.

Shin

Preston

J. L.

(2019). Green as the gospel: The power of stewardship messages to improve climate change attitudes. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000249

55.

Southwold

(1978). Buddhism and the definition of religion. Man, 13, 362–379. https://doi.org/10.2307/2801935

56.

Spilka

Hood

R. W.

Hunsberger

Gorsuch

R. L.

(2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Guilford.

57.

Stern

P. C.

(2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023235

58.

Tam

K. P.

Chan

H. W.

(2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001

59.

Tam

K. P.

Chan

H. W.

(2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change, 48, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.001

60.

Uskul

A. K.

Sherman

D. K.

Fitzgibbon

. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005

61.

Van Boven

Ehret

P. J.

Sherman

D. K

. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617748966

62.

van der Linden

S. L.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Feinberg

G. D.

Maibach

E. W

. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

63.

Weisz

J. R.

Rothbaum

F. M.

Blackburn

T. C.

(1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39(9), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.955

64.

White

(1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Readings in Biology and Man, 155, 1203–1207.

65.

Zaval

Markowitz

E. M.

Weber

E. U.

(2015). How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychological Science, 26(2), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614561266

66.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Jr. Chen

(2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.06 MB