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.
BoteroC. A.GardnerB.KirbyK. R.BulbuliaJ.GavinM. C.GrayR. 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
4.
CampbellT. H.KayA. 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
5.
ClaytonS.Devine-WrightP.SwimJ.BonnesM.StegL.WhitmarshL.CarricoA. (2016). Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039482
6.
CohenA. 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
7.
CohenA. B.MalkaA.HillE. D.ThoemmesF.HillP. C.SundieJ. 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
8.
DanielsD. P.KrosnickJ. A.TichyM. P.TompsonT. (2012). Public opinion on environmental policy in the United States. In KraftM.KamienieckiS. (Eds.), Handbook of U.S. environmental policy (pp. 461–486). Oxford University Press.
9.
DienerE.TayL.MyersD. 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.
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386580
11.
EhretP. J.SparksA. C.ShermanD. 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.
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. 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.
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. K.IshiiK. (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.
EomK.PapadakisV.ShermanD. K.KimH. 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
FranssonN.GärlingT. (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.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. 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.
GebauerJ. E.WagnerJ.SedikidesC.NeberichW. (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.
GiffordR. (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
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353415
22.
GreeleyA. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386911
23.
HandC. M.Van LiereK. D. (1984). Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Social Forces, 63(2), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579062
24.
HayesB. G.MarangudakisM. (2001). Religion and attitudes towards nature in Britain. The British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020023073
25.
HeathY.GiffordR. (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.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. 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
JohnsonK. A.CohenA. B.OkunM. 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.
JohnsonK. A.LiuR. L.MintonE. A.BartholomewD. E.PetersonM.CohenA. B.KeesJ. (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.
KanagyC. L.WillitsF. K. (1993). A “greening” of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3), 674–683.
31.
KayA. C.ShepherdS.BlatzC. W.ChuaS. N.GalinskyA. 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.
KhenferJ.RouxE.TafaniE.LaurinK. (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.
KimH. S.LawrieS. I. (2019). Culture and motivation. In CohenD.KitayamaS. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 268–291). Guilford Press.
34.
KimH. S.ShermanD. 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.
KormosC.GiffordR. (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.
KruglanskiA. W.JaskoK.ChernikovaM.MilyavskyM.BabushM.BaldnerC.PierroA. (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.
LandryN.GiffordR.MilfontT. L.WeeksA.ArnockyS. (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.
LaurinK.KayA. C.FitzsimonsG. 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.
MilfontT. L.PageE. (2013). A bibliometric review of the first thirty years of theJournal of Environmental Psychology. PsyEcology, 4(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2013.10773866
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. 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
NorenzayanA.ShariffA. F.GervaisW. M.WillardA. K.McNamaraR. A.SlingerlandE.HenrichJ. (2016). The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14001356
44.
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P.Romero-CanyasR. (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.
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P.Romero-CanyasR.BallewM. T.Larson-KonarD. (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.
PetrocelliJ. V.ClarksonJ. J.TormalaZ. L.HendrixK. 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.
PisanoI.LubellM. (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.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. 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.
SasakiJ. Y.KimH. 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.
SchuldtJ. P.PearsonA. R.Romero-CanyasR.Larson-KonarD. (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.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (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.
ShariffA. F.WillardA. K.AndersenT.NorenzayanA. (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.
SherkatD. E.EllisonC. 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.
ShinF.PrestonJ. 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
SpilkaB.HoodR. W.HunsbergerB.GorsuchR. L. (2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Guilford.
57.
SternP. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023235
58.
TamK. P.ChanH. 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.
TamK. P.ChanH. 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.
UskulA. K.ShermanD. K.FitzgibbonJ. (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 BovenL.EhretP. J.ShermanD. 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 LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. 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.
WeiszJ. R.RothbaumF. M.BlackburnT. 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.
WhiteL. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Readings in Biology and Man, 155, 1203–1207.
65.
ZavalL.MarkowitzE. M.WeberE. 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.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (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.
