Withstanding the climate crisis will depend in part on individuals behaving in a more environmentally sustainable manner. However, relatively little is known about the individual factors that promote sustainable attitudes and behaviors (SABs). Although there are established cross-sectional associations between personality traits and SABs, it is unclear whether changes in personality are related to increases in SABs over time, and how personality is differentially related to specific SABs. Using data from 61,479 participants in New Zealand, we tested preregistered hypotheses about how personality codevelops with valuing the environment, believing in climate change, concern about climate change, personal environmental efficacy, personal environmental sacrifice, and support for the Green Party. We found that SABs generally increased from 2009 to 2017, although there was variation across age cohorts, SAB variables, and samples. We replicated concurrent correlations between broad personality traits—particularly Agreeableness, Openness, and Honesty/Humility—and SABs and present novel evidence that increases in SAB are related to changes in traits, particularly Agreeableness. These findings have implications for both understanding the factors associated with changes in SABs over time and understanding the factors that drive personality change.
AbsonD. J.FischerJ.LeventonJ.NewigJ.SchomerusT.VilsmaierU., … LangD. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30–39.
2.
AllportG. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.
3.
AnagnostopoulouE.BothosE.MagoutasB.SchrammelJ.MentzasG. (2018). Persuasive technologies for sustainable mobility: State of the art and emerging trends. Sustainability, 10, 2128.
4.
ArnockyS.MilfontT. L.NicolJ. R. (2014). Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environment and Behavior, 46, 556–582.
5.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.
6.
BarnettM. D.ArchuletaW. P.CantuC. (2019). Politics, concern for future generations, and the environment: Generativity mediates political conservatism and environmental attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(10), 647–654.
7.
BinderM.BlankenbergA. K. (2016). Environmental concerns, volunteering and subjective well-being: Antecedents and outcomes of environmental activism in Germany. Ecological Economics, 124, 1–16.
8.
BleidornW.HillP. L.BackM. D.DenissenJ. J.HenneckeM.HopwoodC. J., … & OrthU. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056–1067.
9.
BleidornW.HopwoodC. J.LucasR. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait change. Journal of Personality, 86(1), 83–96.
10.
BrickC.LewisG. J. (2016). Unearthing the “green” personality: Core traits predict environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48, 635–658.
11.
ChuangF.ManleyE.PetersenA. (2020). The role of worldviews in the governance of sustainable mobility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 4024–4042.
12.
ClarkW. C.Van KerkhoffL.LebelL.GallopinG. C. (2016). Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4570–4578.
13.
DenissenJ. J. A.LuhmannM.ChungJ. M.BleidornW. (2019). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 612–633.
14.
DesrochersJ. E.AlbertG.MilfontT. L.KellyB.ArnockyS. (2019). Does personality mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism?Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 204–213.
15.
DolezalM. (2010). Exploring the stabilization of a political force: The social and attitudinal basis of green parties in the age of globalization. West European Politics, 33, 534–552.
16.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
17.
FergusonE.ZhaoK.O’CarrollR. E.SmillieL. D. (2019). Costless and costly prosociality: Correspondence among personality traits, economic preferences, and real-world prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 461–471.
18.
FranssonN.GarlingT. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369–382.
19.
FreemanJ.BaggioJ. A.CoyleT. R. (2020). Social and general intelligence improves collective action in a common pool resource system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7712–7718.
20.
FreundA. M. (2008). Successful aging as management of resources: The role of selection, optimization, and compensation. Research in Human Development, 5, 94–106.
21.
FreundA. M. (2020). The bucket list effect: Why leisure goals are often deferred until retirement. American Psychologist, 75, 499–510.
22.
FreundA. M.BaltesP. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 642–662.
23.
GeigerS. M.FischerD.SchraderU. (2018). Measuring what matters in sustainable consumption: An integrative framework for the selection of relevant behaviors. Sustainable Development, 26, 18–33.
24.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors in environmental concern and behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.
25.
HeckhausenJ. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood: Primary and secondary control of age-related challenges.Developmental Psychology, 33, 176.
26.
HenneckeM.BleidornW.DenissenJ. J.WoodD. (2014). A three‐part framework for self‐regulated personality development across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 289–299.
27.
HirshJ. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 245–248.
28.
Hopwood, C. J., Schwaba, T., & Bleidorn, W. (2020). Personality change and environmental concerns. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jk94r
29.
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, 622–626.
30.
HudsonN. W.FraleyR. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490–507.
31.
IyerE. S.KashyapR. K. (2007). Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social class. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 6, 32–47.
32.
JekriaN.DaudS. (2016). Environmental concern and recycling behaviour Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 667–673.
33.
JohnstoneL.LindhC. (2018). The sustainability‐age dilemma: A theory of (un) planned behaviour via influencers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17, e127–e139.
34.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.
35.
KammermannL.DermontC. (2018). How beliefs of the political elite and citizens on climate change influence support for Swiss energy transition policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 48–60.
36.
KennedyE. H.GivensJ. E. (2019). Eco-habitus or eco-powerlessness? Examining environmental concern across social class. Sociological Perspectives, 62, 646–667.
37.
KoosS. (2011). Varieties of environmental labeling, market structures, and sustainable consumption across Europe: A comparative analysis of organizational and market supply determinants of environmental labeled goods. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 127–151.
38.
KotovR.GamezW.SchmidtF.WatsonD. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768–821.
39.
LadrechR.LittleC. (2019). Drivers of political parties’ climate policy preferences: Lessons from Denmark and Ireland. Environmental Politics, 28, 1017–1038.
40.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.
41.
LiereK. D. V.DunlapR. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public opinion quarterly, 44(2), 181–197.
42.
LiuJ. H.SibleyC. G. (2012). Hope for the future? Understanding self‐sacrifice among young citizens of the world in the face of global warming. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12, 190–203.
43.
LuchsM. G.MooradianT. A. (2012). Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: Elucidating the gender effect. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 127–144.
44.
LudekeS. G.BainbridgeT. F.LiuJ.ZhaoK.SmillieL. D.ZettlerI. (2019). Using the Big Five Aspect Scales to translate between the HEXACO and Big Five personality models. Journal of Personality, 87, 1025–1038.
45.
MaciasT. (2015). Risks, trust, and sacrifice: Social structural motivators for environmental change. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 1264–1276.
46.
ManfredoM. J.TeelT. L.DietschA. M. (2016). Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 30, 287–296.
47.
MarkowitzE. M.GoldbergL. R.AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2012). Profiling the “pro‐environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80, 81–111.
48.
McDonaldS.OatesC. J. (2006). Sustainability: Consumer perceptions and marketing strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 157–170.
49.
MehtaP. D.WestS. G. (2000). Putting the individual back into individual growth curves. Psychological Methods, 5, 23–43.
50.
MelisG.ElliotM.ShryaneN. (2014). Environmental concern over time: Evidence from the longitudinal analysis of a British cohort study from 1991 to 2008. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 905–919.
51.
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, e32633.
52.
MilfontT. L.HarréN.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2012). The climate-change dilemma: Examining the association between parental status and political party support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2386–2410.
53.
MilfontT. L.MilojevP.GreavesL. M.SibleyC. G. (2015). Socio-structural and psychological foundations of climate change beliefs. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44, 17–30.
54.
MilfontT. L.OsbornD.YogeeswaranK.SibleyC. G. (in press). The role of national identity in collective pro-environmental action. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
55.
MilfontT. L.PoortingaW.SibleyC. G. (2020). Does having children increase environmental concern? Testing parenthood effects with longitudinal data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. PLoS One, 15(3), e0230361.
56.
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, 187–195.
57.
MilfontT. L.WilsonM. S.SibleyC. G. (2017). The public’s belief in climate change and its human cause are increasing over time. PLoS One, 12(3), e0174246.
58.
MilfontT. L.ZubielevitchE.MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2021). Ten-year panel data confirms generation gap but climate beliefs are increasing across ages [Manuscript submitted for publication]. University of Auckland.
59.
MilneB. J.ByunU.LeeA. (2013). New Zealand socio-economic index 2006. Statistics New Zealand.
60.
MõttusR. (2016). Towards more rigorous personality trait–outcome research. European Journal of Personality, 30, 292–303.
61.
Mõttus, R., & Kandler, C. (2018). Causality is Hard, but No Cause for Concern. European Journal of Personality, 32, 149--150.
62.
NeumayerE. (2004). The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 51, 167–175.
63.
NilssonA.von BorgstedeC.BielA. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 267–277.
64.
O'ConnorR. E.BardR. J.FisherA. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19, 461–471.
65.
OsbaldistonR.SchottJ. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299.
66.
PampelF. C. (2014). The varied influence of SES on environmental concern. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 57–75.
67.
PriceJ. C.WalkerI. A.BoschettiF. (2014). Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 8–20.
68.
Pruss-Ustun, A., & World Health Organization. (2008). Safer water, better health: Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. World Health Organization.
69.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
70.
ReeseG.JungeE. A. (2017). Keep on rockin’in a (plastic-) free world: Collective efficacy and pro-environmental intentions as a function of task difficulty. Sustainability, 9, 200.
71.
RobertsB. W.LuoJ.BrileyD. A.ChowP. I.SuR.HillP. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 117–141.
72.
RobertsB. W.WaltonK. E.ViechtbauerW. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.
73.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1–36.
74.
RutterM. (2007). Proceeding from observed correlation to causal inference: The use of natural experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 377–395.
75.
SchutteN. S.BhullarN. (2017). Approaching environmental sustainability: Perceptions of self-efficacy and changeability. The Journal of Psychology, 151, 321–333.
76.
SchwartzS. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
77.
SharmaS. (2008). Where do we stand? One Auckland secondary school’s journey toward sustainability [Unpublished MA thesis]. The University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.
78.
SheltonR. C.CooperB. R.StirmanS. W. (2018). The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 55–76.
79.
ShenJ.SaijoT. (2008). Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 42–50.
80.
SibleyC. G.KurzT. (2013). A model of climate change belief profiles: How much does it matter if people question human causation?Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 245–261.
81.
SibleyC. G.LuytenN.PurnomoM.MobberlyA.WoottonL. W.HammondM. D., … RobertsonA. (2011). The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 142–159.
82.
SibleyC. G.PirieD. J. (2013). Personality in New Zealand: Scale norms and demographic differences in the Mini-IPIP6. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42, 13–30.
83.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S. (2007). Political attitudes and the ideology of equality: Differentiating support for liberal and conservative political parties in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36, 72–84.
84.
SmileyK. T. (2017). Climate change denial, political beliefs, and cities: Evidence from Copenhagen and Houston. Environmental Sociology, 3, 76–86.
85.
SmillieL. D.LawnE. C. R.ZhaoK.PerryR.LahamS. M. (2019). Prosociality and morality through the lens of personality psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71, 50–58.
86.
SoutterA.R.B.BatesT.C.MõttusR. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 15, 913–941.
87.
SpechtJ.BleidornW.DenissenJ. J.HenneckeM.HuttemanR.KandlerC., … ZimmermannJ. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28, 216–230.
88.
StiegerM.NißenM.RüeggerD.KowatschT.FlückigerC.AllemandM. (2018). PEACH, a smartphone-and conversational agent-based coaching intervention for intentional personality change: study protocol of a randomized, wait-list controlled trial. BMC Psychology, 6(1), 43.
89.
TaitP.SaundersC.DalzielP.RutherfordP.DriverT.GuentherM. (2020). Comparing generational preferences for individual components of sustainability schemes in the Californian wine market. Applied Economics Letters, 27, 1091–1095.
90.
VanHeuvelenT.SummersN. (2019). Divergent roads: A cross-national inter-cohort analysis of affluence and environmental concern. Social Science Research, 82, 72–91.
91.
WagnerJ.OrthU.BleidornW.HopwoodC. J.KandlerC. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 438–444.
92.
WeberE. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change?Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 332–342.
93.
WestS.HaiderL. J.MastersonV.EnqvistJ. P.SvedinU.TengöM. (2018). Stewardship, care and relational values.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 30–38.
94.
WickhamH. (2016). Modelling for visualisation. In ggplot2 (pp. 221–240). Springer.
95.
WiernikB. M.OnesD. S.DilchertS. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 826–856.
96.
Wray‐LakeL.FlanaganC. A.OsgoodD. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42, 61–85.
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.
