Two preregistered studies investigated whether engaging in proenvironmental behavior increases a person’s well-being. A 10-day experience-sampling study (7,161 observations from 181 adults in 14 countries, primarily the United States) revealed positive within-person and between-person associations, and a randomized controlled experiment (N = 545 U.S. undergraduates) found that incorporating proenvironmental behavior into individuals’ daily activities increased their experiences of happiness and meaning in life. Indeed, the effect was comparable to incorporating activities selected specifically to elicit such positive states, though these results may be affected by demand characteristics. The studies also offered some tentative preliminary evidence about why such an effect might emerge. There was some support for the hypothesis that proenvironmental behavior affects well-being by creating a “warm glow.” But overall the findings align more closely with the hypothesis that proenvironmental behavior helps to satisfy individuals’ basic psychological needs.
BilandzicH.KalchA.SoentgenJ. (2017). Effects of goal framing and emotions on perceived threat and willingness to sacrifice for climate change. Science Communication, 39(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017718553
4.
BinderM.BlankenbergA.-K. (2017). Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.009
5.
Bissing-OlsonM. J.IyerA.FieldingK. S.ZacherH. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1788
6.
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
7.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P. (2021). The failings of conventional mediation analysis and a design-based alternative. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211047227
8.
Confucius. (2007). Analects (B.Watson, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
9.
CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
10.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
11.
DienerE.WirtzD.TovW.Kim-PrietoC.ChoiD.OishiS.Biswas-DienerR. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
12.
DoellK. C.ConteB.BroschT. (2021). Interindividual differences in environmentally relevant positive trait affect impacts sustainable behavior in everyday life. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99438-y
GollwitzerP. M.SheeranP. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
15.
GrimmP. (2010). Social desirability bias. In ShethJ. N.MalhotraN. K. (Eds.), Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (Vol. 2, pp. 258–259). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
16.
HektnerJ. M.SchmidtJ. A.CsikszentmihalyiM. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984201
17.
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
18.
HuangM.YangF. (2022). Self-transcendence or self-enhancement: People’s perceptions of meaning and happiness in relation to the self. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001297
19.
HuiB. P. H.NgJ. C. K.BerzaghiE.Cunningham-AmosL. A.KoganA. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298
20.
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
21.
KasserT. (2009). Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological sustainability. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0025
22.
MilloyS. (2009). Green hell: How environmentalists plan to control your life and what you can do to stop them. Simon & Schuster.
PrinzingM. M.De FreitasJ.FredricksonB. L. (2022). The ordinary concept of a meaningful life: The role of subjective and objective factors in attributions of meaning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(5), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1897866
25.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I
26.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
27.
SchwartzS. H. (2009). Draft users manual: Proper use of the Schwarz Value Survey. Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons.
28.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönnqvistJ.-E.DemirutkuK.Dirilen-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
29.
StoneA. A.BachrachC. A.JobeJ. B.KurtzmanH. S.CainV. S. (1999). The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Psychology Press.
30.
ThallerA.FleißE.BrudermannT. (2020). No glory without sacrifice—Drivers of climate (in)action in the general population. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.014
van der LindenS. (2018). Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0001-0
33.
VenhoevenL. A.BolderdijkJ. W.StegL. (2016). Why acting environmentally-friendly feels good: Exploring the role of self-image. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1846. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01846
34.
VeselyS.KlöcknerC. A. (2020). Social desirability in environmental psychology research: Three meta-analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1395). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395
WelschH.KühlingJ. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior and rational consumer choice: Evidence from surveys of life satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 405–420.
WongP. T. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personal meaning profile. In WongP. T.FryP. S. (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 111–140). Erlbaum.
39.
Wray-LakeL.DeHaanC. R.ShubertJ.RyanR. M. (2019). Examining links from civic engagement to daily well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388432
40.
ZawadzkiS. J.StegL.BoumanT. (2020). Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), Article 123007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc4ae
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.
