We studied environmental action and its predictors in a multi-scalar context of climate change politics. We asked how belief in climate change, post-materialist values, trust and knowledge predict people’s engagement in environmental action by testing two alternative structural equation models (SEM). In one of these models all these factors directly predicted climate-friendly action, and in the other the effect of political trust, post-materialist values and climate change knowledge on climate-friendly action was mediated by belief in climate change. The models were tested with Eurobarometer 69.2 survey data of adult people living in Finland (N = 1,004). The SEM revealed that belief in climate change mediates the effect of post-material values, trust and knowledge on climate-friendly action. It is therefore important to recognize the role of belief in the public understanding of large-scale environmental problems. These results help political authorities to develop policies to encourage people’s engagement in climate-friendly action.
AntillaL (2005) Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change15: 338–352.
2.
BarrS (2003) Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area35: 227–240.
3.
BentlerPMBonettDG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88: 588–606.
4.
BibbingsJ (2004) Climate Concern: Attitudes to Climate Change and Windfarms in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Consumer Council and Friends of the Earth Cymru.
5.
BickerstaffKSimmonsPPidgeonN (2004) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance: Main findings of a qualitative study of five risk cases. CER (Centre for Environmental Risk) working paper. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
6.
BlennowKPerssonJ (2009) Climate change: Motivation for taking measures to adapt. Global Environmental Change19: 100–104.
7.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14: 125–136.
8.
BrechinSRKemptonW (1994) Global environmentalism: A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis?Social Science Quarterly75: 245–269.
9.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: BollenKALongJS (eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 136–162.
10.
BuckeleyH (2000) Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Understanding of Science9: 313–333.
11.
CarminesEGMcIverJP (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: BohrnstedtGWBorgattaEF (eds) Social Measurement: Current Issues. Beverly Hills: SAGE, 65–115.
12.
CarvalhoA (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16: 223–243.
13.
ChapuraM (2009) Scale, causality, complexity and emergence: Rethinking scale’s ontological significance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers34: 462–474.
14.
ClaytonSMyersG (2009) Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care for Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
DaltonRJ (2005) The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology15: 133–154.
16.
DietzTDanAShwomR (2007) Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology72: 185–214.
17.
DunlapREGallupGHGallupAM (1993) Of global concern: Results of the Health of the Planet survey. Environment35: 7–15, 33–39.
18.
EtkinDHoE (2007) Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research5: 623–641.
19.
EvansGDurantJ (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4: 57–74.
20.
FeyginaIJostJTGoldsmithRE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36: 326–338.
21.
FinkelSEMullerENOppKD (1989) Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. American Political Science Review83: 885–903.
22.
Finnish Social Science Data Archive (2009) Eurobarometer 69.2: National and European Identity, European Elections, European Values, and Climate Change. The European Commission, Directorate General Press and Communication, Opinion Polls. ZA4744.
23.
GiffordRIglesiasFCaslerJ (2008) Psychological barriers to pro-environmental behavior: The development of a scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal.
24.
GökşenFAdamanFZenginobuzU (2002) On environmental concern, willingness to pay, and postmaterialist values: Evidence from Istanbul. Environment and Behavior5: 460–477.
25.
GudmundsdottirS (1990) Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education41: 44–52.
26.
HaikkolaLRissottoA (2007) Legislation, policy and participatory structures as opportunities for children’s participation? A comparison of Finland and Italy. Children, Youth and Environments17: 352–387.
27.
HeathYGiffordR (2006) Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behaviour38: 48–71.
28.
HöijerB (2010) Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science9: 717–731.
29.
InglehartR (1971) The silent revolution in post-industrial societies. American Political Science Review65: 991–1017.
30.
InglehartR (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
InglehartR (1995) Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics28: 57–72.
32.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
JensenBBSchnackK (2006) The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research12: 471–486.
36.
JostJBanajiM (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology33: 293–305.
37.
JostJPelhamBCarvalloM (2002) Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38: 586–602.
38.
KaaseM (1999) Interpersonal trust, political trust and non-institutionalized political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics22: 1–21.
39.
KellstedtPMZahranSVedlitzA (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis28: 113–125.
40.
KoskinenSPaloniemiR (2009) Social learning processes of environmental policy. In: MeijerJder BergA (eds) Handbook of Environmental Policy. New York: Nova Publishers, 293–308.
41.
LorenzoniIHulmeM (2009) Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socioeconomic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Understanding of Science18: 383–400.
42.
LorenzoniIPidgeonNF (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change77: 73–95.
43.
LubellMVedlitzAZahranSAlstonLT (2006) Collective action, environmental activism, and air quality policy. Political Research Quarterly59: 149–160.
44.
McDonaldRPMarshHW (1990) Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin107: 247–255.
45.
MohaiP (1985) Public concern and elite involvement in environmental conservation issues. Social Science Quarterly62: 820–838.
46.
NordlundAMGarvillJ (2002) Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior34: 740–756.
47.
PaloniemiRVainioA (2011) Why do young people participate in environmental action?Environmental Values20: 397–416.
48.
PharrSJPutnamRDDaltonRJ (2000) A quarter-century of declining confidence. Journal of Democracy11: 5–25.
49.
PiteskyMEStackhouseKRMitloehnerFM (2009) Clearing the air: Livestock’s contribution to climate change. Advances in Agronomy103: 1–40.
50.
PoortingaWPidgeonN (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis23: 961–971.
51.
PoortingaWPidgeonNFLorenzoniI (2006) Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005. WP 06-02. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
52.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
53.
RobinsonSL (1996) Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly41: 574–599.
54.
SpaargarenGMolAPJ (2008) Greening global consumption: Redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change18: 350–359.
55.
StammKRClarkFEblacasPR (2000) Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science9: 219–237.
56.
StegLVlekC (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology29: 309–317.
57.
SternN (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
StrandbuÅSkogenK (2000) Environmentalism among Norwegian youth: Different paths to attitudes and action?Journal of Youth Studies3: 189–209.
59.
SundbladE-LBielAGärlingT (2007) Cognitive and affective risk judgments related to climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology27: 97–106.
60.
SwimJClaytonSDohertyTGiffordRHowardGReserJSternPWeberP (2009) Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. A Report by the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Interface between Psychology and Global Climate Change. Available at (accessed 28 November 2010): http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.pdf
61.
TylerTR (2003) Trust and democratic governance. In: BraithwaiteVLeviM (eds) Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage, 269–294.
62.
WeingartPEngelsAPansegrauP (2000) Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science9: 261–283.
63.
WhitmarshL (2009) What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.”Public Understanding of Science18: 401–420.
64.
YanevaA (2005) Scaling up and scaling down: Extraction trials in architectural design. Social Studies of Science35: 867–894.
65.
YorkRGossardMH (2004) Cross-national meat and fish consumption: Exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecological Economics48: 293–302.
66.
ZwickMMRennO (eds) (2002) Perception and Evaluation of Risks: Findings of the Baden-Württemberg Risk Survey 2001. Joint working report by the Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg and the University of Stuttgart, Sociology of Technologies and Environment, Germany.
