1932

Abstract

Human behavior plays a critical role in causing global climate change as well as in responding to it. In this article, I review important insights on the psychology of climate change. I first discuss factors that affect the likelihood that individuals engage in a wide range of climate actions. Next, I review the processes through which values affect climate actions and reflect on how to motivate climate actions among people who do not strongly care about nature, the environment, and climate change. Then I explain that even people who may be motivated to engage in climate actions may not do so when they face major barriers to act. This implies that to promote wide-scale climate actions, broader system changes are needed. I discuss relevant factors that affect public support for system changes that facilitate and enable climate action. Finally, I summarize key lessons learned and identify important questions for future research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905
2023-01-18
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/74/1/annurev-psych-032720-042905.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrahamse W. 2019. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behavior: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why London: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrahamse W, Gatersleben B, Uzzell D. 2009a. Encouraging sustainable food consumption: the role of threatened identity Resolv. Work. Pap. 04–09 Univ. Surrey Guildford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Abrahamse W, Steg L. 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings?. J. Econ. Psychol. 30:711–20
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Abrahamse W, Steg L. 2011. Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 18:130–40
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Abrahamse W, Steg L. 2013. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1773–85
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Gifford R, Vlek C. 2009b. Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: a question of self-interest or morality?. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 12:317–24
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. 2005. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25:273–91
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. 2007. The effect of tailored information, goal setting and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors and behavioral antecedents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27:265–76
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Aitken M. 2010. Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38:106066–75
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Albright EA, Crow D. 2019. Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding. Clim. Change 155:11–17
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Alcock I, White MP, Taylor T, Coldwell DF, Gribble MO et al. 2017.. “ Green” on the ground but not in the air: Pro-environmental attitudes are related to household behaviours but not discretionary air travel. Glob. Environ. Change 42:136–47
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Allcott H. 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95:91082–95
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Arvai JL. 2003. Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal. 23:2281–89
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Asensio OI, Delmas MA. 2015. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. PNAS 112:E510–15
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Asensio OI, Delmas MA. 2016. The dynamics of behavior change: evidence from energy conservation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 126:196–212
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Balcombe P, Rigby D, Azapagic A. 2013. Motivations and barriers associated with adopting microgeneration energy technologies in the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22:655–66
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bamberg S. 2000. The promotion of new behavior by forming an implementation intention: results of a field experiment in the domain of travel mode choice. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30:91903–22
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bamberg S. 2002. Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new environmentally friendly behaviours—results of two field experiments. J. Environ. Psychol. 22:4399–411
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bamberg S, Rees J, Seebauer S. 2015. Collective climate action: determinants of participation intention in community-based environmental initiatives. J. Environ. Psychol. 43:155–65
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bamberg S, Schmidt S. 2003. Incentives, morality or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 35:264–85
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Barbarossa C, De Pelsmacker P, Moons I. 2017. Personal values, green self-identity and electric car adoption. Ecol. Econ. 140:190–200
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bardi A, Goodwin R. 2011. The dual route to value change: individual processes and cultural moderators. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 42:271–87
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Barth M, Jugert P, Fritsche I. 2016. Still underdetected—Social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 37:64–77
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bateman TS, O'Connor K 2016. Felt responsibility and climate engagement: distinguishing adaptation from mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 41:206–15
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bem DJ. 1972. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6 L Berkowitz 1–62 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Berger IE. 1997. The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 29:4515–31
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bergquist M. 2020. Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: a demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42:50–61
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bernauer T, Gampfer R. 2013. Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 23:439–49
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bernauer T, Gampfer R, Meng T, Su Y-S. 2016. Could more civil society involvement increase public support for climate policy-making? Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Glob. Environ. Change 40:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Biddau F, Armenti A, Cottone P. 2016. Socio-psychological aspects of grassroots participation in the Transition Movement: an Italian case study. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 4:1142–65
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Bidwell D. 2016. Thinking through participation in renewable energy choices. Nat. Energy 1:16051
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L. 2013a. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLOS ONE 8:12e83911
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Bolderdijk JW, Jans L. 2021. Minority influence in climate change mitigation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42:25–30
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Geller ES, Lehman PK, Postmes T. 2013b. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Clim. Change 3:413–16
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Boomsma C, Steg L. 2014. The effect of information and values on acceptability of reduced street lighting. J. Environ. Psychol. 39:22–31
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Boudet HS. 2019. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4:446–55
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Bouman T, Steg L. 2019. Motivating society-wide pro-environmental change. One Earth 1:127–30
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Bouman T, Steg L, Dietz T. 2021a. Insights from early COVID-19 responses about promoting sustainable action. Nat. Sustain. 4:194–200
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Bouman T, Steg L, Johnson Zawadzki S. 2020a. The value of what others value: when perceived biospheric group values influence individuals’ pro-environmental engagement. J. Environ. Psychol. 71:101470
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Bouman T, Van der Werff E, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2021b. Environmental values and identities at the personal and group level. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:47–53
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bouman T, Verschoor M, Albers C, Böhm G, Fisher S et al. 2020b. When worry about climate change leads to climate action: how values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Glob. Environ. Change 62:102061
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Bratt C. 1999. Consumers’ environmental behavior: generalized, sector-based, or compensatory?. Environ. Behav. 31:128–44
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Brick C, Lai CK. 2018. Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 58:8–17
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Brink E, Wamsler C. 2019. Citizen engagement in climate adaptation surveyed: the role of values, worldviews, gender and place. J. Clean. Prod. 209:1342–53
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Bronfman NC, Cisternas PC, López-Vázquez E, de la Maza C, Oyanedel JC. 2015. Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 7:1014133–52
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Brosch T. 2021. Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:15–21
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Brosch T, Patel MK, Sander D. 2014. Affective influences on energy-related decisions and behaviors. Front. Energy Res. 2:11
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Brosch T, Steg L. 2021. Leveraging emotion for sustainable action. One Earth 4:121693–703
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Brügger A, Höchli B. 2019. The role of attitude strength in behavioral spillover: Attitude matters—but not necessarily as a moderator. Front. Psychol. 10:1018
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Brügger A, Morton TA, Dessai S. 2015. Hand in hand: public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation. PLOS ONE 10:4e0124843
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkings JC. 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2020–2012. Clim. Change 114:169–88
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Burger JM, Caldwell DF. 2003. The effect of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: evidence from a self-perception process. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:3235–41
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Capstick S, Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Upham P. 2015. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim. Change 6:35–61
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Carfora V, Zeiske N, Van der Werff E, Steg L, Catellani P. 2022. Adding dynamic norm to environmental information in messages promoting the reduction of meat consumption. Environ. Commun. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2062019
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Carrico AR, Raimi KT, Truelove HB, Eby B. 2018. Putting your money where your mouth is: an experimental test of pro-environmental spillover from reducing meat consumption to monetary donations. Environ. Behav. 50:7723–48
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Carrus G, Passaforo P, Bonnes M. 2008. Emotions, habits, and rational choices in ecological behaviors: the case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 28:51–62
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Cass N, Walker G, Devine-Wright P. 2010. Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. J. Environ. Plan. Policy Manag. 12:3255–75
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Chen MF. 2015. An examination of the value-belief-norm theory model in predicting pro-environmental behaviour in Taiwan. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 18:145–51
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:61015–26
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Clayton S, Devine-Wright P, Stern P, Whitmarsh L, Carrico A et al. 2015. Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5:640–46
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Collins CM, Steg L, Koning MAS. 2007. Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychol. Mark. 24:6555–77
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Conte B, Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. 2021. The dynamics of humanistic and biospheric altruism in conflicting choice environments. Pers. Individ. Differ. 173:110599
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Cornelissen G, Pandelaere M, Warlop L, Dewitte S. 2008. Positive cueing: promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. Int. J. Res. Mark. 25:146–55
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N. 2014. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. WIREs Clim. Change 5:411–22
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Creutzig F, Niamir L, Bai X, Cullen MJ, Díaz-José J et al. 2022. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of wellbeing. Nat. Clim. Change 12:36–46
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Creutzig F, Roy J, Lamb WF, Azevedo IML, Bruine de Bruin W et al. 2018. Towards demand side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8:260–63
    [Google Scholar]
  67. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 38:3318–32
    [Google Scholar]
  68. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40:3330–54
    [Google Scholar]
  69. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:368–78
    [Google Scholar]
  70. De Groot JIM, Steg L, Keizer M, Farsang A, Watt A. 2012. Environmental values in post-socialist Hungary: Is it useful to distinguish egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values?. Czech Sociol. Rev. 48:3421–40
    [Google Scholar]
  71. De Groot JIM, Steg L, Poortinga W. 2013. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal. 33:2307–17
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Delmas MA, Fischlein M, Asensio OI. 2013. Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61:729–39
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill KA, Spence A, Pidgeon NF. 2015. Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34:59–69
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P. 2003. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15:4441–72
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Dietz T. 2013. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. PNAS 110:14081–87
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Dietz T 2015. Environmental value. Oxford Handbook of Values T Brosch, D Sander 329–49 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Dietz T, Frank KA, Whitley CT, Kelly J, Kelly R 2015. Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US states. PNAS 112:278254–59
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. 2009. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. PNAS 106:4418452–56
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Dietz T, Stern PC, Weber EU. 2013. Reducing carbon-based energy consumption through changes is household behaviour. Deadalus 142:178–89
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. 2011. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 1:9462–66
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Dogan E, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2014. Making small numbers count: environmental and financial feedback in promoting eco-driving behaviours. J. Consum. Policy 37:413–22
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Drews S, Van den Bergh JCJM. 2016. What explains public support for climate policies ? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy 16:7855–76
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Eisner L, Turner-Zwinkels F, Spini D. 2021. The impact of laws on norms perceptions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47:71071–83
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Eliasson J. 2014. The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 67:81–95
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Evensen D, Demski C, Becker S, Pidgeon N. 2018. The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK. Appl. Energy 222:451–59
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Falk A, Szech N. 2013. Morals and markets. Science 340:6133707–11
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Farrow K, Grolleau G, Ibanez L. 2017. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Feather NT. 1995. Values, valences, and choice: the influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68:61135–51
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Fielding KS, Hornsey MJ. 2016. A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front. Psychol. 7:121
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Flammer C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: the environmental awareness of investors. Acad. Manag. J. 56:3758–81
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Flannery BL, May DR. 2000. Environmental ethical decision making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Acad. Manag. J. 43:642–62
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Frey BS. 1997. Not Just for the Money: A Theory of Personal Motivation Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Fujii S, Gärling T, Kitamura R. 2001. Changes in drivers’ perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environ. Behav. 33:796–808
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Gadenne DL, Kennedy J, McKeiver C. 2009. An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 84:145–63
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Gärling T, Fujii S, Gärling A, Jakobsson C. 2003. Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Gatersleben B, Murtagh N, Abrahamse W. 2014. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 9:4374–92
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C. 2002. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ. Behav. 34:3335–62
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Geiger J. 2020. Context matters: three ways of how the context influences recycling behaviour PhD Thesis Univ. Groningen Groningen, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Geiger J, Steg L, Van der Werff E, Ünal AB. 2019. A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. J. Environ. Psychol. 64:78–97
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Gneezy U, Rustichini A. 2000. A fine is a price. J. Legal Stud. 29:11–18
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Gomes GM, Moreira N, Bouman T, Ometto AR, Van der Werff E. 2022. Towards circular economy for more sustainable apparel consumption: Testing the Value-Belief-Norm theory in Brazil and the Netherlands. Sustainability 14:2618
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Graham T, Abrahamse W. 2017. Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: the effect of values and message framing. Glob. Environ. Change 44:98–108
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Greenhill B, Dolsak N, Prakash A. 2018. Exploring the adaptation-mitigation relationship: Does information on the costs of adapting to climate change influence support for mitigation?. Environ. Commun. 12:7911–27
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B. 2010. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98:392–404
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Gross C. 2007. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35:2727–36
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Grübler A, Wilson C, Bento N, Boza-Kiss B, Krey D et al. 2018. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5°C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3:6515–27
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T. 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 27:699–718
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Hackmann H, Moser SC, St. Clair AS. 2014. The social heart of global environmental change. Nat. Clim. Change 4:653–55
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. 2016. Seeing green: a perceptual model of identity-based climate change judgments. Psychol. Inq. 27:4310–18
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. 2018. Environmental trait affect. J. Environ. Psychol. 59:94–106
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Hahnel UJJ, Mumenthaler C, Brosch T. 2020. Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide. Clim. Change 161:9–19
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Hahnel UJJ, Ortmann C, Korcaj L, Spada H. 2014. What is green worth to you? Activating environmental values lowers price sensitivity towards electric vehicles. J. Environ. Psychol. 40:306–19
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Hanel PHP, Wolfradt U, Lins de Holanda Coelho G, Wolf LJ, Vilar R et al. 2018. The perception of family, city, and country values is often biased. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49:831–50
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Hansen N, Postmes T, Tovote KA, Bos A. 2014. How modernization instigates social change: laptop usage as a driver of cultural value change and gender equality in a developing country. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 45:1229–48
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Hargreaves T, Nye M, Burgess J. 2008. Social experiments in sustainable consumption: an evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-income communities. Local Environ. 13:8743–58
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke H. 1999. Explaining proenvironmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:2505–28
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Heath Y, Gifford R. 2006. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ. Behav. 38:48–71
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Hiratsuka J, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2018. Testing VBN theory in Japan: relationships between values, beliefs, norms, and acceptability and expected effects of a car pricing policy. Transportation Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 53:74–83
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Hitlin S, Piliavin JA. 2004. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:359–93
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Honkanen P, Verplanken B. 2004. Understanding attitudes towards genetically modified food: the role of values and attitude strength. J. Consum. Policy 27:401–20
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS. 2016. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6:6622–26
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Hunecke M, Blöbaum A, Matthies E, Höger R. 2001. Responsibility and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environ. Behav. 33:830–52
    [Google Scholar]
  124. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switz.: IPCC
    [Google Scholar]
  125. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2018. Special report: global warming of 1.5°C. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change Geneva, Switz: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
    [Google Scholar]
  126. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2022a. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Geneva, Switz: IPCC
    [Google Scholar]
  127. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2022b. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Geneva, Switz: IPCC
    [Google Scholar]
  128. ISSC (Int. Soc. Sci. Counc.), UNESCO 2013. World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments Paris: OECD
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Ivanova D, Barrett J, Wiedenhofer D, Macura B, Callaghan M, Creutzig F. 2020. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:9093001
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Jakovcevic A, Steg L. 2013. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 20:70–79
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Jans L. 2021. Changing environmental behaviour from the bottom up: The formation of pro-environmental social identities. J. Environ. Psychol. 73:101531
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Jans L, Fielding KS 2019. The role of group processes in environmental issues, attitudes and behaviours. Environmental Psychology: An Introduction L Steg, JIM de Groot 228–37 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A. 2010. Green consumer behavior: determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 27:4358–70
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A. 2011. Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement eco-innovation using value-belief-norm theory. J. Consum. Behav. 10:51–60
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Jensen CB., Spoon JJ. 2011. Testing the “party matters” thesis: explaining progress towards Kyoto Protocol targets. Political Stud. 59:199–115
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Jia L, Van der Linden S. 2020. Green but not altruistic warm-glow predicts conservation behavior. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:e211
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Johnson Zawadzki S, Steg L, Bouman T 2020. Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:12123007
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Karlin B, Zinger JF, Ford R. 2015. The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:61205–27
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Kashima Y, Paladino A, Margetts EA. 2014. Environmentalist identity and environmental striving. J. Environ. Psychol. 38:64–75
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Kastner I, Matthies E. 2016. Investments in renewable energies by German households: a matter of economics, social influences and ecological concern?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Kastner I, Stern PC. 2015. Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10:72–89
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Keizer M, Sargission R, Van Zomeren M, Steg L. 2019. When personal norms predict the acceptability of push and pull car-reduction policies: testing the ABC model and low-cost hypothesis. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 64:413–23
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Kinzig AP, Ehrlich PR, Alston LJ, Arrow K, Barrett S et al. 2013. Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63:3164–75
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Koessler A-K, Engel S. 2021. Policies as information carriers: how environmental policies may change beliefs and consequent behavior. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 15:1–21–31
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Kok R, Benders R, Moll H. 2006. Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy 34:2744–61
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Kopelman S, Weber JM, Messick DM 2002. Factors influencing cooperation in commons dilemmas: a review of experimental psychological research. The Drama of the Commons E Ostrom, T Dietz, N Dolsak, PC Stern, S Stonich, EU Weber 113–56 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Kraft P, Rise J, Sutton S, Roysamb E. 2005. Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behavior: perceived behavioral control or affective attitude?. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 44:479–96
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Lacasse K. 2015. The importance of being green. Environ. Behav. 47:7754–81
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Lacasse K. 2016. Don't be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label. J. Environ. Psychol. 48:149–58
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Leer Jøgersen M, Anker HT, Lassen J. 2020. Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: the role of compensation schemes. Energy Policy 138:111294
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Marlon J, Maibach E 2021. Global warming's six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:97–103
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Levinston Z, Uren HV. 2020. Overestimating one's “green” behavior: Better-than-average bias may function to reduce perceived personal threat from climate change. J. Soc. Issues 76:170–85
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Lind HB, Nordfjærn T, Jøgensen SH, Rundmo T. 2015. The value-belief-norm theory, personal norms and sustainable travel mode choice in urban areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 44:119–25
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Lindenberg S, Steg L 2013. What makes organizations in market democracies adopt environmentally-friendly policies?. Green Organizations: Driving Change with IO Psychology AH Huffman, SR Klein 93–114 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Liu L, Bouman T, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2019. Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53:137–44
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Liu L, Bouman T, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2020a. Effects of competence- and integrity-based trust on public acceptability of renewable energy projects in China and the Netherlands. J. Environ. Psychol. 67:101390
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Liu L, Bouman T, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2020b. Public participation in decision making, perceived procedural fairness and public acceptability of renewable energy projects. Energy Clim. Change 1:100013
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Loebnitz N, Schuitma G, Grunert KG. 2015. Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychol. Mark. 32:4408–21
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Lokhorst AM, Werner C, Staats H, Van Dijk E, Gale JL. 2013. Commitment and behavior change: a meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research. Environ. Behav. 45:3–34
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Lönnqvist JE, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Verkasalo M. 2011. Personal values before and after migration: a longitudinal case study on value change in Ingrian-Finnish migrants. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2:584–91
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Lopez-Mosquera N, Sánchez M. 2012. Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. J. Environ. Manag. 113:251–62
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Macdiarmid JI, Douglas F, Campbell J. 2016. Eating like there is no tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96:487–93
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Maio GR. 2010. Mental representations of social values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology MP Zanna 1–43 San Diego, CA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Maio GR, Olson JM 1998. Values as truisms: evidence and implications. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74:294–311
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Maki A, Carrico AR, Raimi KT, Truelove HB, Arounjo B, Yeung KL. 2019. Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat. Sustain. 2:307–15
    [Google Scholar]
  166. McDonald S, Oates CJ, Thyne M, Timmis AJ, Carlile C. 2015. Flying in the face of environmental concern: why green consumers continue to fly. J. Mark. Manag. 31:1503–28
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Kniebes C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U. 2015. Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim. Change 130:2299–312
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Michaels L, Parag Y. 2016. Motivations and barriers to integrating “presuming” services into the future decentralized electricity grid: findings from Israel. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21:70–83
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Middlemiss L. 2011. The effects of community-based action for sustainability on participants’ lifestyles. Local Environ. 16:3265–80
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Mildenberger M, Lubell M, Hummel M. 2019. Personalized risk messaging can reduce climate concerns. Glob. Environ. Change 55:15–24
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Mildenberger M, Tingley D. 2019. Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. Br. J. Political Sci. 49:41279–307
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck H-J, Martzke J. 2006. Stabilizing the Earth's climate is not a losing game: supporting evidence from public goods experiments. PNAS 103:113994–98
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Mortensen CR, Neel R, Cialdini RB, Jaeger CM, Jacobson RP, Ringel MM. 2019. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10:2201–10
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Namazkhan M, Albers C, Steg L. 2019. The role of environmental values, socio-demographics and building characteristics in setting room temperatures in winter. Energy 171:1183–92
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Namazkhan M, Albers C, Steg L. 2020. A decision tree method for explaining household gas consumption: the role of building characteristics, socio-demographic variables, psychological factors and household behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 119:109542
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Natl. Res. Counc 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Niles MT, Brown B, Dynes R. 2016. Farmer's intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Clim. Change 135:277–95
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:7913–23
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Noppers EH, Keizer KE, Bockarjova M, Steg L. 2015. The adoption of sustainable innovations: the role of instrumental, environmental, and symbolic attributes for earlier and later adopters. J. Environ. Psychol. 44:74–84
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Noppers EH, Keizer KE, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2014. The adoption of sustainable innovations: driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Glob. Environ. Change 25:52–62
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Noppers EH, Keizer K, Milovanovic M, Steg L. 2016. The importance of instrumental, symbolic, and environmental attributes for the adoption of smart energy systems. Energy Policy 98:12–18
    [Google Scholar]
  182. Noppers E, Keizer K, Milovanovic M, Steg L. 2019. The role of adoption norms and perceived product attributes in the adoption of Dutch electric vehicles and smart energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57:101237
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 2002. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 34:740–56
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 2003. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:339–47
    [Google Scholar]
  185. Odou P, Schill M. 2020. How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change. J. Bus. Res. 121:243–53
    [Google Scholar]
  186. Onwezen MC, Antonides G, Bartels J. 2013. The Norm Activation Model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 39:141–53
    [Google Scholar]
  187. Osbaldiston R, Sheldon KM. 2003. Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: a prospective study of environmental goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:349–57
    [Google Scholar]
  188. Palm A. 2017. Peer effects in residential solar photovoltaics adoption: a mixed method study of Swedish users. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  189. Patz JA, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley JA. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438:310–17
    [Google Scholar]
  190. Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Green-Demers I, Noels K, Beaton AM. 1998. Why are you doing things for the environment? The Motivation Toward the Environment Scale (MTES). J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28:437–68
    [Google Scholar]
  191. Perlaviciute G, Squintani L. 2020. Public participation in climate policy making: toward reconciling public preferences and legal frameworks. One Earth 2:4341–48
    [Google Scholar]
  192. Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2014. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35:361–81
    [Google Scholar]
  193. Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2015. The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renew. Energy 77::259–67
    [Google Scholar]
  194. Perlaviciute G, Steg L, Contzen N, Roeser S, Huijts N. 2018. Emotional responses to energy projects: insights for responsible decision making in a sustainable energy transition. Sustainability 10:2526
    [Google Scholar]
  195. Perlaviciute G, Steg L, Sovacool B. 2021. A perspective on the human dimensions of a transition to net-zero energy systems. Energy Clim. Change 2:100042
    [Google Scholar]
  196. Peters AM, Van der Werff E, Steg L. 2018. Beyond purchasing: electric vehicle adoption motivations and consistent sustainable energy behaviour in The Netherlands. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39:234–47
    [Google Scholar]
  197. Rahmstorf S. 2004. The climate sceptics Rep. Potsdam Inst. Clim. Impact Res. Potsdam, Ger: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/∼stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  198. Rai V, Reeves DC, Margolis R. 2016. Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV. Renew. Energy 89:498–505
    [Google Scholar]
  199. Rees JH, Klug S, Bamberg S. 2015. Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Clim. Change 130:439–52
    [Google Scholar]
  200. Reinders AHME, Vringer K, Blok K. 2003. The direct and indirect energy requirement of households in the European Union. Energy Policy 31:139–53
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bodin J. 2015. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 34:122–36
    [Google Scholar]
  202. Rickards L, Wiseman J, Kashima Y. 2014. Barriers to effective climate change mitigation: the case of senior government and business decision makers. WIREs Clim. Change 5:753–73
    [Google Scholar]
  203. Rode JB, Dent AL, Benedict CN, Brosnahan DB, Martinez RL, Ditto PH. 2021. Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 76:101623
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Ruepert AM, Keizer K, Steg L. 2017. The relationship between Corporate Environmental Responsibility, employees’ biospheric values and pro-environmental behaviour at work. J. Environ. Psychol. 54:65–78
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Ruepert AM, Keizer K, Steg L, Maricchiolo F, Carrus G et al. 2016. Environmental considerations in the organizational context: a pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17:59–70
    [Google Scholar]
  206. Ruepert AM, Steg L, Keizer K 2015. Theoretical basis for organizational pro-environmental research. The Psychology of Green Organizations JL Robertson, J Barling 33–57 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  207. Sælen H, Kallbekken S. 2011. A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway. Ecol. Econ. 70:112181–90
    [Google Scholar]
  208. Sanderson R, Prentice M, Wolf L, Weinstein N, Kasser T, Crompton T. 2019. Strangers in a strange land: relations between perceptions of others’ values and both civic engagement and cultural estrangement. Front. Psychol. 10:559
    [Google Scholar]
  209. Sargisson RJ, De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2020. The relationship between sociodemographics and environmental values across seven European countries. Front. Psychol. 11:2253
    [Google Scholar]
  210. Scherbaum CA, Popovich PM, Finlinson S. 2008. Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38:3818–35
    [Google Scholar]
  211. Schuitema G, Anable J, Skippon S, Kinnear N. 2013. The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 48:39–49
    [Google Scholar]
  212. Schuitema G, De Groot JIM. 2015. Green consumerism: the influence of product attributes on purchasing intentions. J. Consum. Behav. 14:157–69
    [Google Scholar]
  213. Schuitema G, Steg L. 2008. The role of revenue use in the acceptability of transport pricing policies. Transp. Res. Part F: Psychol. Behav. 11:221–31
    [Google Scholar]
  214. Schuitema G, Steg L, Forward S. 2010. Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44:99–109
    [Google Scholar]
  215. Schuitema G, Steg L, Van Kruining M. 2011. When are transport policies fair and acceptable? The role of six fairness principles. Soc. Justice Res. 24:66–84
    [Google Scholar]
  216. Schultz PW, Estrada M, Schmitt J., Sokoloski R, Silva-Send N. 2015. Using in-home displays to provide smart meter feedback about household electricity consumption: a randomized control trial comparing kilowatts, cost, and social norms. Energy 90:1351–58
    [Google Scholar]
  217. Schultz PW, Nolan J, Cialdini R, Goldstein N, Griskevicius V. 2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18:429–34
    [Google Scholar]
  218. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC. 1998. Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29:540–58
    [Google Scholar]
  219. Schwartz D, Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Lave L. 2015. Advertising energy saving programs: the potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21:158–66
    [Google Scholar]
  220. Schwartz SH 1992. Universals in the content and structures of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 25 M Zanna 1–65 Orlando, FL: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  221. Sharpe E, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2021. Pro-environmental behaviour and support for environmental policy as expressions of pro-environmental motivation. J. Environ. Psychol. 76:101650
    [Google Scholar]
  222. Sharpe E, Rupert A, Van der Werff E, Steg L. 2022. Corporate environmental responsibility leads to more pro-environmental behavior at work by strengthening intrinsic pro-environmental motivation. One Earth 5:7751–53
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Sheldon KM. 2005. Positive value change during college: normative trends and individual differences. J. Res. Pers. 39:209–23
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. 2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J. Risk Res. 4:175–101
    [Google Scholar]
  225. Sloot D, Jans L, Steg L. 2018. Can community energy initiatives motivate sustainable energy behaviours? The role of initiative involvement and personal pro-environmental motivation. . J. Environ. Psychol. 57:99–106
    [Google Scholar]
  226. Sloot D, Jans L, Steg L. 2019. In it for the money, the environment, or the community? Motives for being involved in community energy initiatives. Global Environ. Change 57:101936
    [Google Scholar]
  227. Smith N, Leiserowitz AA. 2014. The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal. 34:937–48
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Sohlberg J. 2017. The effect of elite polarization: a comparative perspective on how party elites influence attitudes and behavior on climate change in the European Union. Sustainability 9:39
    [Google Scholar]
  229. Sparkman G, Walton GM. 2017. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28:111663–74
    [Google Scholar]
  230. Sparkman G, Walton GM. 2019. Witnessing change: Dynamic norms help resolve diverse barriers to personal change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 82:238–52
    [Google Scholar]
  231. Sparkman G, Weitz E, Robinson TN, Malhotra N, Walton GM. 2020. Developing a scalable dynamic norm menu-based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability 12:62453
    [Google Scholar]
  232. Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM 2004. Effecting durable change: a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ. Behav. 36:341–67
    [Google Scholar]
  233. Steg L. 2005. Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 39:2–3147–62
    [Google Scholar]
  234. Steg L. 2016. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:277–92
    [Google Scholar]
  235. Steg L. 2018. Limiting climate change requires research on climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 8:759–61
    [Google Scholar]
  236. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer KE, Perlaviciute G. 2014a. An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38:104–15
    [Google Scholar]
  237. Steg L, De Groot JIM 2012. Environmental values. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology S Clayton 81–92 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  238. Steg L, De Groot JIM, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F. 2011. General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24:4349–67
    [Google Scholar]
  239. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25:4415–25
    [Google Scholar]
  240. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 2006. Why are energy policies acceptable and effective?. Environ. Behav. 38:192–111
    [Google Scholar]
  241. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, Sovacool BK, Bonaiuto M, Diekmann A et al. 2021. A research agenda to better understand the human dimensions of energy transitions. Front. Psychol. 12:672776
    [Google Scholar]
  242. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, Van der Werff E, Lurvink J. 2014b. The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ. Behav. 46:2):163–92
    [Google Scholar]
  243. Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56:3407–24
    [Google Scholar]
  244. Stern PC, Aronson E, Darley JM, Hill DH, Hirst E et al. 1986. The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy conservation. Eval. Rev. 10:147–76
    [Google Scholar]
  245. Stern PC, Dietz T. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50:365–84
    [Google Scholar]
  246. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. 1999. A Value-Belief-Norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6:81–95
    [Google Scholar]
  247. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. 1998. A brief inventory of values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58:6L984–1001
    [Google Scholar]
  248. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano GA. 1995. Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:1611–36
    [Google Scholar]
  249. Stern PC, Janda KB, Brown MA, Steg L, Vine EL, Lutzenhiser L. 2016. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1:516043
    [Google Scholar]
  250. Stern PC, Oskamp S 1987. Managing scarce environmental resources. Handbook of Environmental Psychology D Stokols, I Altman 1044–88 New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  251. Stoll-Kleemann S, Schmidt UJ. 2017. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg. Environ. Change 17:1261–77
    [Google Scholar]
  252. Taufik D, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2015. Acting green elicits a literal “warm glow. .” Nat. Clim. Change 5:37–40
    [Google Scholar]
  253. Taufik D, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2016. Going green? The relative importance of feelings over calculation in driving environmental intent in the Netherlands and the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22:52–62
    [Google Scholar]
  254. Taylor AL, Dessai S, Bruine de Bruin W. 2014. Public perception of climate risk and adaptation in the UK: a review of the literature. Clim. Risk Manag. 4–5:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  255. Tebini H, M'Zali B, Lang P, Perez-Gladish B 2016. The economic impact of environmentally responsible practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 23:5333–44
    [Google Scholar]
  256. Ter Mors E, Terwel BW, Daamen DDL. 2012. The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 11:S130–38
    [Google Scholar]
  257. Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL. 2010. Voice in political decision making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 16:2173–86
    [Google Scholar]
  258. Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL. 2011. Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: how trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 5:181–88
    [Google Scholar]
  259. Terwel BW, Ter Mors E, Daamen DDL 2012. It's not only about safety: beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 9:41–51
    [Google Scholar]
  260. Thøgersen J. 2009. Promoting public transport as a subscription service: effects of a free month travel card. Transp. Policy 16:6335–43
    [Google Scholar]
  261. Thøgersen J, Crompton T. 2009. Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. J. Consum. Policy 32:141–63
    [Google Scholar]
  262. Thøgersen J, Noblet C. 2012. Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?. Energy Policy 51:854–62
    [Google Scholar]
  263. Thøgersen J, Ölander F. 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J. Econ. Psychol. 23:605–30
    [Google Scholar]
  264. Thøgersen J, Ölander F. 2003. Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:3225–36
    [Google Scholar]
  265. Tiefenbeck V, Goette L, Degen K, Tasic V, Fleisch E et al. 2016. Overcoming salience bias: how real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Manag. Sci. 64:31458–76
    [Google Scholar]
  266. Tolppanen S, Kang J. 2020. The effect of values on carbon footprint and attitudes towards proenvironmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 282:124524
    [Google Scholar]
  267. Turner JC. 1991. Social Influence Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  268. Ünal AB, Steg L, Gorsira M. 2018. Values versus environmental knowledge as triggers of a process of activation of personal norms for eco-driving. Environ. Behav. 50:1092–118
    [Google Scholar]
  269. Ünal AB, Steg L, Granskaya J. 2019. Testing the VBN theory in predicting support for car-use reduction policies in Russia. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 119:73–81
    [Google Scholar]
  270. Van den Broek K, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2017. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 53:145–56
    [Google Scholar]
  271. Van der Linden S. 2015. Intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 5:612–13
    [Google Scholar]
  272. Van der Linden S. 2018. Warm glow is associated with low-but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1:28–30
    [Google Scholar]
  273. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 2013a. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 34:55–63
    [Google Scholar]
  274. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 2013b. It is a moral issue: the relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1258–65
    [Google Scholar]
  275. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 2014a. Follow the signal: when past pro-environmental actions signal who you are. J. Environ. Psychol. 40:273–82
    [Google Scholar]
  276. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 2014b. I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behaviour on environmental self-identity. Environ. Behav. 46:5626–57
    [Google Scholar]
  277. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Ruepert A. 2021. My company is green, so am I: the relationship between perceived environmental responsibility of organizations and government, environmental self-identity, and pro-environmental behaviours. Energy Effic. 14:50
    [Google Scholar]
  278. Van Rensburg W. 2015. Climate change scepticism: a conceptual re-evaluation. SAGE Open 5:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015579723
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  279. Van Valkengoed A, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 2021. Development and validation of a climate change perceptions scale. J. Environ. Psychol. 76:101652
    [Google Scholar]
  280. Van Valkengoed A, Steg L. 2019. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 9:158–63
    [Google Scholar]
  281. Van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat DE, Van Den Berg M, Bijl DL et al. 2018. Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8:5391–97
    [Google Scholar]
  282. Venhoeven LA, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2013. Explaining the paradox: how pro-environmental behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability 5:1372–86
    [Google Scholar]
  283. Venhoeven LA, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2016. Why acting environmentally-friendly feels good: exploring the role of self-image. Front. Psychol. 7:1846
    [Google Scholar]
  284. Venhoeven L, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 2020. Why going green feels good. J. Environ. Psychol. 71:101492
    [Google Scholar]
  285. Verplanken B, Holland RW. 2002. Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82:434–47
    [Google Scholar]
  286. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. 2012. Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 46:292–300
    [Google Scholar]
  287. Vlek C, Steg L. 2007. Human behavior and environmental sustainability: problems, driving forces and research topics. J. Soc. Issues 63:11–19
    [Google Scholar]
  288. Walker C, Baxter J. 2017. Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: a comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29:160–69
    [Google Scholar]
  289. Wang S, Leviston Z, Hurlstone M, Lawrence C, Walker L. 2018. Emotions predict policy support: why it matters how people feel about climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 50:25–40
    [Google Scholar]
  290. Wang X, Van der Werff E, Bouman T, Harder MK, Steg L. 2021. I am versus we are: how biospheric values and environmental identity of individuals and groups can influence pro-environmental behaviour. Front. Psychol. 12:618956
    [Google Scholar]
  291. Weber EU. 2015. Climate change demands behavioral change: What are the challenges?. Soc. Res. Int. Q. 82:3561–80
    [Google Scholar]
  292. Weber EU. 2018. Perception matters: the pitfalls of misperceiving psychological barriers to climate policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13:4508–11
    [Google Scholar]
  293. White LV, Sintov ND. 2017. You are what you drive: Environmentalist and social innovator symbolism drives electric vehicle adoption intentions. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 99:94–113
    [Google Scholar]
  294. Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S. 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:305–14
    [Google Scholar]
  295. Wolske KS, Gillingham KT, Schultz PW. 2020. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat. Energy 5:202–12
    [Google Scholar]
  296. Wolske KS, Stern PC 2018. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change: opportunities through consumer behavior. Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts, and Responses S Clayton, C Manning 127–60 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  297. Wolske KS, Stern PC, Dietz T. 2017. Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25:134–51
    [Google Scholar]
  298. Young W, Davis M, McNeill IM, Malhotra B, Russell S et al. 2015. Changing behaviour: successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Bus. Strategy Environ. 24:8689–703
    [Google Scholar]
  299. Zaal MP, Terwel BW, Ter Mors E, Daamen DDL 2014. Monetary compensation can increase public support for the siting of hazardous facilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 37:21–30
    [Google Scholar]
  300. Zawadzki SJ, Bouman T, Steg L, Bojarskich V, Druen PB. 2020. Translating climate beliefs into action in a changing political landscape. Clim. Change 161:21–42
    [Google Scholar]
  301. Zeiske N. 2021. The intrinsic route to pro-environmental behaviour PhD Thesis Univ. Groningen Groningen, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  302. Zeiske N, Venhoeven L, Steg L, Van der Werff E. 2021. The normative route to a sustainable future: Examining children's environmental values, identity and personal norms to conserve energy. Environ. Behav. 53:101118–39
    [Google Scholar]
  303. Zhang Y, Wang Z, Zhou G. 2013. Antecedents of employee electricity saving behavior in organizations: an empirical study based on norm activation model. Energy Policy 62:1120–27
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error