Content uploaded by Eva-Lotta Sundblad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eva-Lotta Sundblad on Nov 22, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments:
An 18-nation study
Robert Gifford
a
,
*
, Leila Scannell
a
, Christine Kormos
a
, Lidia Smolova
b
, Anders Biel
c
, Stefan Boncu
d
,
Victor Corral
e
, Hartmut Gu
¨ntherf
f
, Kazunori Hanyu
g
, Donald Hine
h
, Florian G. Kaiser
i
,
Kalevi Korpela
j
, Luisa Marie Lima
k
, Angela G. Mertig
l
, Ricardo Garcia Mira
m
, Gabriel Moser
n
,
Paola Passafaro
o
, Jose
´Q. Pinheiro
p
, Sunil Saini
q
, Toshihiko Sako
r
, Elena Sautkina
s
, Yannick Savina
n
,
Peter Schmuck
t
, Wesley Schultz
u
, Karin Sobeck
t
, Eva-Lotta Sundblad
c
, David Uzzell
v
a
University of Victoria, Canada
b
St. Petersburg, Russia
c
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
d
University of Ias¸i, Romania
e
Universidad de Sonora, Mexico
f
Universidade de Brası
´lia, Brazil
g
Nihon University, Japan
h
University of New England, Australia
i
Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
j
University of Tampere, Finland
k
Instituto Superior de Cie
ˆncias do Trabalho e da Empresa (ISCTE)
l
Middle Tennessee State University, United States of America
m
Universidade da Corun
˜a, Spain
n
Paris Descartes University, France
o
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
p
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
q
Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, India
r
Waseda University, Japan
s
Higher Institute of Business and Labour Sciences, Portugal
t
Berlin University of Technology, Germany
u
California State University, United States of America
v
University of Surrey, United Kingdom
article info
Article history:
Available online 25 June 2008
Keywords:
Environmental optimism
Environmental pessimism
International
Cross-cultural
abstract
The personal assessments of the current and expected future state of the environment by 3232 com-
munity respondents in 18 nations were investigated at the local, national, and global spatial levels. These
assessments were compared to a ranking of each country’s environmental quality by an expert panel.
Temporal pessimism (‘‘things will get worse’’) was found in the assessments at all three spatial levels.
Spatial optimism bias (‘‘things are better here than there’’) was found in the assessments of current
environmental conditions in 15 of 18 countries, but not in the assessments of the future. All countries
except one exhibited temporal pessimism, but significant differences between them were common.
Evaluations of current environmental conditions also differed by country. Citizens’ assessments of cur-
rent conditions, and the degree of comparative optimism, were strongly correlated with the expert
panel’s assessments of national environmental quality. Aside from the value of understanding global
trends in environmental assessments, the results have important implications for environmental policy
and risk management strategies.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental problems plague all countries and damage to
interdependent ecosystems has multiplicative effects and
international implications. The attitudes of individual citizens are
importantly linked to these outcomes. For example, citizens’ per-
ceptions of risks can influence the acceptance of governments’
*Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, P.O.
Box 3050, Victoria BC V8W 3P5, Canada. Tel.: þ1-250-721-7532.
E-mail address: rgifford@uvic.ca (R. Gifford).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001
Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12
environmental policies (Steg & Sievers, 2000) and whether or not
people choose to act pro-environmentally (e.g., Weinstein, 1980).
Fortunately, concern about environmental problems now is wide-
spread. As Dunlap, Gallup, and Gallup (1993: 10) observe, ‘‘envi-
ronmental issues have penetrated the public agendas of all of the
nations,’’ and this certainly has accelerated with the recent pro-
nouncements about the certainty of climate change. Nevertheless,
environmental attitudes and concern are far from uniform across
countries (Franzen, 2003; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999) and more
research is needed to understand the ways inwhich environmental
attitudes differ around the globe. This knowledge is valuable if
policy-makers hope to understand these attitudes in order to suc-
cessfully promote pro-environmental behavior. Therefore,
international environmental attitude research is an important step
towards achieving the goal of global sustainability.
For the most part, environmental attitudes and behaviors have
been studied at the level of each person’s immediate surround-
ings (Steg & Sievers, 2000). However, while the global environ-
ment encompasses much more than most individuals can
comprehend, the global ecology ultimately is a function of the
everyday environment-relevant acts of the billions of individuals
on the planet. Although a few studies have shown that environ-
mental attitudes vary, for example, with the distance from a per-
son to a problem (Musson, 1974; Uzzell, 2000), more research is
needed to better understand this phenomenon. The purpose of
this study was to investigate the assessments of environmental
conditions at different spatial and temporal levels by a large in-
ternational sample.
1. Optimism biases
Optimism is subject to self-favoring biases. For instance, com-
parative optimism refers to the belief that positive events are more
likely, and negative events are less likely, to happen to oneself than
to others. Unrealistic optimism is the erroneous expectation of
a positive outcome and is associated with information-processing
biases and maladaptive coping styles (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002). Most
optimism bias research has been conducted on health issues, such
as that on personal estimates of heart attack risk (Weinstein, 1980).
Radcliffe and Klein (2002) suggest, however, that the types and
levels of optimism might be different in other domains, and thus
should be considered.
1.1. Environmental comparative optimism
In general, individuals seem to believe that, in environmental
terms, they are safer than others. For example, residents who had
not tested their homes for radon contamination believed that they
were less at risk than their neighbors (Weinstein, Sandman, & Klotz,
1988). More recently, residents were found to believe that their
local area was less likely to be affected by environmental hazards
than the local area of their peers (Hatfield & Job, 2001). In another
study, respondents believed they were less subject to danger from
22 environmental risks, as measured by the Environmental
Appraisal Inventory (Schmidt & Gifford, 1989), than were compa-
rable others (Pahl, Harris, Todd, & Rutter, 2005).
Comparative optimism is a useful construct for identifying bia-
ses because sub-mean risk assessments by the majority of a sample
necessarily indicates bias: not everyone can be less at risk than
most others (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002). An international study which
includes countries that vary in objective environmental quality
should usefully enhance understanding of biases in environmental
optimism and pessimism. Comparative optimism may be accurate
in the case of countries that have less degraded environments by
objective measure or expert assessment, but inaccurate if it occurs
in countries with objectively more-degraded environments. How-
ever, the occurrence of comparative optimism in most or all nations
would support the idea that the optimism bias is universal, or
nearly so.
In the health domain, the perceived risk of heart attack, when
compared to the objective risk, is subject to unrealistic optimism
(Kreuter & Strecher, 1995). However, similar comparisons in the
environmental domain have not been studied as much, especially
at the larger scale. Dunlap et al. (1993) speculated that lay
assessments of national environmental quality might correspond to
objective national environmental quality. The results from a study
conducted in Britain are consistent with this notion: the objective
number of beach pollutants was the strongest predictor of
individuals’ ratings of beach quality (Bonaiuto,Breakwell, & Cano,
1996). However, other studies have revealed important discrep-
ancies between perceived and actual environmental quality (e.g.,
Kweon, Ellis, Lee, & Rogers, 2006). Clearly, more research on com-
parative optimism in the environmental domain is needed.
1.2. Spatial bias
For the most part, comparative optimism has focused on self-
other (person-oriented) comparisons, and so studies of environ-
mental risk perception have tended to focus on these differences
(e.g., Hatfield & Job, 2001; Pahl et al., 2005). However, compar-
ative optimism can also be examined in terms of geographic
distance. In its spatial form, it is the tendency to view proximal
conditions more favorably than distal conditions. In the first
small demonstration of this, Musson (1974) examined assess-
ments of overpopulation in the UK and found in a survey of five
communities that although 74% of her respondents believed that
Great Britain as a whole was overpopulated, only 48% viewed
their own local area as overpopulated. More recent international
studies report that assessed environmental quality decreased, or
environmental problems increase, as the spatial level increase
from the local, to the national, to the global level (Dunlap et al.,
1993; Schultz et al., 2005; Uzzell, 2000).
1.3. Temporal bias
Discounting theory asserts that as social, spatial, or temporal
units from the perceiver increase, the importance of the problem
decreases (Gattig, 2002). Temporal biases seem particularly
important because ecological problems characteristically occur
slowly and have long-lasting consequences. Temporal discounting
has been found to be less common (although still present) for
some environmental risks (Bo
¨hm & Pfister, 2005). Unfortunately,
few studies have investigated temporal biases for multiple risks or
at the international level. One such investigation (Dunlap et al.,
1993) examined the degree to which respondents believed that
environmental problems affected their own health 10 years ear-
lier, currently, and in 25 years. In all countries, most respondents
believed that environmental problems would pose a serious
threat to the health of their family over the following quarter
century.
2. Cultural differences and optimism
Optimism may guide individuals and societies towards success,
provided that chosen goals are attainable and real risks are not
ignored. According to Peterson (2000), optimism is an inherent
part of human nature that has made the growth of civilization
possible, and so all contemporary cultures should possess a ten-
dency to be generally optimistic. Nevertheless, Chang (2001) has
shown that optimism and pessimism differ in Eastern and
Western cultures. Peterson notes that desired outcomes are not
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–122
universal; because cultures hold different primary goals and
values, they are differentially optimistic about particular topics.
For example, a culture that values material success may be more
optimistic about the economy, whereas a culture that highly
values the environment may display more environmental
optimism.
Similarly, culture shapes individuals’ environmental risk per-
ception and preferences for risk management strategies (Douglas &
Wildavsky, 1982). For instance, individuals’ conceptualizations of
environmental risk have been shown to arise from a ‘‘myth of
nature’’ to which their culture commonly subscribes (Lima & Castro,
2005; Steg & Sievers, 2000). Variations in cultural values may result
in differing assessments of environmental quality and optimism
from nation to nation. As Chang (2001: 276) asserts, ‘‘any model of
optimism and pessimism that ignores the influence of culture is
likely to be incomplete.’’
In light of the conflicting data about whether nations or cultures
differ in their levels of environmental concern, this issue warrants
further study. For instance, Inglehart (1995) claimed that richer
countries have greater environmental concern. In support of this,
Franzen (2003) found that environmental concern in 26 countries
was ‘‘strongly’’ related to national wealth. However, Dunlap et al.
(1993) compared industrialized and developing nations, and found
different results. Not only were environmental issues mentioned
among the top three most-important issues to respondents in 16
countries, but also these issues were mentioned more frequently
than expected in developing countries. In fact, respondents from
developing countries actually expressed higher levels of concern
about environmental problems than did respondents from
industrialized nations.
2.1. The present study
This study expands knowledge about temporal, spatial, and
national trends in assessments by citizens of numerous countries
about current and future environmental conditions, and compares
their assessments with experts’ quasi-objective assessments of
environmental quality. Respondents in 18 countries were asked to
judge 20 aspects of the environment at two temporal (current and
future) and three spatial (local, national, and global) levels.
The literature, although informative, needs extension in several
ways. For example, Dunlap et al.’s (1993) study did not include
statistical tests. Furthermore, in the 14 years since it was conducted,
attitudes may well have changed. Also, judgments about the future
impact of environmental quality were specifically framed in terms
of health and therefore are limited as assessments of current and
future environmental conditions. The present study extends
Uzzell’s (2000) and Schultz et al.’s (2005) work by including many
more countries and by adding the temporal dimension. Finally,
studies of environmental risk perception tend to focus on, and
perhaps to encourage, negative assessments. To facilitate responses
that do not unduly favor negative responses, Heath and Gifford
(2006) recommend that scales be neutrally worded. Therefore, in
this study, we asked respondents to assess environmental ‘‘quality’’
rather than ‘‘seriousness.’’
2.2. Hypotheses
Five hypotheses relate to assessments of current environ-
mental conditions. First, we hypothesize that assessments of
current environmental quality (pooled across countries) will
worsen as geographic distance increases (i.e., the optimistic spa-
tial bias, as found by Musson, 1974, and Uzzell, 2000). Second,
based on the cultural considerations described above, we hy-
pothesize that nations will significantly differ (when averaged
across spatial level) in their assessments of current environmental
conditions. Third, we expect to find significant interactions be-
tween country and the degree of spatial bias (i.e., some nations
will be significantly more optimistic about local, as compared to
global, conditions than other nations), although the literature is
not sufficiently developed to offer directional predictions about
these interactions. Fourth, based on the speculations of Dunlap
et al. (1993), we hypothesize that ratings of national environ-
mental quality will be positively associated with an objective
(expert) ranking of that country’s environmental performance.
Fifth, we predict that the magnitude of the optimistic spatial bias
in each country will also be positively associated with this ob-
jective ranking.
Two hypotheses relate to assessments of future environmental
conditions. First, we hypothesize that assessments of future envi-
ronmental change will worsen as the spatial level increases. Sec-
ond, we hypothesize that countries will differ (averaged across
spatial level) in their assessments of future environmental change.
Finally, based on the lack of evidence in the literature, the study
explores (a) whether a temporal bias exists at each spatial level and
(b) interactions between nation and future assessments.
3. Method
3.1. The environmental futures scale
The EFS was developed to measure spatial and temporal envi-
ronmental comparative optimism or pessimism based on citizen
assessments of the current and future state of 20 aspects of the
environment (see Appendix A). Its items encompass the quality of
both the natural and the built environments, as well as the society’s
ability to address environmental issues, including ‘‘the state of
forests and wilderness,’’ ‘‘visual pollution (e.g., billboards, ugly
buildings, and litter),’’ and ‘‘the management of garbage.’’ Each item
was assessed at three spatial levels: ‘‘my area’’ (defined as 50 km
around the respondent), ‘‘my country [replaced with name of each
participating country],’’ and ‘‘globally.’’ Response options for
assessments were on five-point scales in which the choices for the
current state ranged from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good) and those
for the future state (i.e., 25 years from now, as compared to today)
ranged from 2 (much worse) to 2 (much better). A pilot study
indicated excellent internal consistency reliability for the full EFS
scale (Cronbach’s
a
¼0.97). Demographic questions at the end of
the scale were used to collect data on respondents’ age, occupation,
gender, years of education, and number of years spent in their local
area.
3.2. Respondents and data collection
Research affiliates in 18 countries collected data from 3232
respondents (1802 females and 1417 males, mean age= 40.52,
SD = 17.07; see Table 1 for sample size and demographic summaries
for each participating country). Sample sizes ranged from 77 in
France to 383 in Portugal, with an average national sample size of
179. Most respondents were recruited from urban areas, and the
rest were from rural areas.
Based on the preferences and available resources of research
collaborators in each country, one of three main methods of data
collection was chosen: direct interviews and convenience sam-
pling, snowball sampling, and returned surveys from randomly
selected postal routes. In five participating countries (Australia,
Finland, Italy, Portugal, and the United States) data sets from two or
more locations were collected, to obtain a broader geographical and
demographical sample. To efficiently maximize the response rate
and minimize costs, direct methods of data collection were utilized
most frequently. In particular, intercept interviews, whereby
individuals were approached in public areas and asked to complete
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12 3
the survey, were used in five countries (Russia, Australia, Spain,
Germany, and the United States). Similarly, convenience samples
were obtained from lectures and non-academic social gatherings in
Finland and India. In Mexico, and the Brazilian samples (i.e., from
Natal and Brası
´lia), verbal interviews were conducted in randomly
selected residences. Data were also gathered through moreindirect
means. Researchers in four countries (France, England, Germany,
and Italy) employed a variation of snowball sampling, in which
students or colleagues distributed the questionnaire to other
(mainly non-university) acquaintances, but did not personally
complete the survey. A third method of data collectionwas by mail.
In three countries (Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands), postal
routes were randomly selected from neighborhoods of diverse so-
cioeconomic status to improve the representativeness of the sam-
ple. Approximately 750 self-addressed, stamped surveys were
distributed in each of these countries.
3.3. The environmental sustainability index
The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) was created by the
World Economic Forum, the Center for Environmental Law and
Policy at Yale University, and the Center for International Earth
Science Information Network at Columbia University (2005). The
ESI measures the environmental performance and potential for
sustainability in 146 countries based on their performance in five
domains: the maintenance of environmental systems at healthy
levels, the extent of human impact on the environment, the level of
environmental impact on humans, the social and institutional
capacities to address environmental problems, and the level of
global stewardship demonstrated by each country. ESI scores
served as the expert or objective measure of environmental quality
for the countries in this study, and were compared with the citizen
assessments on the EFS for the same countries.
4. Results
4.1. Missing data
In total, 25 data sets were received and merged into one file.
The data were scanned for missing or errant values. Responses
were considered missing when respondents (a) apparently mis-
understood the scales and consequentially, used incorrect values
for their current or future evaluations (e.g., some respondents
gave numbers lower than ‘‘1’’ for ‘‘current’’ ratings, or higher
than ‘‘2’’ for ‘‘future’’ ratings) or (b) left some parts of the scale
blank because they did not know enough about an aspect, or did
not believe that it applied to their local and/or national areas
(some respondents wrote ‘‘N/A’’ or ‘‘don’t know’’ on the scale). A
case summary for missing data showed that 971 (or 31%) re-
spondents did not answer, or gave incorrect answers to, at least
one of the items. Six hundred and ninety-nine respondents were
missing 10% or less of their data. Given the very high internal
consistency of the EFS (see below), missing data for these re-
spondents were substituted with their mean responses to that
particular subscale. However, those missing more than 10% of
their responses (n¼272, or approximately 9% of the total sam-
ple) were excluded from further analyses. Research affiliates in
Germany elected to omit three items from the EFS (pesticides,
fish, and natural disasters), which they deemed inapplicable to
their country, and therefore all German respondents necessarily
were missing more than 15% of their data. However, rather than
excluding German respondents from the analyses, the missing
values from these three variables were replaced with
respondents’ means on the corresponding subscales. Given the
very high internal consistency of the entire scale and of each of
the six subscales (as described below), the substituted responses
probably very closely approximate these respondents’ choices,
had they answered the questions. After the substitutions, 79 re-
spondents from Germany had no missing data. Of the remaining
32 German respondents, 30 had less than 10% of their data
missing, and so mean substitution was used as for the other
respondents, leaving two respondents from Germany who were
excluded from the analyses. The number of valid cases on each
subscale that remained for the analyses, after these substitutions,
may be seen in Table 2.
4.2. EFS internal consistency and descriptive statistics
Cronbach’s
a
s for the six subscales on the EFS were as follows:
current local conditions
a
¼0.91), current national conditions
Table 1
Demographic information by country.
Country NAge Sex Education pre-18 Education post-18 Years lived here
Mean SD Male Female Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Australia 110 43.06 14.61 43 66 12.21 1.34 3.75 2.36 16.97 11.67
Brazil 195 32.98 13.43 87 106 9.84 2.25 2.73
a
2.30
a
19.97 13.26
Canada 125 46.68 19.56 45 77 12.18 1.33 4.16 2.47 22.81 18.79
England 117 45.63 13.12 34 78 12.98 1.89 4.50 2.06 20.96 14.86
Finland 118 28.61 11.44 14 102 10.86 1.67 4.40 2.77 12.85 12.84
France 77 36.89 12.85 43 33 13.80 2.56 2.99 2.87 27.68 17.65
Germany 111 42.60 15.20 67 44
bbbb
26.35 16.37
India 139 24.55 4.96 90 49 12.81 1.23 4.54 1.31 19.68 7.77
Italy 377 37.53 14.79 156 219 11.40 2.46 3.23 2.92 29.29 17.93
Japan 298 44.80 16.30 98 200 11.89 0.57 2.88 2.33 25.58 17.96
Mexico 150 37.33 12.05 53 96 10.58 3.21 2.89 2.98 26.99 16.01
Netherlands 108 51.32 16.41 77 29 9.98 3.89 4.92 2.97 33.09 19.51
Portugal 383 50.11 18.76 182 199 6.98 3.98 1.07 2.11 40.71 19.28
Romania 150 39.23 16.07 72 77 11.25 1.97 3.22 2.72 26.32 14.96
Russia 228 31.62 16.52 106 122 10.42 1.03 4.14 2.11 22.92 17.37
Spain 200 41.51 17.24 91 109 11.92 3.63 2.22 2.45 25.20 17.66
Sweden 130 45.71 13.85 70 59 10.76 1.45 3.33 2.41 28.58 16.68
United States 215 43.40 18.59 82 130 12.13 1.41 4.08 2.27 16.87 15.31
Total 3232 40.52 17.07 1417 1802 10.989 2.99 3.33 2.80 25.99 18.00
Range ¼13-90 Range ¼0-18 Range ¼0-12 Range ¼0-890
a
Values based on data from Brasl
´lia.
b
Information not collected.
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–124
(
a
¼0.92), current global conditions (
a
¼0.91), future local condi-
tions (
a
¼0.91), future national conditions (
a
¼0.92), and future
global conditions (
a
¼0.93). The reliability of the full EFS was
extremely high (
a
¼0.97).
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and ranges for
the six subscale variables. These means are also displayed in Fig. 1.
Means for all current environmental conditions were slightly below
the scale midpoint of 3 (‘‘acceptable’’), but declined for increasingly
distant spatial levels. Mean ratings for expected future conditions
were below the scale midpoint of zero (‘‘no different’’), and scores
were increasingly pessimistic as spatial levels expanded. Specific
country means for each subscale are listed in Table 3 and are dis-
played in Fig. 2. Current local assessments were most positive in
Finland (M¼3.59, SD ¼0.45), and lowest in Mexico (M¼2.55,
SD ¼0.52). The future local means were somewhat surprising: For
future local means, Romanians were the most optimistic (M¼0.10,
SD ¼0.60), and Australians were the most pessimistic (M¼0.55,
SD ¼0.53).
4.3. Assessments of current environmental conditions
To examine variations across spatial levels and countries among
assessments of current environmental conditions, a two-way
mixed design ANOVA was conducted, with spatial level as a within-
subjects factor and country as a between-subjects factor.
Demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, years of education, and
years lived in the current area) were entered as covariates. Given
the very high internal consistency of the scales, all ANOVAs were
conducted on subscale values that were averaged across each
respondent’s 20 EFS scale items. The means are shown in Table 2.
Because Mauchly’s sphericity test of spatial level indicated
a violation of the sphericity assumption, and given that the
Greenhouse–Geisser correction was greater than 0.75, the cor-
rected Huynh–Feldt values were used (Field, 2005).
A significant main effect of spatial level (across all countries)
was found, F(1.51, 4339.58) ¼4703.60, P<0.001, indicating that
respondents assessed the quality of proximal environments more
favorably than that of more distant locales. Based on Cohen’s (1988)
guidelines, this is a medium effect size (f
2
¼0.22). Contrasts among
the three spatial levels revealed that assessments of local envi-
ronmental conditions were significantly more positive than those
at the national level, F(1, 2859) ¼671.02, P<0.001, an effect size of
d¼0.31, and at the global level, F(1, 2859) ¼3266.89, P<0.001, an
effect size of d¼0.94. This supports the first hypothesis, that
assessments of current environmental quality decrease as spatial
level increases (see Table 2).
A significant country effect was apparent, F(17, 2859) ¼36.74,
P<0.001, which is a medium effect size (f
2
¼0.26). This supports
the second hypothesis, that when averaged across spatial levels,
country membership is related to respondents’ assessments of
current environmental conditions. The results of Games–Howell
multiple comparisons (adjusted
a
¼0.002) revealed that resi-
dents of Finland, Sweden, and Germany made significantly more
positive assessments of current environmental conditions than
15, 15, and 14 other countries, respectively. In contrast, residents
of Mexico and Spain made significantly more negative assess-
ments than all the countries from which they differed (12 and
14 other countries, respectively). The other 13 countries differed
significantly from between three to eight other nations, but
these differences were neither as pronounced nor as unidirec-
tional as those for the five countries mentioned above. The
complete matrix of national differences in current environmental
assessments is displayed in Table 4.
4.4. Does the spatial bias exist everywhere?
To examine whether a spatial bias existed in each country,
current comparative optimism scores were first computed by
subtracting average global from average local EFS scores. Values
above zero indicate that local conditions were viewedas superior to
global conditions; those below zero indicate that global conditions
were viewed as better. Next, one-sample t-tests (Bonferroni
adjusted
a
¼0.002) were conducted for each country to examine
whether these scores significantly differed from zero. Fifteen
countries manifested significant optimistic spatial biases (i.e., that
local conditions are better than global conditions). Interestingly,
respondents in Russia and Romania demonstrated significant pes-
simistic spatial biases: global assessments were significantly more
positive than local assessments. Among the 18 nations, only
assessments in India exhibited no significant change with spatial
level. These trends are illustrated in Fig. 2.
4.5. Assessments of future change in environmental conditions
4.5.1. Temporal trends
Next, we examined whether assessments changed from present
to future. One-sample t-tests were conducted on each of the future
change subscales (at the local, national, and global levels) to eval-
uate whether or not their means differed significantly from zero,
which would suggest the existence of a temporal trend. The means
are shown in Table 2. Scores below zero indicate pessimism and
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Local National Global
Mean Ratings of Environmental Conditions
Current
Expected future change
Fig. 1. Mean ratings of current environmental conditions and expected future change
(in 25 years) at the local, national, and global spatial levels summed across countries.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for the EFS subscales.
Assessments of NMean SD
Current environmental conditions
At the local level 3014 2.93 0.61
At the national level 3014 2.75 0.57
At the global level 2992 2.39 0.54
Expected future environmental
change
At the local level 2992 0.28 0.57
At the national level 2994 0.35 0.61
At the global level 2991 0.48 0.70
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12 5
those above zero signify optimism. Using a Bonferroni correction,
the Type I error rate for each comparison was reduced to
a
¼0.02.
The subscale means reveal significant temporal pessimism at all
three spatial levels: the local, t(2882) ¼25.63, P<0.001,
d¼0.48, national, t(2883) ¼29.59, P<0.001, d¼0.55, and
global, t(2881) ¼36.31, P<0.001, d¼0.68. All three effect sizes
are medium to large. Thus, respondents were, on average, pessi-
mistic at all spatial levels in their projections of future environ-
mental conditions.
4.5.2. Temporal trends across countries
To test the hypothesis that environmental optimism differs
across countries, a one-way ANOVAwas conducted on assessments
of future environmental change. A significant main effect of
country on future ratings supported this hypothesis, F(17,
2838) ¼56.50. This effect size (f
2
¼0.28), once again, is medium in
size. Pairwise comparisons (all Ps<0.002) reveal that, although
assessments from every country differed significantly from at least
one other country, some countries were more (or less) optimistic
than many others (see Table 5 for the full matrix of national dif-
ferences). For example, respondents from Finland, Germany, and
Canada were significantly more temporally pessimistic than re-
spondents from five other countries and, notably, temporal pessi-
mism in Australia exceeded that in 12 other countries.
Assessments of the future from Russia and Portugal were less
temporally pessimistic than those in seven other countries. Finally,
Romania was the only country for which assessments of the future
were at all temporally optimistic, and Romanian assessments were
significantly more temporally optimistic than those of all other
nations.
4.6. Environmental assessments by citizens and experts
How do these lay assessments relate to those by experts? Mean
ratings of current national environmental conditions by citizens
was correlated with expert rankings on the ESI, and a strong pos-
itive relation was found, r¼0.78, P(one-tailed) <0.001. In a second
correlation, mean spatial optimism scores (average local minus
average global) were analyzed inrelation to the ESI rankings. Again,
a large association was observed, r¼0.68, P(one-tailed) ¼0.001.
This suggests that, in general, countries with more spatial optimism
are also those with better environmental conditions, and supports
the final hypothesis, that assessments of environmental conditions
by citizens strongly agree with expert assessments of environ-
mental quality.
5. Discussion
This is the first study to investigate the environmental as-
sessments and comparative optimism of community residents in
many countries at different spatial and temporal levels. The
predicted optimistic spatial bias was found for assessments of
current environmental conditions, but not for assessments of
future change. Almost all (17 of 18) countries also manifested
temporal pessimism, as predicted. These trends provide insight
into the general environmental cognitions of individuals in many
countries. The findings should be useful in the development of
local and global environmental policies, and in the promotion of
improved environmental behavior. Many national differences
exist, however, and should be useful guidelines for national
policy.
5.1. Spatial bias
The results support the first hypothesis: assessments of cur-
rent environmental conditions decreased significantly as geo-
graphical distance from the person increased. This is consistent
with previous research, and attests to the robustness of the op-
timistic spatial bias (Dunlap et al., 1993; Musson, 1974; Uzzell,
2000). This global trend may occur because citizens are motivated
to maintain a positive self-image, which is partly constructed
from one’s place identity (Bonaiuto et al., 1996). Alternatively,
optimistic spatial biases may be a consequence of media reports
that have increased awareness of, and corresponding concern
about, global environmental problems. And yet, this would pre-
sume that coverage of global problems exceeds that of local
problems, which is not necessarily the case.
However, not every country’s residents manifested the opti-
mistic spatial bias; respondents from India did not assess their local
environment as significantly better than the global environment,
and those from Russia and Romania actually showed the opposite
trend. These results raise some potentially interesting questions.
Why do the citizens of India not exhibit this bias? Why do the
citizens of Russia and Romania exhibit a reverse bias? Certainly,
Table 3
EFS subscale means and ESI scores for each country.
Country Mean ratings ESI scores
Local National Global
Current Future Current Future Current Future
Australia 3.27 0.55 2.91 0.70 2.11 1.00 61.0 0
Brazil 3.01 0.47 2.69 0.56 2.41 0.65 62.20
Canada 3.42 0.42 3.13 0.49 2.07 0.82 64.40
England 3.15 0.32 2.87 0.35 2.21 0.58 50.20
Finland 3.59 0.24 3.62 0.27 2.43 0.53 75.10
France 2.95 0.29 2.65 0.36 2.03 0.71 55.20
Germany 3.38 0.27 3.27 0.32 2.59 0.73 56.90
India 2.78 0.19 2.72 0.21 2.75 0.14 45.20
Italy 2.92 0.25 2.65 0.35 2.33 0.49 50.10
Japan 2.81 0.26 2.61 0.35 2.34 0.64 57.30
Mexico 2.55 0.50 2.26 0.69 2.30 0.65 46.20
Netherlands 3.10 0.30 3.01 0.35 2.34 0.62 53.70
Portugal 2.82 0.18 2.68 0.23 2.50 0.28 54.20
The Romania 2.66 0.10 2.62 0.12 2.96 0.32 46.20
Russia 2.51 0.23 2.56 0.25 2.63 0.22 56.10
Spain 2.68 0.43 2.43 0.51 2.04 0.64 48.80
Sweden 3.58 0.12 3.45 0.15 2.38 0.34 71.70
United States 2.91 0.38 2.69 0.46 2.26 0.61 52.90
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–126
a plausible reason the for the trend in the latter two countries lies in
the emergence from mass industrialization policies that may not
have considered the environment, which may make the future
seem brighter than the past.
These results help resolve a discrepancy in the literature.
Uzzell’s (2000) findings suggested that the spatial bias was rela-
tively constant across the three countries studied, seemingly
unaffected by differences in objective environmental quality.
Through use of a larger cross-cultural sample, the present findings
suggest that spatial bias, although common, is not universal. This
is consistent with Dunlap et al.’s (1993) results that pointed to-
wards variations in spatial bias among the 24 nations studied.
Differences in national identity may be at least partly responsible
for the observed discrepancies. For example, in Bonaiuto et al.’s
(1996) study of beach pollution, individuals with stronger na-
tional identities perceived fewer pollutants than did those with
a weaker sense of nationalism. This appears to reflect a kind of
denial that serves to maintain a positive national identity.
Therefore, cultural variations in nationalism or national pride may
contribute to differences in the spatial optimism bias across
countries.
Another prediction that assessments of future environ-
mental change would vary with spatial level was not
confirmed. The optimistic spatial bias did not appear in as-
sessments of the future. This was the first attempt to study
spatial bias in assessments of the environmental future, and so
further research is necessary to confirm or disconfirm this
finding.
5.2. Temporal trends
Respondents generally were pessimistic about the future of
the environment, which supports the existence of a general
tendency to temporal pessimism. This is consistent with the
results of Dunlap et al. (1993), who showed that environmental
problems were rated as more threatening to one’s health over
time. When optimism is so often a general default heuristic (cf.
Metcalfe, 1998), why did this pessimistic trend emerge in the
case of environmental assessments? One possibility is that in-
dividuals are acutely aware of environmental deterioration, and
conclude that these trends will continue if something is not
done to rectify them. Given, for example, that CO
2
emissions
worldwide are increasing, the conclusion that climate change
will continue is now beyond plausibility. In other words,
awareness of environmental deterioration seems to be so strong
that it overrides the default bias towards optimism. Another
possibility is that temporal pessimism is caused by discounting.
Because the problem is increasingly distant, and thus a less
immediate and personal threat (Gattig, 2002), individuals may
feel free to express opinions contrary to the typically pervasive
optimism bias. That is, the self-protective mechanism of opti-
mism may be de-emphasized when the issue is less immediate.
Interestingly, respondents were not differentially pessimistic
about local, national, or global environmental conditions. This is
also consistent with discounting theory. Possibly because in-
dividuals have already discounted at the current spatial level, as
well as temporally, they feel no need to further discount at
future spatial levels. This is consistent with the affect regulation
hypothesis of optimism (Taylor, Wayment, & Collins, 1993). Al-
though individuals may believe that current environmental
conditions may worsen over time, the belief that local envi-
ronmental conditions will nevertheless be better than more
distant environmental conditions may help to counter negative
feelings about a dismal future.
The differences between countries in environmental assess-
ments raise questions about the influence of experience on
assessments. The least temporally pessimistic citizens were those
from Romania and Russia, countries that have recently faced
quite serious environmental problems. However, many residents
of the most pessimistic country, Australia, believe their country is
facing considerable environmental challenges, despite the coun-
try’s high ESI score. Australians seem to believe that although
they are reasonably well off right now, the future is bleak:
widespread perceptions are that the country’s river systems are
drying up, the major cities are running out of fresh water, bush
fires are increasing, and most electricity is generated by highly
polluting coal. In contrast, Romania’s current environmental
conditions are worse at present, but it has recently joined the
European Union, which has been quite proactive in terms of its
commitment to curb global warming, and therefore its residents
expect a brighter future.
Perhaps these differences in pessimism stem from cultural or
political, rather than physical differences. This notion is con-
gruent with the findings of Heine and Lehman (1995) who,
among others, have demonstrated cultural differences in
Fig. 2. Mean ratings of current environmental conditions and expected future change
at the local, national, and global spatial levels for each country.
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12 7
optimism. The best resolution of these ambiguous findings may
lie in a possible interaction among cultural, political, and phys-
ical characteristics of a country. Future research might usefully
compare environmental optimism among collectivistic and in-
dividualistic cultures who live in countries of similar environ-
mental quality. This would help to clarify why assessments
varied by country. That is, were respondents in India less com-
paratively optimistic because of their environmental surround-
ings, or were their assessments the result of a cultural
characteristic, such as modesty?
5.3. National differences in assessments of current
environmental conditions
As predicted, country membership influenced assessments of
current environmental conditions, when averaged across spatial
levels. This is consistent with Dunlap et al.’s (1993) finding that
respondents from industrialized and developing countries rated
environments differently. In addition, variations in environmen-
tal assessments across countries were strongly associated with
expert (ESI) rankings of environmental quality. This supports our
hypothesis, and is consistent with the observations of Dunlap
et al. (1993), who surmised that ratings of environmental con-
cern were linked with the environmental reputation of that
country. Furthermore, the magnitude of spatial optimism
exhibited by citizens of a country was also strongly related to ESI
rankings. These results suggest that lay-expert opinions are not
always as discrepant as they are sometimes portrayed; lay
evaluations of national environmental condition can be very
accurate, especially in aggregate populations. The cognitive bia-
ses that operate at an individual level are less-evident when the
responses of many individuals are pooled, such that resulting
averages are fairly accurate assessments of present national en-
vironmental quality.
5.4. Considering the potential role of accuracy as an
explanation for findings
The utility of accuracy as an explanation for some obtained
findings is supported by the strong association between assess-
ments of current national environmental conditions and expert
rankings of environmental quality. But can our other results also
Table 4
Significant mean differences
a
of current national ratings between countries.
123456789101112131415161718
1. Australia þþþ þþþ
2. Brazil þ þ
3. Canada þ þ þþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
4. England þþþ þþþþ
5. Finland þþþþ þþþþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
6. France þ þ
7. Germany þþ þþ þþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
8. India þ þ
9. Italy þ þ
10. Japan þ þ
11. Mexico
12. Netherlands þ þþþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ
13. Portugal þ þ
14. Romania þ þ
15. Russia þ
16. Spain
17. Sweden þþþþ þ þþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
18. United States þ þ
a
Comparisons are in reference to the country in the left-hand column.
Table 5
Significant mean differences
a
of future national ratings between countries.
123456789101112131415161718
1. Australia
2. Brazil
3. Canada
4. England þþ
5. Finland þþ þþ
6. France þþ
7. Germany þþ
8. India þþþ þ þ
9. Italy þþ
10. Japan þþ
11. Mexico
12. Netherlands þþ
13. Portugal þþþ þ þ
14. Romania þþþþþþþþþþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
15. Russia þþ þþ
16. Spain
17. Sweden þþþ þþ þ þ þ
18. United States
a
Comparisons are in reference to the country in the left-hand column.
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–128
be explained by mere accuracy? Considering all findings, there
seems to be little support for accuracy as a general explanation.
The finding that ratings of current environmental conditions
decrease as spatial distance increases from local, to national, to
global provides half support for the accuracy explanation. Al-
though potential sample biases (described below) may have
resulted in national conditions accurately being more negatively
assessed than local conditions, it seems unlikely that sample
biases would result in such near-universal findings. As well, the
further decrease in ratings as spatial level increases from the
national to the global level is unlikely to be generally accurate.
One possibility is that the objective environment sets the bounds
for evaluations and limits the range within which the cognitive
biases occur. For instance, Mexican ratings of national environ-
mental quality were lower than ratings in countries of objectively
better environmental quality. Nevertheless, spatial and temporal
biases were still present in Mexico. The likelihood that each of 19
countries is truly of better environmental quality than the global
average is slim. Rather, it is more probable that the trend of
decreasing ratings of environmental quality from proximate to
more distant spatial levels suggests the existence of the spatial
optimism bias.
In addition, we cannot conclude that temporal pessimism
results from participant accuracy; although current environ-
mental trends suggest that this pessimism is founded, it cannot
be said that this forecast will ultimately prove true. Longitudi-
nal studies would be required to assess the veracity of partici-
pants’ projections. Future studies could also attempt to
disentangle the unique, and combined, influences of accuracy
and the spatial optimism bias on environmental assessments.
Such studies could assess ratings of local and national envi-
ronmental conditions sampling from participants in separate
cities, known to vary in environmental quality, from within the
same country.
In short, although accuracy likely accounts for some of our
findings, it is not a solely sufficient explanation to account for all
results. This adds credence to the influence of strong psychological
biases on environmental cognitions and assessments.
5.5. Limitations
One issue in any international study with numerous research
affiliates is the standardization of data collection procedures.
Although a specific data collection method was suggested, so as
to obtain a broad demographic sample from each country, re-
search associates who often lacked resources administered the
Environmental Futures Scale in the most efficient, yet rigorous,
way they deemed possible. Thus, the findings of this study cannot
be said to be perfectly representative of participating countries.
On the positive side, many of these findings have strong effect
sizes, and thus may well be robust to the differences in the ways
that the data were collected. Indeed, the fact that we obtained
common results using multiple methods attests to the robustness
of our findings of the near-universality of temporal pessimism
and the spatial optimism bias for evaluations of current envi-
ronmental conditions.
A related methodological limitation may be that cities were
not randomly selected by the principal investigators. They were
chosen based on the presence of suitable and willing research
collaborators. This could result in several potential sample bia-
ses, which may, in turn, partly account for some of the observed
findings. For instance, participating collaborators may elect to
live in less-polluted areas of their country and this could render
some truth to the observed spatial optimism bias for current
ratings (i.e., participant may, in general, live in cities of better
environmental condition than other cities in their country).
Additionally, our sample populations may not accurately repre-
sent those of the general population in countries studied be-
cause of the possibility that more educated people may be more
aware about environmental issues, and consequentially more
pessimistic. Thus, our sample could overestimate temporal
pessimism.
Another issue surrounds the nature of optimism and pessi-
mism as constructs. Some have suggested that these constructs
are not a bipolar continuum, but rather exist as two orthogonal
dimensions (e.g., Chang, 2000). That is, a person might be both
high on pessimism and low on optimism, or vice versa. Re-
spondents who are more likely to endorse both positive and
negative outcomes would give the impression that they have
neutral views when, in fact, they see both negative and positive
aspects of the environment. Nevertheless, several studies that
have measured optimism and pessimism using bidimensional
scales have shown support for the unidimensional nature of
optimism and pessimism (Chang, Maydeu-Olivares, & D’Zurilla,
1997; Lee & Seligman, 1997). Therefore, results from the unidi-
mensional EFS employed in the present study may well be a good
approximation of those that might be obtained from a similar
bidimensional scale.
5.6. Conclusions and future directions
In conclusion, the results of this study contribute to the body of
knowledge about spatial biases and temporal trends in in-
ternational assessments of current and future environmental con-
ditions by community residents. Apparently, environment-related
biases are like environmental problems: they are generally un-
affected by national borders. This does not bode well for environ-
mental solutions, given that international problems are often
accompanied by corresponding international biases which,
according to some (Hatfield & Job, 2001), inhibit much-needed pro-
environmental action. The optimistic spatial bias would seem to
dampen enthusiasm for helping to solve local environmental
problems, because they are discounted, at least in relation to en-
vironmental problems at larger scales. Certainly, these results
provoke several important questions: Can individuals be taught to
temper their optimistic spatial biases, and if so, will this encourage
pro-environmental behavior on their part? Are environmentally
optimistic or pessimistic individuals more likely to act? Given the
dire news about climate change and sustainability, it is important to
continue investigating the psychological bases of environmental
problems.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge, with gratitude, the important con-
tributions of the following individuals for their assistance in data
collection, data entry, translations, and other tasks necessary for
the completion of this project. In alphabetical order, they are
Luciana R. Q. Araujo, Mirilia Bonnes, Cezar A. Carvalho, Ana Beatriz
B. Cortez, Vera Diebels, Ferdinando Fornara, Blanca Fraijo-Sing,
Rachel M. Goes, Tomoko Hata, Sonomi Hirata, Sumire Hirota, Lei Ai
Yap Imperial, Rafaella L. Improta, Petri Juujarvi, Tomohiko Kato, Bart
Knijnenburg, Elisabeth Guillou-Michel, Helen Halford, Geoff Hat-
ten, Francisco Haz, Anne Hine, Jessica Lendon, Yuzhong (Penny) Lin,
Sara Malley, Hugo J. D. Matias, Arto Mikkola, Tatiana Minchoni,
Cassio L. M. Nascimento, Thais S. Nobrega, Hirohiko Ohta, Kenji
Omata, Genene O’Neil, Viviany S. Pessoa, Hans Roijmans, Jeremy
Ross, Katie Ross, Jessica Rourke, Takahito Shimada, Laysa R. R. S. R.
Silva, Junkichi Sugiura, Nao Takahashi, Cesar Tapia-Fonllem, and
Karine Weiss.
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12 9
Appendix A. The environmental futures scale
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–1210
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–12 11
References
Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G. M., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environ-
mental threat: the effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception
of beach pollution. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6,
157–175.
Chang, E. C. (2001). Chapter 12. Cultural influences on optimism and pessimism:
differences in western and eastern construals of the self. In E. C. Chang (Ed.),
Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research and practice (pp.
257–276). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Chang, E. C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1997). Optimism and pessimism
as partially independent constructs: relationship to positive and negative af-
fectivity and psychological well being. Personality and Individual Differences, 23.
443–440.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of
technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Of global concern: results of the
Health and Planet Survey. Environment, 35(7-15), 33–40.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an anal-
ysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297–308.
Gattig, A. (2002). Intertemporal decision making. Studies on the working of myopia.
Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
Hatfield, J., & Job, R. F. S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation:
the role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 21, 17–30.
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R.(20 06). Free-market ideologyand environmental degradation:
the case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38, 48–71.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: does
the West feel more vulnerable than the East? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 595–607.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmentalprotection: objective problems
and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 57–72.
Kreuter, M. W., & Strecher, V. J. (1995). Changing inaccurate perceptions of health
risk: results from a randomized trial. Health Psychology, 14, 56–63.
Kweon, B.-S., Ellis, C. D., Lee, S.-W., & Rogers, G. O. (2006). Large-scale environ-
mental knowledge: investigating the relationships between self-reported and
objectively measured physical environments. Environment and Behavior, 38,
72–91.
Lee, Y.-T., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1997). Are Americans more optimistic than the
Chinese? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 32–40.
Lima, M. L., & Castro, P. (2005). Cultural theory meets the community: worldviews
and local issues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 23–35.
Metcalfe, J. (1998). Cognitive optimism: self-deception or memory-based process-
ing heuristics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 10 0–110.
Musson, C. (1974). Local attitudes to population growth in South Buckinghamshire.
In H. B. Perry (Ed.), Population and its problems: A plain man’s guide (pp. 392–
393). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pahl, S., Harris, P. R., Todd, H. A., & Rutter, D. R. (2005). Comparative optimism for
environmental risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 1–11.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44–55.
Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. P. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative
optimism:differential relationswith the knowledgeof riskinformation and beliefs
about personal risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 836–846.
Schmidt, F. N., & Gifford, R. (1989). A dispositional approach to hazard perception:
preliminary development of the Environmental Appraisal Inventory. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 9, 57–67.
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Frane
¨k, M.
(2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conserva-
tion behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy, 19, 255–265.
Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of envi-
ronmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250–269.
Taylor, S. E., Wayment, H. A., & Collins, M. A. (1993). Positive illusions and affect
regulation. In D. M. Wegner, & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental
control (pp. 325–343). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Uzzell, D. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental prob-
lems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307–318.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.
World Economic Forum, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, & CIESIN.
(2005). Environmental sustainability index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for En-
vironmental Law and Policy. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/. Accessed
30.05.2006.
R. Gifford et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 1–1212
