Content uploaded by Jeremy D.W. Clifton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeremy D.W. Clifton on Apr 14, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article
World Beliefs Predict Self-Reported Sustainable
Behaviors Beyond Big Five Personality Traits and
Political Ideology
Janna Hämpke1,2 § , Nicholas Kerry1 § , Jeremy D. W. Clifton1
[1]Positive Psychology Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. [2]Department of Psychology,
Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
§These authors contributed equally to this work.
Global Environmental Psychology, 2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057, https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Received: 2023-05-29 •Accepted: 2024-01-07 •Published (VoR): 2025-02-21
Handling Editor: Florian Lange, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Corresponding Author: Nicholas Kerry, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA, USA. E-mail: nickerry@sas.upenn.edu
Badges for Good Research Practices: Open Code. Open Data. Diversity Statement.
Open Materials. Preregistration.
Abstract
Generalized beliefs about the world—termed ‘primal world beliefs’ or ‘primals’—have been
hypothesized to affect behavior, since they contain information which inluences the perceived
costs, beneits, and justiications for different behaviors. For example, people who see the world as
highly improvable may view prosocial behaviors as having more beneits and therefore be more
inclined to work harder on making things better. Three preregistered studies (N = 1,534 US
participants) investigated the relationship between primals and several measures of people’s
propensity toward sustainable behavior. Beliefs that the world is less hierarchical, but more
improvable, cooperative, harmless, meaningful, and abundant were weakly to moderately
associated with self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior, pro-environmental behavior,
and behavioral intentions. These relationships were largely robust to controlling for Big Five traits
and political ideology, although some of the relationships were subsumed by the more general
belief that the world is good. Changes in two world beliefs (cooperative, harmless) over a three-
week period weakly predicted pro-environmental behavior intentions when controlling for
people’s previously reported pro-environmental behavior. These correlational indings suggest
some possible avenues for future research: if these beliefs are found to be causally prior to
Global
Environmental
Psychology
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited.
environmental attitudes, they may offer a promising target for interventions aimed at increasing
sustainable behavior.
Keywords
sustainable behavior, primal world beliefs, primals, pro-environmental behavior, ethical-minded consumer
behavior
Non-Technical Summary
Background
Human behavior is one of the major causes of climate change and several other environ
mental threats. Therefore, it is important to better understand the psychology underlying
and motivating sustainable behaviors. Since beliefs inluence individuals’ attention, interpre
tation of events, thoughts, and behavior, the study of beliefs might provide an especially
helpful foundation for interventions aiming to encourage sustainable behaviors.
Why was this study done?
The goal of this study was to understand the association between generalized beliefs about
the world and sustainable behaviors. Speciically, we investigated if a variety of self-repor
ted and actual sustainable behaviors (e.g., pro-environmental behavior, ethically-minded
consumer behavior, donation behavior) were associated with the belief that the world is
more abundant, cooperative, meaningful, improvable, and harmless, but less hierarchical.
What did the researchers do and find?
In one study with undergraduate students from a private American university and two with
US-Americans from the general population, we tested the relationship between generalized
beliefs about the world and people’s self-reported sustainable behaviors. In the third study,
we also tested if changes in these world beliefs predict pro-environmental intentions when
controlling for self-reported pro-environmental behavior measured three weeks prior. We
also attempted to manipulate the belief in a cooperative world using a social exclusion
experiment to test whether this would, in turn, inluence pro-environmental behavior inten
tions.
Our results showed that people who believe that the world is less hierarchical, but
more cooperative, meaningful, abundant, improvable, and harmless were more likely to
report that they engaged in pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, results revealed that
changes in cooperative and harmless world belief predicted pro-environmental behavior
intentions even when controlling for previously reported pro-environmental behavior. How
ever, we were not able to manipulate the belief in a cooperative world in our social exclusion
experiment and were therefore unable to directly test the causal hypothesis that cooperative
beliefs inluence pro-environmental behavior intentions.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 2
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
What do these findings mean?
Our indings suggest that generalized beliefs about the world might be important to under
standing sustainable behaviors. One possible interpretation is that the way individuals see
the world might have an inluence on their propensity to engage in sustainable behaviors
and subsequently their actual behaviors. However, the indings here were correlational and
further research is necessary to properly test this hypothesis. Further, it should be noted that
we mostly used self-reports in this study to test these relationships. Future research might
test if results can be replicated when measuring sustainable behaviors directly.
Highlights
• Beliefs that the world is less hierarchical, but more cooperative, meaningful, abundant,
improvable, and harmless are weakly to moderately correlated with self-reported
ethically-minded consumer and pro-environmental behavior.
• Most of the associations between the beliefs that the world is hierarchical and
cooperative and different self-reported and actual sustainable behaviors remained
robust to controlling for sex, religiosity, political ideology, and income.
• At least two world beliefs (i.e., hierarchical, abundant) add explanatory value in self-
reported ethically-minded consumer behavior and pro-environmental behavior,
beyond the belief in a good world and Big Five traits.
• Changes in the beliefs that the world is cooperative and harmless predict pro-
environmental behavior intentions beyond previously reported pro-environmental
behavior (although effects were small), suggesting that targeting these primals could
represent a promising route to maximizing the impact of interventions aimed at
promoting sustainable behaviors.
Human behavior is a major factor in the catastrophic effects of climate change and
other environmental threats (IPCC, 2022; Madsen et al., 2014; McKinney, 2002; Swim
et al., 2011). Consequently, scholars have stressed the need to better understand the
psychology underlying sustainable behaviors targeted at protecting the environment
(e.g., Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Hilbig et al., 2013; Hines et al., 1987; Hirsh & Dolderman,
2007; Stern, 2000). Here, we expand on existing research by investigating connections
between individuals’ propensity to engage in sustainable behaviors and several ‘primal’
world beliefs, which are fundamental, generalized beliefs about the nature of the world,
such as “the world is abundant”.
Individual Differences and Sustainable Behaviors
One approach to identifying meaningful individual differences that could underlie sus
tainable behaviors has been to look at people’s general behavioral tendencies (i.e., per
sonality traits). Given the importance of personality models such as the Big Five and
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 3
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
HEXACO in predicting a range of real-life behaviors (e.g., Barlett & Anderson, 2012;
Shimotsukasa et al., 2019), it is unsurprising that several studies have found them to
be predictive of sustainable attitudes and behaviors (Brick & Lewis, 2016; Conner &
Abraham, 2001; Milfont & Sibley, 2012; Kaiser et al., 1999; Stern, 2000). Probably the
most consistent inding to date is that people higher in openness tend to report behaving
more frequently environmentally-friendly and having stronger intentions and goals to
engage in pro-environmental behaviors (Hilbig et al., 2013; Hirsh & Dolderman, 2007;
Kesenheimer & Greitemeyer, 2021; Markowitz et al., 2012). Evidence regarding other
traits has been more ambiguous, but a recent meta-analysis focused on the HEXACO
model found evidence of associations with pro-environmental attitudes and donation
behaviors for honesty/humility and openness (Soutter et al., 2020), while emotionality
and extraversion were associated with stronger pro-environmental attitudes (but not
donation behaviors). While most of these indings use cross-sectional data, longitudinal
studies have also linked changes in HEXACO traits, and especially agreeableness, to
changes in both attitudes and behaviors (Hopwood et al., 2022).
While personality traits are important predictors of sustainable attitudes and behav
iors, identifying additional sources of individual difference may be theoretically impor
tant. Changing personality traits often requires interventions that are time-consuming
and, for some traits such as emotional stability, are only effective in participants who
choose to work on them autonomously (e.g., Hudson, 2021). If more malleable individual
difference variables exist, they may provide a better foundation for interventions aiming
to increase sustainable behaviors. Dweck argues that beliefs may be causally prior to
personality traits and more readily malleable (Dweck, 2008, p. 392):
“Beliefs can typically be deined very precisely, measured very sim
ply, and altered through intervention to reveal their direct impact. In
contrast, broad personality traits can be assessed, but they contain
no implications for how you might change them. Beliefs are not
necessarily easy to change, but they tell you where to begin.”
Moreover, by guiding attention and the interpretation of events (e.g., Clifton, 2020),
beliefs are hypothesized to be one of the keys to understanding how individuals think
and act (e.g., Dweck, 2017). Thus, when identifying correlates of sustainable behaviors,
in addition to dispositional behavioral tendencies (i.e., personality traits), it may be
beneicial to examine beliefs as a potential lever for change (e.g., Feinberg & Willer, 2011;
White et al., 2012).
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behaviors
There is already some evidence for the importance of beliefs about the world in moti
vating sustainable behaviors. For example, belief in a just world appears to motivate
fair-trade support if people are informed that injustice towards food producers can be re
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 4
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
dressed through their purchase (White et al., 2012). Similarly, people who believe in pure
altruism and the existence of selless, impartial, and non-violent people in the world, are
more likely to report more eco-friendly consumer behaviors, such as buying products
with good environmental ratings (Webster et al., 2021). The belief that meaning and
purpose can be discovered in one’s life is related to more pro-environmental engagement
and voluntary service (Lin, 2019; Scales et al., 2014).
Although these studies suggest that world beliefs could represent an important
source of insight into sustainable behaviors, research has so far focused on only a
few world beliefs, such as beliefs that the world is just and meaningful. This is partly
because, until recently, only a few world beliefs have been reliably measured (and the
few existing scales were developed independently of one another, leaving unknown
degrees of overlap). A recent empirical effort combined extensive exploratory research
(e.g., analysis of tens of thousands of tweets, hundreds historical texts, ten focus groups)
with multi-round factor analysis to identify 26 fundamental ways in which people talk
(and disagree) about the general characteristics of the world (Clifton et al., 2019). These
were called primal world beliefs or primals to distinguish them from more factual beliefs
such as “everything in the world is made up of 118 chemical elements”. This newly
mapped, structured collection of world beliefs allows a broader and more systematic
study of how worldview relates to sustainable behaviors.
Among these 26 world beliefs, a subset has intuitive potential to contribute to sus
tainable behaviors. First, we predicted that cooperative world belief would be associated
with sustainable behaviors, since it makes more sense to act sustainably in a world
that runs on trust and teamwork rather than one where everybody focuses on their
own interests. Second, if people see the world as easily improvable, they might be more
likely to engage in sustainable behaviors. Previous studies have already revealed the
positive impact of hope and optimism on pro-environmental intentions and behaviors
(Chadwick, 2015; Kaida & Kaida, 2019; Raiq et al., 2022). Third, people who see the world
as more hierarchical—where some people, countries, and species are inherently better
than others—may have lower propensity to engage in behaviors aimed at helping less
wealthy people, beleaguered nations, and endangered species. Hierarchical world belief
is also the primal most tied to conservative political ideology (Clifton & Kerry, 2023),
which has been shown to be important for vegetarianism (e.g., Hodson & Earle, 2018;
Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018).
Overview of the Present Research
Thus, in Study 1, we conducted a cross-sectional study with a student sample to explore
the relationships between cooperative, improvable, and hierarchical world beliefs and
people’s propensity to engage in sustainable behaviors (e.g., self-reported ethically-mind
ed consumer behavior, plant-based diet). We further explored the relationship between
the self-reported sustainable behaviors and the remaining 23 primals. As it may be more
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 5
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
appealing to use one’s own resources to improve the world (i.e., through spending more
on ethical products) if you see the world as a more abundant place, full of opportunities
and resources, we also analyzed the moderating role of abundant world belief in these
relations.
In Study 2, we aimed to extend the results of Study 1 to a broader range of sustainable
behaviors including a non-self-report measure among a non-student sample and tested
whether their explanatory value was accounted for by Big Five personality traits.
In Study 3, experimental and longitudinal investigations were conducted to test the
causal impact of primals on pro-environmental behavior intentions. Building on Studies
1–2 we again focused on cooperative, hierarchical, improvable, harmless, meaningful,
and abundant world belief. In the experimental manipulation, we let participants play an
online social game where they were systematically excluded aiming to manipulate their
cooperative world belief.
In all three studies, we controlled for a variety of demographic factors, including
age and political orientation, as they have been shown to correlate with both primals
(e.g., Clifton et al., 2019) and (self-reported) sustainable behaviors (e.g., Larson et al.,
2011; Sockhill et al., 2022). Because of potential social biases in self-reported sustainable
behaviors (e.g., Koller et al., 2023), we additionally controlled for social desirability in
Study 1. Data, code, and materials for all three studies is publicly available at Kerry and
Hämpke (2024b).1
Study 1
Study 1 tested relationships between primals and two indicators of individuals’ propensi
ty to engage in sustainable behaviors: self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior
and plant-based diet. Although Study 1 was primarily exploratory (and hence included
measures of all 26 primals), we preregistered three hypotheses (see Kerry & Clifton,
2022):
H1: Cooperative world belief will be positively correlated with self-
reported ethically-minded consumer behavior.
H2: Improvable world belief will be positively correlated with self-
reported ethically-minded consumer behavior.
H3: Hierarchical world belief will be negatively correlated with
self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior and people’s like
lihood to report being vegan, vegetarian, or restricting meal intake
for ethical reasons.
1) The present data are not used in other publications and unpublished manuscripts.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 6
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
In addition to testing bivariate correlations, we preregistered analyses controlling for
political ideology, social desirability, and sex.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 381 undergraduate students at a private university in the USA partic
ipating for course credit.2 This sample was chosen for convenience. We excluded 21
students for failing an attention check, leaving 359 (104 male, 251 female, 4 not speciied),
ages 18–24, M = 20.02; SD = 1.06.3 This sample size allows more than 80% power to detect
small correlations of r = .15. Participants were 8% African-American or Black, 41% White,
10% Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino, 4% Middle Eastern, and 35% Asian (3% did not report
ethnicity). Politically, 57% were Democrats, 11% Republican, 11% other, while 21% did
not indicate any afiliation. 34% were Christian, 1% Hindu, 3% Buddhist, 6% Muslim, 15%
Jewish, 2% other religion, 9% spiritual, and 30% atheist or agnostic.
Participants completed questionnaires online, with the main components presented
in randomized order (there were no order effects on key variables). There was no
experimental manipulation.
Measures
Primal World Beliefs — All 26 primals were measured using the 99-item Primals
Inventory (PI-99, Clifton et al., 2019). Participants were asked to share their sense of
agreement or disagreement with 99 statements (0 = Strongly agree; 5 = Strongly disagree),
such as “The world is a place where things are fragile and easily ruined”. Reliabilities
ranged from Cronbach’s α = .74–.91 (see Hämpke et al., 2024, Supplement Table S1).
— Sustainable Behaviors —
Self-Reported Ethically-Minded Consumer Behavior
The Ethically-Minded Consumer Behavior scale (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016)
has participants rate 10 statements on their environmentally friendly and socially
responsible consumer behavior (1 = Never true; 5 = Always true). The scale measures
several facets of individuals’ propensity to engage in ethically-minded consumer
behavior—buying environmentally friendly products, recycling issues, product
boycotting due to environmental concerns, etc., e.g., “I do not buy household
products that harm the environment”. Cronbach’s alpha indicated good internal
consistency (α = .89).
2) Sample size deviates from preregistered sample size due to incomplete surveys marked as complete.
3) Approximated only; the survey asked participants their year of birth and did not distinguish between 18- or
19-year-old participants due to an error in the survey.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 7
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Plant-Based Diet
We measured the extent to which people restricted meat and dairy consumption
using one item that asks participants: “Which of these best describes your eating
habits?”. This was measured ordinally: participants with no dietary restrictions were
rated as 1, those with occasional restrictions on meat and ish as 2, vegetarians as 3,
and vegans as 4. If participants indicated not being vegetarian or vegan, a follow-up
item asked participants to rate the likelihood of becoming vegetarian in the future
(0% = There is no chance at all; 100% = Absolutely certain).
Covariates — Social desirability was measured with the Reynolds’ (1982) 11-item ver
sion of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The scale asks participants to
report their usual social behavior by agreeing or disagreeing to statements (1 = True;
2 = False) that describe socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviors such as “There
have been occasions when I took advantage of someone” (reversed). The Kuder-Richard
son-20-coeficient indicated a poor internal consistency within this sample (rKR20 = .54).
This reliability coeficient was used given the scale’s dichotomous answer options. We
decided to drop Item 10 to slightly improve the scale’s reliability (not preregistered, rKR20
= .61).
Political ideology was measured by a single item asking participants “Which of the
following best describes your political orientation?" (0 = Very liberal; 6 = Very conser
vative). Scores are referred to as ‘conservatism’ in tables below to indicate direction.
Another single item measured religiosity: “To what extent do you consider yourself to be
a religious person?” (1 = Not religious at all; 10 = Extremely religious).
Results
Data for all studies were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29).
Preregistered Analyses
As predicted, hierarchical world belief was negatively related with self-reported ethical
ly-minded consumer behavior, r = -.24, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.14], p < .001, plant-based diet,
r = -.18, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.08], p < .001, and the intention to become vegetarian in
non-vegetarians, r = -.19, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.08], p < .001. Further, participants who scored
higher on cooperative world belief scored higher on self-reported ethically-minded con
sumer behavior, r = .11, 95% CI [0.00, 0.21], p = .042. However, no signiicant association
between improvable world belief and self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior
was found, r = -.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.08], p = .650. Supplementary Table S2, Hämpke
et al. (2024) shows descriptive statistics and correlations between all focal variables.
Supplementary Table S3, Hämpke et al. (2024) shows correlations for all 26 primals.
While associations of hierarchical world belief with both self-reported ethically-
minded consumer behavior and plant-based diet were robust to four preregistered cova
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 8
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
riates—sex, political ideology, religiosity, and social desirability—the correlation between
cooperative and self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior was not (Table 1).
Exploratory Analyses
Correlations between other primals and self-reported ethically-minded consumer behav
ior were nonsigniicant, except for the relationship between just world belief and plant-
based diet, r = -.19, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.11], p < .001. However, this association could be
confounded by political ideology (since conservatives see the world as more just and
are less likely to be vegetarians). However, a moderated regression with both just world
belief and political ideology still found a unique association with just, b = -0.17, 95% CI
[-0.28, -0.07], β = -0.24, p = .001, despite the signiicant association with lower political
conservatism, b = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.08], β = -0.46, p = .003, and independently from
the level of political conservatism, b = -0.05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.09], β = 0.31, p = .074.
Exploratory moderated regression analyses (PROCESS model 1, Hayes, 2022) revealed
that abundant world belief moderated the effect of the beliefs that the world is improva
ble, b = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01], p = .037, hierarchical, b = 0.07, 95% CI [0.00, 0.14],
p = .041, harmless, b = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, -0.03], p = .010, and good, b = -0.17, 95% CI
[-0.30, -0.04], p = .010, on self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior, such that
correlations were stronger among people who saw the world as less abundant (Table S4
and Figure S1, Hämpke et al., 2024).
Discussion
Study 1 found that cooperative and hierarchical, but not improvable world belief, were
associated with self-reported sustainable behaviors, with hierarchical belief remaining
signiicant after controlling for sex, political ideology, religiosity, and the tendency to
give socially desirable answers. Abundant world belief moderated the effect of the belief
in an improvable, hierarchical, harmless, and good world on self-reported ethically-mind
ed consumer behavior.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 9
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Table 1
Preregistered Regression Analyses to Predict Self-Reported Ethically-Minded Consumer Behavior and Plant-Based Diet Using Hierarchical or Cooperative World Beliefs
and Control Variables
95% CI
Dependent variable Model Effect bSE bβLL UL p
Self-reported ethically-
minded consumer behavior
1 (Constant) 2.59*** 0.25 2.11 3.07 < .001
Hierarchical -0.12** 0.04 -0.17 -0.20 -0.05 .001
Sex (female) 0.19* 0.08 0.13 .04 .34 .013
Political ideology -0.07** 0.03 -0.15 -.13 -.02 .008
Religiosity -0.02 0.01 -0.06 -.04 -.01 .288
Social desirability 0.04** 0.02 0.14 0.01 .08 .009
2 (Constant) 2.20*** 0.25 1.71 2.69 < .001
Cooperative 0.06 0.04 0.08 -0.02 0.13 .125
Sex (female) 0.21** 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.36 .007
Political ideology -0.09** 0.03 -0.18 -0.14 -0.04 < .001
Religiosity -0.02 0.01 -0.07 -0.05 0.01 .181
Social desirability 0.04** 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.08 .008
Plant-based diet 3 (Constant) 1.52*** 0.23 1.06 1.98 < .001
Hierarchical -0.08* 0.04 -0.12 -0.15 -0.01 .028
Sex (female) 0.07 0.07 0.05 -0.08 0.21 .363
Political ideology -0.08** 0.03 -0.18 -0.13 -0.03 .002
Religiosity -0.01 0.01 -0.05 -0.04 0.02 .398
Social desirability 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.04 .630
Note. N = 356. R21 = .12, F1(5, 349) = 9.37, p1 < .001. R22 = .10, F2(5, 349) = 7.61, p2 < .001. R23 = .07, F3(5, 349) = 5.55, p3 < .001. CI = Conidence Interval; LL = Lower
Limit; UL = Upper Limit.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 10
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Study 2
Study 2 aimed to replicate the indings of Study 1 using a further measure of self-repor
ted sustainable behaviors as an indicator of individuals’ propensity to engage in sustain
able behaviors. This new measure collected self-reports of everyday pro-environmental
behaviors, such as transportation habits, going beyond self-reported ethically-minded
consumer behavior. Study 2 also tested whether the indings of Study 1 could be detected
for a direct, non-self-report measure of sustainable behavior: donations to an environ
mental charity. We targeted a non-student US-American population since the US is the
second largest CO2 emitter in the world (Global Carbon Atlas, 2023). Based on Study 1
indings, we preregistered (see Kerry & Hämpke, 2024a) predictions that:
H1: Cooperative world belief is positively correlated with self-re
ported ethically-minded consumer behavior and pro-environmental
behavior.
H2: Hierarchical world belief is negatively correlated with self-re
ported ethically-minded consumer behavior and pro-environmental
behavior.
H3: The relationships between hierarchical (negative association),
cooperative (positive), harmless (positive), improvable (positive) and
good (positive) world beliefs and self-reported ethically-minded
consumer behavior or pro-environmental behavior is stronger at
lower levels of abundant world belief.
Further, we planned to conduct exploratory analysis to test whether the primals of
interest predicted additional variance beyond that explained by Big Five personality
traits, demographics, and the overall belief in a good world.
Method
Participants and Procedure
607 paid US-Americans were recruited via Proliic.com and compensated with $2.00
(median completion time was 10 minutes).4 Thirteen were excluded due to failing an
attention check; ive more were excluded as they indicated dishonest answering at the
end of the survey (not preregistered). The inal sample consisted of 589 participants
(288 male, 295 female, 6 not speciied), aged 18–81 years, M = 38.17, SD = 13.41. This
sample size allows 95% power to detect small correlations of r = .15. 8% were African
American or Black, 73% Caucasian, 6% Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino, 0.7% American
4) The sample sizes in Study 2 and Study 3 exceed the preregistered sample sizes as some participants were timed out
by Proliic but still produced useful data.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 11
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.3% Middle Eastern and 9% Asian, while 3% of the participants
did not report ethnicity. Regarding their political ideology, 46% described themselves as
Democrats, 15% as Republican, 3% as Libertarian, 25% as independent, and less than 1% as
Green. 10% did not indicate any party afiliation. 42% of the participants indicated to be
Christian, 1% Hindu, 1% Buddhist, 1% Muslim, 2% Jewish, 3% belonged to other religions,
14% spiritual, and 36% atheist or agnostic. On average, participants earned $46,189 per
year (SD = $46,195, range = $0–$480,000).
Measures
Primal World Beliefs — To measure participants’ harmless, cooperative, hierarchical,
improvable, abundant, and meaningful world beliefs, we used the relevant subscales of
the 99-item Primals Inventory (PI-99, Clifton et al., 2019). Participants’ good world belief
was measured with the shorter 18-item Primals Inventory (PI-18, Clifton & Yaden, 2021)
which asks participants to agree or disagree with statements (0 = Strongly agree; 5 =
Strongly disagree), such as “Most things in the world are good”. Reliabilities ranged from
α = .76–.91 (Table S5, Hämpke et al., 2024).
Self-Reported and Actual Sustainable Behaviors — Self-reported and actual sustain
able behaviors were operationalized using four speciic measures:
Self-Reported Ethically-Minded Consumer Behavior
Self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior (α = .93) was measured using the
same scales as in Study 1.
Plant-Based Diet
Diet was measured using the same single item used in Study 1.
Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behavior
An adapted version of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEB) by Markle (2013)
was used which has participants report the environmentally friendly behaviors they
carry out in daily life. The scale measures individuals’ propensity to engage in
behaviors that beneit the environment. Of four subscales, we only used three (i.e.,
Conversation, Environmental Citizenship, Transportation; e.g., “During the past year
how often have you used public transportation?”). We removed the Food subscale
due to redundancy with our single-item diet measure. We further removed one item
of the Environmental Citizenship subscale because the relationship between organic
produce and sustainability concerns considered in this item is more ambiguous now
than when the scale was developed. The overall pro-environmental behavior was
computed as an average for all items (α = .70).
Donation to an Environmental Charity
We included a single-item measure which informs participants that they have a 1/10
chance of a $5 bonus and allows them to donate some or all of this money to an
environmental charity in increments of $0.50 (0 = Keep the $5.00, 5 = Donate $2.50, 10
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 12
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
= Donate $5.00). At the end of the study, participants were debriefed that the
donation was not actually made.
Covariates
We used the same items as in Study 1 to measure political ideology. We further added
one item asking participants’ total combined income last year. Income was winsorized at
+ / -2.5 standard deviations. Moreover, we included the Ten-Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI) by Gosling et al. (2003) which includes ten statements (rated from 1 = Disagree
strongly to 7 = Agree strongly), such as “I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic”. Five
two-item subscales measure Big 5 agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
extraversion, and openness to experience. Spearman-Brown coeficients ranged between
r = .41 for agreeableness and r = .76 for emotional stability.
Results
Preregistered Analyses
As predicted, participants who scored higher on cooperative world belief scored higher
on both self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior, r = .25, 95% CI [0.17, 0.32], p
< .001, and pro-environmental behavior, r = .17, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], p < .001. Those who
scored higher on hierarchical world belief scored lower on self-reported ethically-minded
consumer behavior, r = -.21, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.13], p < .001, and pro-environmental
behavior, r = -.16, 95% CI [-0.24, -0.08], p < .001. A series of regression analyses found
that these associations were robust to controlling for three preregistered covariates: sex,
political ideology, and income (all |β| > 15, all p’s < .001, Tables S6 and S7, Hämpke et al.
(2024).
We also tested whether abundant belief moderated the correlations between primals
and self-reported sustainable behaviors (H3), as they had in Study 1. Contrary to prereg
istered predictions, abundant world belief did not moderate the effect of good, harmless,
hierarchical, or cooperative world beliefs on self-reported ethically-minded consumer
behavior or pro-environmental behavior, all ps > .106. The only signiicant interaction
effects were found for improvable x abundant on self-reported pro-environmental behav
ior, b = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.00], p = .038, and for meaningful x abundant on self-reported
pro-environmental behavior, b = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.08, -0.01], p = .025. These interactions
were both in the same direction as those observed in Study 1, such that effects were
stronger at low levels of abundant (-1 SD).
Exploratory Analyses
Are World Beliefs Correlated to Other Self-Reported and Direct Measures of
Sustainable Behaviors? — Cooperative world belief positively correlated with dona
tion behavior, r = .14, 95% CI [0.06, 0.22], p < .001, even when controlling for sex,
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 13
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
political ideology, and income. Hierarchical world belief was the only primal negatively
associated with plant-based diet, r = -.17, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.11], p < .001, and intention
to become vegetarian among non-vegetarians, r = -.11, 95% CI [-0.19, -0.02], p = .012.
These associations remained robust even when controlling for age, income, and political
ideology (see Tables S6 and S7, Hämpke et al., 2024, for regression analyses). Correlations
between the other primals (i.e., improvable, harmless, meaningful, abundant, and good
world beliefs) and self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior, pro-environmental
behavior, and donation behavior were mostly signiicant except for the association be
tween abundant world belief and self-reported pro-environmental behavior and donation
behavior. Correlations between primals and the different facets of sustainable behavior
are presented in Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S8, Hämpke et al. (2024).
Do Primals Add Explanatory Value in Self-Reported Sustainable Behaviors Be
yond Personality Traits? — A series of exploratory regression analyses tested whether
Figure 1
Correlations between Primal World Beliefs and (Self-Reported) Sustainable Behaviors
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 14
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
these six primals predict self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior and pro-envi
ronmental behavior even when controlling for Big Five traits. To compare explanatory
power, we compared: (a) a model with the six focal primals as predictors to, (b) a model
with all Big Five traits, and (c) a model which combined all 11 variables (Table S9,
Hämpke et al., 2024).
Compared to Big Five traits, the six focal primals were superior predictors of self-
reported ethically-minded consumer behavior and pro-environmental behavior. While
22% of variance (adjusted for number of variables) in self-reported ethically-minded
consumer behavior was explained by the primals + personality model, these six primals
alone explained 17%, and personality alone explained 11%. We also compared Bayesian
Information Criteria (BICs) across models, since BICs balance the trade-off between
complexity and goodness of it by penalizing additional parameters more harshly than
alternative measures (e.g., adjusted r2). BICs for the primals + personality model had the
best it (i.e., lowest values) for ethically-minded consumer behavior, while the personali
ty-alone model performed worst.
Regarding self-reported pro-environmental behavior, the six primals alone explained
7% of variance, while personality alone explained 5% while 10% was explained by the
combined model. BICs suggested that the primals model performed best, while the
personality model and the primals + personality model yielded similar its.
A series of exploratory moderation analyses testing interactions between each of six
primals with each of ive personality traits found no statistically signiicant interactions
for either self-reported PEB or ethically-minded consumer behavior (all p’s > .05 without
familywise correction).
Do Primals Add Explanatory Value in Self-Reported Sustainable Behaviors Be
yond Personality Traits and Demographics? — As shown in Table 2, an omnibus
model including the six focal primals, all Big Five traits, plus political ideology, religiosi
ty, age, sex, level of education, and income, explained 27% of variance in self-reported
ethically-minded consumer behavior, with unique associations for four primals (all ex
cept cooperative and harmless) and three Big Five traits (all except emotional stability
and extraversion), as well as political ideology and religiosity.
An omnibus model with the six focal primals, personality traits, and covariates
(political ideology, religiosity, age, sex, level of education, and income) explained 15%
of variance in self-reported pro-environmental behavior (Table 3). This model included
unique associations for two primals (hierarchical and abundant), but just one personality
trait (openness).
Do Specific Primals Add Explanatory Value in (Self-Reported) Sustainable Be
haviors Beyond General Positivity? — Finally, we tested whether the predictive
utility of primals for self-reported and non-self-reported sustainable behaviors could be
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 15
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
accounted for by people holding generally positive worldviews. We irst regressed our
ive measures of sustainable behaviors on the good world belief. Then, we added the
six primals as covariates and tested for signiicant changes in explained variance. The
analyses revealed that all of the focal primals other than harmless and cooperative world
beliefs (i.e., improvable, hierarchical, meaningful, and abundant) were still signiicant
predictors for self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior, -0.27 < β < 0.16, ps
< .012 (Table S10, Hämpke et al., 2024). However, for self-reported pro-environmental
behavior, hierarchical and abundant world beliefs alone were predictive when controlling
for good world belief, b = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, -0.05], β = -0.17, p < .001, and b = -0.14,
95% CI [-0.23, -0.07], β = -0.23, p < .001, respectively. Regarding donation behavior,
the six primals did not add explanatory value beyond good world belief. Considering
Table 2
Regression Model Predicting Self-Reported Ethically-Minded Consumer Behavior in Study 2
95% CI
Effect bSE bβLL UL p
(Constant) 1.90*** 0.23 1.45 2.35 < .001
Abundant -0.18*** 0.04 -0.19 -0.27 -0.09 < .001
Cooperative 0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.08 0.09 .959
Harmless 0.07 0.04 0.10 -0.01 0.15 .068
Hierarchical -0.18*** 0.03 -0.21 -0.24 -0.11 < .001
Improvable 0.20*** 0.05 0.21 0.12 0.29 < .001
Meaningful 0.07* 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.14 .044
Extraversion 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.07 .082
Agreeableness 0.08** 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.13 .005
Conscientiousness 0.08** 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.13 .003
Emotional Stability -0.04 0.02 -0.08 -0.09 0.00 .069
Openness 0.07** 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.12 .006
Conservatism -0.13*** 0.02 -0.26 -0.17 -0.09 < .001
Religiosity 0.02* 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.04 .019
Age 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 .371
Sex_femalea-0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.14 0.11 .840
Educational level 0.02 0.02 0.05 -0.02 0.06 .241
Personal incomeb0.04 0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.11 .299
Note. Adjusted model R2 = .27, F(17, 564) = 13.50, p < .001. CI = Conidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL =
Upper Limit.
a In this regression analysis, data from female and male participants were analyzed only.
b Income was z-scored and winsorized at + / - 2.5 SD.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 16
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
plant-based diet, hierarchical and abundant but neither the other four primals nor the
good world belief predicted were predictive, b = -.12, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.07], β = -0.19, p
< .001, and b = -.10, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.01], β = -0.13, p = .029, respectively. The intention
to become vegetarian among non-vegetarians was predicted by cooperative, hierarchical,
and abundant beyond good world belief, b = -3.74, 95% CI [-6.70, -0.78], β = -0.16, p =
.014, b = -3.52, 95% CI [-5.74, -1.30], β = -0.14, p = .002, and b = -3.76, 95% CI [-7.16, -0.36],
β = -0.13, p = .030, respectively.
Discussion
Study 2 found that several primals predicted sustainable behaviors across different self-
report and behavioral measures, with at least two remaining signiicant after controlling
Table 3
Regression Model Predicting Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behavior in Study 2
95% CI
Effect bSE bβLL UL p
(Constant) 2.53*** 0.16 2.21 2.84 < .001
Abundant -0.08* 0.03 -0.12 -0.14 -0.02 .015
Cooperative 0.00 0.03 -0.01 -0.06 0.05 .911
Harmless 0.05 0.03 0.10 -0.01 0.10 .087
Hierarchical -0.10*** 0.02 -0.18 -0.14 -0.05 < .001
Improvable 0.06 0.03 0.09 -0.01 0.12 .078
Meaningful 0.03 0.03 0.06 -0.02 0.08 .291
Extraversion 0.02 0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.04 .287
Agreeableness 0.03 0.02 0.06 -0.01 0.06 .201
Conscientiousness 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.07 .065
Emotional Stability 0.00 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.03 .896
Openness 0.05** 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.09 .006
Conservatism -0.06*** 0.01 -0.18 -0.08 -0.03 < .001
Religiosity 0.02** 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.03 .006
Age 0.00 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 0.00 .025
Sex_femalea-0.09 0.04 -0.09 -0.18 0.00 .042
Education level 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.05 .086
Personal incomeb0.04 0.03 0.07 -0.01 0.09 .137
Note. Adjusted model R2 = .15, F(17, 570) = 6.99, p < .001. CI = Conidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL =
Upper Limit.
a In this regression analysis, data from female and male participants were analyzed only.
b Income was z-scored and winsorized at + / - 2.5 SD.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 17
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
for Big Five traits, ideology, and demographics. However, we were unable to replicate the
moderations of some of these relationships by abundant world belief observed in Study 1.
Exploratory research revealed that the six primals explained somewhat more variance in
self-reported sustainable behaviors than a short measure of Big Five traits. Models which
also included demographics still found unique associations with at least two primals (i.e.,
abundant and hierarchical) adding more explanatory variance in these outcomes. Further,
although good world belief tempered some associations between the six primals and
self-report and behavioral measures of sustainable behavior, at least two primals added
explanatory value in the self-reported measures beyond good world belief. This suggests
that the speciic belief content of these primals is important.
Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 identiied six focal primals—cooperative, harmless, improvable, mean
ingful, abundant, and lower hierarchical world beliefs—as correlates of self-reported
and actual sustainable behaviors. In Study 3, we aimed to explore causal relationships
between primals and people’s intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior.
We used a mixed design to examine the relationship between primals and pro-en
vironmental behavior intentions. In addition to testing correlations between primals
and pro-environmental behavior intentions, we used within-subject changes in world
beliefs over a three-week period to test whether changes in these beliefs were related
to changes in individuals’ propensity to engage in sustainable behaviors. We also aimed
to manipulate cooperative world belief via a social exclusion experiment to determine
its causal effect on pro-environmental behavior intentions. Previous research has already
showed that the experience of social exclusion can lead to changes in individuals’ world
views (e.g., Graeupner & Coman, 2017; Lin, 2023). As group membership can lead to
higher levels of cooperation, while social exclusion can result in less pro-social behavior
(Goette et al., 2006; Twenge et al., 2007), we hypothesized that feelings of social exclusion
could temporarily reduce participants’ belief in a cooperative world.
Speciically, we made the following predictions (see Hämpke & Kerry, 2024):
H1: Cooperative, improvable, harmless, meaningful, and abundant
world beliefs will be positively related to pro-environmental behav
ior intentions, while hierarchical world belief will be negatively
related.
H2: Increases in cooperative, meaningful, harmless, improvable, and
abundant world beliefs and decreases in hierarchical beliefs will be
associated with positive changes in the propensity to engage in sus
tainable behaviors (the relative difference between pro-environmen
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 18
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
tal behavior at Time 1 and pro-environmental behavior intentions at
Time 2).
H3: People who are socially excluded (vs. included) are less likely
to report pro-environmental behavior intentions. If this is the case,
cooperative world belief mediates this relationship.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Initially, we invited all participants from Study 2 to participate to examine changes over a
three-week timeframe. When recruitment of this group stopped progressing (we recruit
ed 256 from the original sample), we continued collecting data from new US-American
participants until we reached our preregistered 600 participants allowing us to detect
small correlations of r = .15 with 95% power and small between-subject effects of d = .20
with 80% power. Overall, 603 paid participants took part in our study and were paid $1.60
for their participation (median completion time was 7 minutes). 17 were excluded due
to failing an attention check, leaving 586 American participants (337 male, 243 female,
6 not speciied), ages 18–81, M = 39.47; SD = 13.30. 248 of them have already taken
part in Study 2 and their data was used in analyses of change over time. Data from all
586 participants was used for the cross-sectional correlations and experimental analyses.
Of these, 8% were African-American or Black, 76% Caucasian, 6% Spanish, Hispanic,
or Latino, less than 0.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, less than 0.5% Middle
Eastern, and 9% Asian, while 2% of the participants did not report ethnicity. On average,
participants reported earning $53,902 per year (SD = $59,939, min = $0, max = $900,000).
To manipulate participants’ cooperative world belief, they irst played an online ball
tossing game called Social Ball which was designed to study ostracism (Meral et al.,
2022). In this animated game, participants play a ball game with two other (ictitious)
virtual players in which they are either included in or excluded from the game.
When starting the survey, participants were told that they would play an online ball
tossing game with two other participants to train their mental visualization skills. To
improve credibility, we asked them to wait in the digital lobby until they are matched
to two other participants. Following Dvir et al. (2019), we asked participants to mentally
visualize the entire experiences during the game including themselves, the other players,
and the location. In contrast to former studies that included this game, we also told
them to pass the ball as fast as possible (by clicking on another avatar). At the end
of the game, a series of questions regarding their visualization experiences followed to
improve believability (e.g., “During the task you were asked to mentally visualize the
other players. In the space below, please describe briely what you imagined.”).
Participants then proceeded to the main questionnaires.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 19
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Measures
Primal World Beliefs — As in Study 2, we used subscales of the 99-item Primals
Inventory (PI-99, Clifton et al., 2019) to measure cooperative, meaningful, harmless,
improvable, abundant, and hierarchical world beliefs. A change score for primals was
computed by subtracting scores for each primal in this study from scores in Study 2
measured three weeks prior for participants who completed both. Reliabilities for the
primals and their change scores ranged between α = .82–.93 and α = .55–.72, respectively
(Table S11, Hämpke et al., 2024).
— Self-Reported Sustainable Behaviors —
Pro-environmental Behavior Intentions
The “Pro-environmental Intentions Scale” (Clark et al., 2019) has participants rate 12
statements on their intentions to behave in a more environmentally friendly way in
the future (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree), e.g., “In the future I will look for
ways to reuse things” (α = .89).
Results
Preregistered Analyses
As predicted (H1), cooperative, r(584) = .17, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], p < .001, improvable,
r(584) = .21, 95% CI [0.13, 0.28], p < .001, harmless, r(584) = .18, 95% CI [0.10, 0.25], p <
.001, meaningful, r(584) = .14, 95% CI [0.06, 0.22], p < .001, and abundant world beliefs,
r(584) = .09, 95% CI [0.01, 0.17], p = .032, were all signiicantly positively correlated with
pro-environmental behavior intentions, while hierarchical world belief was negatively
correlated, r(584) = -.27, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.19], p < .001. Supplementary Tables S12 and
S13, Hämpke et al. (2024), show descriptive statistics and correlations between Study 3’s
focal variables. A non-preregistered model including all six focal primals as predictors
accounted for 13% of variance (adjusted R2) in pro-environmental behavior intentions.
Regarding H2, our preregistration indicated that we would examine correlations
between changes in people’s propensity to engage in sustainable behaviors and these six
primals world beliefs. While results were largely consistent with predictions, it is ques
tionable whether change can be computed across two different measures (self-reported
pro-environmental behavior and pro-environmental behavioral intentions). We therefore
report these analyses in Supplement S14, Hämpke et al. (2024). Perhaps a better question
to ask is whether changes in primal world beliefs are associated with pro-environmental
behavior intention at a later timepoint when controlling for earlier self-reported pro-en
vironmental behavior (not preregistered). As shown in Table 4, changes in cooperative
and harmless world beliefs were signiicant predictors of pro-environmental behavior
intentions even when controlling for earlier self-reported pro-environmental behavior.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 20
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
For the other four world beliefs, effects were directionally consistent with previous
indings, but nonsigniicant.
Contrary to H3, participants who were socially excluded in Social Ball did not differ
from those who were not excluded in terms of either pro-environmental behavior inten
tions, t(584) = 0.04, p = .485, d = 0.003, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17], or cooperative world beliefs,
t(584) = .54, p = .294, d = 0.045, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.21].
Exploratory Analyses
Manipulation checks indicated that the experiment was successful in making participants
feel socially excluded (see S15). Analyses testing whether the focal primals moderated
Table 4
Regression Models Predicting Pro-Environmental Behavior Intentions in Study 3
95% CI
Model Effect bSE bβLL UL p
1 (Constant) 1.37*** 0.23 0.92 1.83 < .001
Cooperative change 0.12* 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.21 .015
PEBt1 0.76*** 0.08 0.53 0.61 0.92 < .001
2 (Constant) 1.39*** 0.23 0.93 1.85 < .001
Meaningful Change 0.08 0.05 0.09 -0.02 0.17 .115
PEBt1 0.76*** 0.08 0.53 0.60 0.92 < .001
3 (Constant) 1.50*** 0.23 1.05 1.95 < .001
Harmless change 0.14** 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.25 .005
PEBt1 0.72*** 0.08 0.50 0.57 0.88 < .001
4 (Constant) 1.43*** 0.23 0.98 1.89 < .001
Improvable change 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.20 .055
PEBt1 0.74*** 0.08 0.52 0.59 0.90 < .001
5 (Constant) 1.46*** 0.23 1.01 1.91 < .001
Abundant change 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.22 .057
PEBt1 0.74*** 0.08 0.51 0.58 0.89 < .001
6 (Constant) 1.45*** 0.23 0.99 1.91 < .001
Hierarchical change -0.05 0.05 -0.05 -0.15 0.05 .342
PEBt1 0.74*** 0.08 0.51 0.58 0.89 < .001
Note. Adjusted model R2model1 = .28, F(2, 245) = 47.75, p < .001. Adjusted model R2model2 = .26, F(2, 245) = 45.37, p
< .001. Adjusted model R2model3 = .28, F(2, 245) = 49.09, p < .001. Adjusted model R2model4 = .27, F(2, 245) = 46.20, p
< .001. Adjusted model R2model5 = .27, F(2, 245) = 46.16, p < .001. Adjusted model R2model6 = .26, F(2, 245) = 44.29, p
< .001. CI = Conidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit. PEBt1 = Self-reported pro-environmental
behavior measured in Study 2.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 21
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
experimental effects of social exclusions on pro-environmental intentions found no sig
niicant interactions (all p’s > .05).
Discussion
Consistent with preregistered predictions, Study 3 found that the six focal primals—
beliefs that the world is more cooperative, meaningful, improvable, harmless, and abun
dant, but less hierarchical—were associated with stronger pro-environmental behavior
intentions. In a pattern mirroring the cross-sectional relationships, changes over a three-
week period in cooperative and harmless world beliefs were correlated with pro-environ
mental behavior intentions even when controlling for earlier self-reported pro-environ
mental behavior. However, an experimental manipulation of social exclusion was not
successful in changing either cooperative world belief or pro-environmental behavioral
intentions.
General Discussion
Three studies found consistent evidence that primal world beliefs correlated with both
(self-reported) sustainable behaviors and behavioral intentions. In particular, we identi
ied six beliefs—beliefs that the world is less hierarchical, but more cooperative, mean
ingful, abundant, improvable, and harmless—which were associated with self-reported
sustainable behaviors. These associations were found to be largely independent of each
other and mostly remained robust to controlling for several potential confounds, includ
ing social desirability, religiosity, and even political ideology. At least three of the six
primals (i.e., abundant, harmless, and hierarchical) added signiicantly explanatory value
in self-reported sustainable behaviors beyond Big Five traits.
The overall explanatory power of these six primals was substantial, accounting for
17% of adjusted variance in self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior and 7%
of self-reported pro-environmental behavior in Study 2. This meant that the six focal
primals explained more variance in these two outcome variables than Big Five traits.
While this could be explained by the use of a short version of the Big Five Inventory,
which may have inlated measurement error, the correlations between pro-environmen
tal behavior and Big 5 traits in Study 2 were comparable to those reported in other
studies (see Soutter et al., 2020). Further, the relationships between primals and these two
self-reported measures of sustainable behavior were not explained by shared variance
between primals and Big Five traits—a model with primals and personality traits together
explained 22% of variance in self-reported ethically-minded consumer behavior—suggest
ing that these six primals offer considerable predictive utility that cannot be accounted
for by Big Five factors. Findings thus provide additional evidence that primal world
beliefs are not merely a function of one’s personality traits, at least according to the
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 22
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Big Five taxonomy (Clifton et al., 2019), and that this difference matters, in this case
explaining considerable additional variance in self-reported sustainable behaviors.
Several of the associations between the six primals and self-reported and actual
sustainable behaviors became non-signiicant when controlling for the good world belief.
For the donation measure, none of the lower-level primals emerged as signiicant pre
dictors when good world belief was accounted for. This observation is consistent with
previous indings suggesting that the overall belief in a good world accounts for a large
amount of the shared variance between speciic primals and some traits (Stahlmann &
Ruch, 2023). A certain amount of this redundancy is perhaps unsurprising, given that
ive of these six primals are considered lower-level facets of good world belief (with
which they covary strongly), and that cooperative and harmless belief, in particular,
share several items with this broader construct (Clifton et al., 2019). Further, adding
the six primals as predictors resulted in increased variance explained in the different
self-reports of sustainable behaviors. The lower-order primal that was most consistently
associated with self-reported sustainable behaviors independent of good world belief was
hierarchical world belief.
We were unable to successfully manipulate cooperative world belief in Study 3,
meaning that the exact nature of the causal relationship between primal world beliefs
and sustainable behaviors remains unclear. It is possible that the experimental manipula
tion was simply too brief or insuficiently psychologically potent to move cooperative
belief (and consequently sustainable behavioral intentions) successfully. According to
previous research, world beliefs tend to be stable and show only modest relationships
with recent events (Clifton et al., 2019; Kerry et al., 2024; Ludwig et al., 2023). Thus,
perhaps subtle online manipulations such as Social Ball are not suficiently impactful to
meaningfully change world beliefs.
Although we found no direct evidence of causal relationships, the within-subjects
data in Study 3 indicated that changes in at least two primals (cooperative and harmless
world beliefs) predicted pro-environmental behavior intentions beyond previously self-
reported pro-environmental behavior. This inding suggests that increases or decreases
in primal world beliefs over time may be somehow tied to individuals’ propensity to
engage in pro-environmental behaviors.
Although the indings here are largely novel, several aspects are theoretically con
sonant with existing work. For example, the inding that meaningful world belief corre
lates with self-reported sustainable behaviors is consistent with research showing links
between pro-environmental behavior and people’s need for meaning (Lin, 2019; Scales
et al., 2014; van Tilburg & Igou, 2011). Similarly, the importance of hierarchical world
beliefs for self-reported sustainable behaviors is consistent with research showing that
pro-environmental attitudes and attitudes towards vegetarianism are predicted by social
dominance orientation, a measure of people’s preferences for hierarchically structured
social organizations (Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Milfont et al., 2018; Panno et al., 2018; Zhao
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 23
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
et al., 2018). It is worth noting, in this context, that hierarchical world belief is both
theoretically and empirically distinct from social dominance orientation. Hierarchical
world belief describes how things are perceived to be rather than how they should be,
and while the two variables are related, correlations do not indicate redundancy (e.g., r =
.29 in Prokosch et al., 2022 and r = .42 in Clifton & Kerry, 2023).
Limitations
There are several limitations to consider in this study. First, although world beliefs have
been widely theorized to inluence attention, personality, and behavior (e.g., Beck, 1963,
1964), we should not assume causal directionality from the correlational indings presen
ted here or that interventions which increase speciic primals will necessarily increase
attitudes or behaviors which covary with them. Borsboom and colleagues (2009) have
made this point, noting that it is possible for drinking coffee to be negatively related
to neuroticism, but that an intervention that asks people to drink a lot of coffee could
still increase neuroticism (perhaps because people who are lower in neuroticism are
more likely to consume something with the potential to make them more anxious). More
focused longitudinal or intervention-based research is needed to test causal relationships,
their directions, and the conditions under which these relationships exist. However,
there are some theoretical reasons to hypothesize certain directional relationships. For
example, it makes more sense to try to make positive changes in a world which is easy
to improve (high improvable beliefs), where others will do their bit (high cooperative
beliefs), and where the world and the things we do really matter (high meaningful
beliefs). And one might be less concerned about policies that are perceived to primarily
harm lower-status people, poorer countries, and non-human animals if you believe that
some people, groups, and animals are just better and more important than others (high
hierarchical beliefs).
A second limitation is that, given our use of self-reports of sustainable behaviors, we
can only draw conclusions about the relationship between primals and individuals’ pro
pensity to engage in sustainable behaviors but not about actual behavior, as self-reports
may differ from actual behaviors for a variety of reasons (see Lange et al., 2023). While
we did ind that hierarchical beliefs correlated with donation behavior, this represents
a rather contrived example, and the use of more direct measures (e.g., digital traces of
buying behavior) is needed to draw irm conclusions on the relevance of primals in
sustainable behaviors.
A third limitation concerns the measurement of ethical diet. We did not distinguish
between participants who decided to be vegan or vegetarian due to ethical or health
reasons (Radnitz et al., 2015). Although indings revealed that more than 80% of vegetari
ans across the world decided to avoid animal products due to animal welfare or for the
environment (Veggly, 2021; Vomad, 2019), differential associations with behavior due to
diverse motivations should be investigated in future research.
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 24
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Lastly, we derived our results from university students and paid online samples of
American adults only. Future work may also strive to test generalizability of the present
indings among more diverse samples.
Implications
The indings here show that world beliefs explain substantial variance in self-reported
sustainable behaviors and that changes in these beliefs may be related to people’s
pro-environmental behavior intentions even when controlling for previously reported
pro-environmental behavior. If it is the case that primals are causally prior to pro-envi
ronmental intentions, these beliefs would represent a promising target for interventions.
For example, applied research could test whether messaging which emphasizes more co
operative aspects of the wider world and encourages people to see the world as imbued
with meaning may be more successful in encouraging sustainable behaviors. Or perhaps
people who already see the world as more cooperative, meaningful, or improvable could
be more receptive to certain types of messaging (Feinberg & Willer, 2011).
Concluding Remarks
This paper presents evidence that several primals are associated with (self-reported) sus
tainable behaviors and that increases in cooperative and harmless world beliefs predict
pro-environmental behavior intentions beyond previously reported pro-environmental
behavior. For several measures, these primals were more powerful predictors than short-
form measures of political ideology and personality traits. Given world beliefs’ putative
role in inluencing attention and behavior, future research aimed at uncovering sources
of change in these beliefs may offer fresh insight into designing successful interventions
and messaging aimed at encouraging sustainable behaviors.
Openness and Transparency Statements
The present article has been checked by its handling editor(s) for compliance with the journal's open science and
transparency policies. The completed Transparency Checklist is publicly available at:
https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15379
Author Contributions.
J H: Conceptualization. Data curation. Formal analysis. Investigation. Methodology. Project
administration. Resources. Software. Validation. Visualization. Writing – original draft.
N K: Conceptualization. Data curation. Formal analysis. Funding acquisition. Investigation.
Methodology. Project administration. Resources. Software. Supervision. Validation. Writing – original draft.
J D. W. C: Conceptualization. Funding acquisition. Resources. Supervision. Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgments. The authors have no additional (i.e., non-inancial) support to report.
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 25
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Funding. This research was funded by the Templeton Religion Trust, Grant #10298.
Competing Interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Ethics Statement. This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania.
All participants gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical
Association, 2013). They were asked if understood the instructions and informed that their participation was
voluntary, and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. After the end of the study, participants
were fully debriefed. All data were anonymized and saved conidentially.
Diversity Statement. In the list below, the check mark (☑) indicates which steps were taken to increase diversity
within the context of this paper. Steps that were not taken or did not apply are unmarked (☐).
☐Ethnically or otherwise diverse sample(s)
☑Gender balanced sample(s)
☑Inclusive gender measure
☑Inclusive materials
☑Sampling justiication
☑Extensive sample description
☑Discussion of generalizability
☑Diverse reference list
☐Underprivileged / minority author(s)
☑Early career author(s)
☐Degree of privilege/marginalization considered in authorship order
☐Author(s) from sampled population (avoiding ’helicopter science’)
Supplementary Materials. The following table provides an overview of the accessibility of supplementary
materials (if any) for this paper.
Type of supplementary materials Availability/Access
Data
Study data. Kerry & Hämpke (2024b)
Code
SPSS code. Kerry & Hämpke (2024b)
Material
a. Materials for Studies 1–3. Kerry & Hämpke (2024b)
b. Measures for Studies 1–3. Kerry & Hämpke (2024b)
Study/Analysis preregistration
a. Preregistration of hypotheses—Study 1. Kerry & Clifton (2022)
b. Preregistration of hypotheses—Study 2. Kerry & Hämpke (2024a)
c. Preregistration of hypotheses—Study 3. Hämpke & Kerry (2024)
Other
Supplementary tables and igures on correlation and reliability,
regression analyses, manipulation checks.
Hämpke et al. (2024)
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 26
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Badges for Good Research Practices.
Open data: YES.
Open code: YES.
Open materials: YES.
Preregistration: YES.
Diversity statement: YES.
Note: YES = the present article meets the criteria for awarding the badge. NO = the present article does not meet the criteria for awarding the badge
or the criteria are not applicable.
References
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Barlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). Direct and indirect relations between the Big 5 personality
traits and aggressive and violent behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 870–875.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.029
Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and Depression I: Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324–333.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002
Beck, A. T. (1964). Thinking and Depression II: Theory and therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry,
10(6), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1964.01720240015003
Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., Cervone, D., & Hood, S. B. (2009). The two disciplines of scientiic
psychology, or: The disunity of psychology as a working hypothesis. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M.
Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social
and developmental sciences (pp. 67–97). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-95922-1_4
Brick, C., & Lewis, G. J. (2016). Unearthing the “Green” personality: Core traits predict
environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48(5), 635–658.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514554695
Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope
appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598–611.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
Clark, E., Mulgrew, K., Kannis-Dymand, L., Schaffer, V., & Hoberg, R. (2019). Theory of planned
behaviour: Predicting tourists’ pro-environmental intentions after a humpback whale
encounter. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(5), 649–667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1603237
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 27
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Clifton, J. D. W. (2020). Testing if primal world beliefs relect experiences—Or at least some
experiences identiied ad hoc. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1145.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01145
Clifton, J. D. W., Baker, J. D., Park, C. L., Yaden, D. B., Clifton, A. B. W., Terni, P., Miller, J. L., Zeng,
G., Giorgi, S., Schwartz, H. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2019). Primal world beliefs. Psychological
Assessment, 31(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000639
Clifton, J. D., & Kerry, N. (2023). Belief in a dangerous world does not explain substantial variance
in political attitudes, but other world beliefs do. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 14(5),
515–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221119324
Clifton, J. D., & Yaden, D. B. (2021). Brief measures of the four highest-order primal world beliefs.
Psychological Assessment, 33(12), 1267–1273. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001055
Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward
a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1547–1561. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711014
Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation
and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 12–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
Dvir, M., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Is inclusion a valid control for ostracism? Journal of
Social Psychology, 159(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1460301
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x
Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a uniied theory of
motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming
by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22(1), 34–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Global Carbon Atlas. (2023). Emissions. Territorial (MtCO2). Global Carbon Project.
http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions
Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2006). The impact of group membership on cooperation and
norm enforcement: Evidence using random assignment to real social groups (Working Papers, No.
06-7). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/55626
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Graeupner, D., & Coman, A. (2017). The dark side of meaning-making: How social exclusion leads
to superstitious thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 218–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.003
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 28
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Hämpke, J., & Kerry, N. (2024). Primals and pro-environmental behavior (#108595) [Preregistration of
hypotheses – Study 3]. AsPredicted. https://aspredicted.org/tg8ey.pdf
Hämpke, J., Kerry, N., & Clifton, J. D. W. (2024). Supplementary materials to “World beliefs predict
self-reported sustainable behaviors beyond Big Five personality traits and political ideology”
[Supplementary tables and igures on correlation and reliability, regression analyses,
manipulation checks]. PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15378
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (Vol. 3). Guilford Press.
Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Moshagen, M., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Tracing the path from personality—
via cooperativeness—to conservation. European Journal of Personality, 27(4), 319–327.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1856
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education,
18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism:
A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1583–1593.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.015
Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2018). Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat
consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support). Appetite, 120, 75–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.027
Hopwood, C. J., Schwaba, T., Milfont, T. L., Sibley, C. G., & Bleidorn, W. (2022). Personality change
and sustainability attitudes and behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 36(5), 750–770.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211016260
Hudson, N. W. (2021). Does successfully changing personality traits via intervention require that
participants be autonomously motivated to change? Journal of Research in Personality, 95,
Article 104160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104160
IPCC. (2022). Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (No. 6). Cambridge
University Press.
Kaida, N., & Kaida, K. (2019). Positive associations of optimism–pessimism orientation with pro-
environmental behavior and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study on quality of life and
everyday behavior. Quality of Life Research, 28(12), 3323–3332.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02273-y
Kaiser, F. G., Wöling, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0107
Kerry, N., & Clifton, J. (2022). Primal world beliefs and ethical choices (#75774) [Preregistration of
hypotheses – Study 1]. AsPredicted. https://aspredicted.org/kw6wy.pdf
Kerry, N., & Hämpke, J. (2024a). Primals and ethical/pro-environmental behavior (#106908)
[Preregistration of hypotheses – Study 2]. AsPredicted. https://aspredicted.org/kz2ac.pdf
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 29
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Kerry, N., & Hämpke, J. (2024b). Primals and sustainable behaviors [OSF project page containing
datasets, materials and measures, and SPSS syntax]. OSF. https://osf.io/j5eyh/
Kerry, N., White, K. C., O’Brien, M. L., Perry, L. M., & Clifton, J. D. (2024). Despite popular
intuition, positive world beliefs poorly relect several objective indicators of privilege,
including wealth, health, sex, and neighborhood safety. Journal of Personality, 92(4), 1129–1142.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12877
Kesenheimer, J. S., & Greitemeyer, T. (2021). Going green (and not being just more pro-social): Do
attitude and personality speciically inluence pro-environmental behavior? Sustainability,
13(6), Article 3560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063560
Koller, K., Pankowska, P. K., & Brick, C. (2023). Identifying bias in self-reported pro-environmental
behavior. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, Article 100087.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100087
Lange, F., Berger, S., Byrka, K., Brügger, A., Henn, L., Sparks, A. C., Nielsen, K. S., & Urban, J. (2023).
Beyond self-reports: A call for more behavior in environmental psychology. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 86, Article 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101965
Larson, L. R., Whiting, J. W., & Green, G. T. (2011). Exploring the inluence of outdoor recreation
participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local
Environment, 16(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.548373
Lin, L. (2019). Is searching for meaning in life related to civic engagement? Individual- and society-
level moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1334.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01334
Lin, X. (2023). The impact of social exclusion on mobile phone addiction among university
students: The chain mediating role of just world beliefs and subjective well-being. International
Journal of Education and Humanities, 10(2), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v10i2.11642
Ludwig, V. U., Crone, D. L., Clifton, J. D. W., Rebele, R. W., Schor, J. A., & Platt, M. L. (2023).
Resilience of primal world beliefs to the initial shock of the COVID ‐19 pandemic. Journal of
Personality, 91(3), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12780
Madsen, H., Lawrence, D., Lang, M., Martinkova, M., & Kjeldsen, T. R. (2014). Review of trend
analysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and loods in Europe. Journal
of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 519(D), 3634–3650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.003
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development
and validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41(6), 905–914.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Proiling the “pro-environmental
individual”: A personality perspective: Personality and pro-environmental action. Journal of
Personality, 80(1), 81–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x
McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience, 52(10), 883–890.
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 30
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Meral, E. O., Rosenbusch, H., Kip, A., Ren, D., van Dijk, E., & van Beest, I. (2022). Social Ball: An
immersive research paradigm to study social ostracism. PsyArXiv.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v8kwx
Milfont, T. L., Bain, P. G., Kashima, Y., Corral-Verdugo, V., Pasquali, C., Johansson, L. O., Guan, Y.,
Gouveia, V. V., Garðarsdóttir, R. B., Doron, G., Bilewicz, M., Utsugi, A., Aragones, J. I., Steg, L.,
Soland, M., Park, J., Otto, S., Demarque, C., Wagner, C., . . .Einarsdóttir, G. (2018). On the
relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: A 25-nation study. Social
Psychological & Personality Science, 9(7), 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722832
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The Big Five personality traits and environmental engagement:
Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2),
187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.006
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S., & Mannetti, L. (2018).
Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: The mediating role of
social dominance. Environment and Behavior, 50(8), 864–888.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887
Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018). Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results from a representative
German sample. Appetite, 120, 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.005
Prokosch, M. L., Smith, C., Kerry, N., & Von Meding, J. (2022). Too strong to care? Investigating the
links between formidability, worldviews, and views on climate and disaster. Politics and the Life
Sciences, 41(2), 200–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.20
Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of individuals
following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite, 90, 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.026
Raiq, F., Chishty, S. K., & Adil, M. (2022). Explanatory or dispositional optimism: Which trait
predicts eco-friendly tourist behavior? Sustainability, 14(5), Article 2994.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052994
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I
Scales, P. C., Syvertsen, A. K., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Sesma, A. (2014). Relation of
spiritual development to youth health and well-being: Evidence from a global study. In A. Ben-
Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp. 1101–1135).
Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-8_41
Shimotsukasa, T., Oshio, A., Tani, M., & Yamaki, M. (2019). Big Five personality traits in inmates
and normal adults in Japan. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 81–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.018
Soutter, A. R. B., Bates, T. C., & Mõttus, R. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits,
proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 15(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019
Hämpke, Kerry, & Clifton 31
Global Environmental Psychology
2025, Vol. 3, Article e12057
https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.12057
Stahlmann, A. G., & Ruch, W. (2023). Primal world beliefs correlate strongly but differentially with
character strengths. Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(4), 481–491.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2070532
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally
signiicant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Sockhill, N. J., Dean, A. J., Oh, R. R. Y., & Fuller, R. A. (2022). Beyond the ecocentric: Diverse values
and attitudes inluence engagement in pro‐environmental behaviours. People and Nature, 4(6),
1500–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10400
Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically-minded consumer behavior: Scale review,
development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005
Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral contributions to climate change:
Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66(4), 251–264.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023472
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social
exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–
66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2011). On boredom and social identity: A pragmatic meaning-
regulation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1679–1691.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211418530
Veggly. (2021). Why people go vegan? Veggly. https://www.veggly.net/why-go-vegan/
Vomad. (2019). 2019 global vegan survey. Vomad. https://vomad.life/survey
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research
involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), Article 2191.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Webster, R. J., Morrone, N., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). The effects of belief in pure good and belief in
pure evil on consumer ethics. Personality and Individual Differences, 177, Article 110768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110768
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and
behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103–118.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0581
Zhao, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lu, J., & He, W. (2018). Relation between awe and environmentalism:
The role of social dominance orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2367.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02367
World Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior 32
PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by
Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany.
www.leibniz-psychology.org
