Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
1.2. Mental Models
1.3. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship
1.3.1. Human Exceptionalism
1.3.2. Beliefs About Human Impacts on Nature
1.3.3. Beliefs About Nature Impacts on Humans
1.4. Current Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Design
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship
2.3.2. Pro-Environmental Attitudes
2.3.3. Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions
2.4. Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Data Analysis Plan
3.2. Scoring
3.2.1. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship
3.2.2. Pro-Environmental Attitudes
3.2.3. Behavioral Intentions
3.3. Research Question 1: Relations Between Human Impact, Nature’s Impact, and Human Exceptionalism
3.3.1. Comparing Perceptions of Human Impact and Nature’s Impact
3.3.2. Relations Among Human Impact, Nature’s Impact, and Human Exceptionalism
3.4. Research Question 2: Relations Between Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship, Pro-Environmental Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions
3.4.1. Investment Behavioral Intent
3.4.2. Protection Behavioral Intent
3.5. Exploratory Analyses: Influence of Political Conservatism on the Relationship Between Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship, Pro-Environmental Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions
3.5.1. Correlational Analyses
3.5.2. Investment Behavioral Intent
3.5.3. Protection Behavioral Intent
4. Discussion
4.1. Human Exceptionalism, Human Impact, and Nature Impact Are Distinct, Albeit Related, Components of Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship
4.2. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
4.2.1. Mental Models Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes
4.2.2. Mental Models Predict Behavioral Intentions
4.2.3. Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
4.3. Limitations, Future Directions, and Practical Implications
4.3.1. Limitations and Future Directions
4.3.2. Practical Implications
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
HNR | Human–nature Relationship |
HE | Human exceptionalism |
HI | Perceived human impact on nature |
NI | Perceived nature’s impact on humans |
References
- IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beratan, K.K. A Cognition-based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social–Ecological Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 26267857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constantino, S.M.; Schlüter, M.; Weber, E.U.; Wijermans, N. Cognition and behavior in context: A framework and theories to explain natural resource use decisions in social-ecological systems. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 1651–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byerly, H.; Balmford, A.; Ferraro, P.J.; Hammond Wagner, C.; Palchak, E.; Polasky, S.; Ricketts, T.H.; Schwartz, A.J.; Fisher, B. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: Evidence and opportunities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 457–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cristea, M.; Gheorghiu, A. Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and intention to adopt risky behaviors. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 43, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, T.; Hsu, C.H.C. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Effendi, M.I.; Sugandini, D.; Sukarno, A.; Kundarto, M.; Arundati, R. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Pro-Environmental Behavior among Students. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2020, 11, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moghimehfar, F.; Halpenny, E.A.; Harshaw, H. Ecological worldview, attitudes, and visitors’ behaviour: A study of front-country campers. J. Ecotourism 2019, 19, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortenkamp, K.V.; Moore, C.F. Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Commons Dilemmas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinn, F.; Castéra, J.; Clément, P. Teachers’ conceptions of the environment: Anthropocentrism, non-anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism and the place of nature. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 893–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.J.H.; Betz, N.; Helmuth, B.; Coley, J.D. Conceptualizing Human–Nature Relationships: Implications of Human Exceptionalist Thinking for Sustainability and Conservation. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2023, 15, 357–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steg, L.; Sievers, I. Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of Environmental Risks. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, S.G.; Barton, M. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S. Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature; Clayton, S., Opotow, S., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabernero, C.; Hernández, B. Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation Guiding Environmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2010, 43, 658–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pizza, L.; Kelemen, D. Are Humans Part of the Natural World? U.S. Children’s and Adults’ Concept of Nature and its Relationship to Environmental Concern. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2023, 15, 452–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sockhill, N.J.; Dean, A.J.; Oh, R.R.Y.; Fuller, R.A. Beyond the ecocentric: Diverse values and attitudes influence engagement in pro-environmental behaviours. People Nat. 2022, 4, 1500–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopnina, H.; Washington, H.; Taylor, B.; Piccolo, J.J. Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2018, 31, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riechers, M.; Noack, E.M.; Tscharntke, T. Experts’ versus laypersons’ perception of urban cultural ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey, P.J.; Scott, K. Environmental concern and behaviour in an Australian sample within an ecocentric–anthropocentric framework. Aust. J. Psychol. 2006, 58, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M.; Johnson-Laird, P.N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Language 1985, 61, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.A.; Ross, H.; Lynam, T.; Perez, P.; Leitch, A. Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 26268859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischbein, E. The Autonomy of Mental Models. Learn. Math. 1990, 10, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
- Coley, J.D.; Tanner, K. Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esponda, I.; Vespa, E.; Yuksel, S. Mental Models and Learning: The Case of Base-Rate Neglect. Am. Econ. Rev. 2024, 114, 752–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterman, J.D. Learning from Evidence in a Complex World. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzo, J.; Bell, A. Mental models of adherence: Parallels in perceptions, values, and expectations in adherence to prescribed home exercise programs and other personal regimens. Disabil. Rehabil. 2019, 41, 2412–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prager, K.; Curfs, M. Using mental models to understand soil management. Soil Use Manag. 2016, 32, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, M.; Lubell, M.; Hillis, V. Linking knowledge and action through mental models of sustainable agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 13016–13021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McClenachan, L.; Scyphers, S.; Grabowski, J.H. Views from the dock: Warming waters, adaptation, and the future of Maine’s lobster fishery. Ambio 2020, 49, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bessette, D.L.; Mayer, L.A.; Cwik, B.; Vezér, M.; Keller, K.; Lempert, R.J.; Tuana, N. Building a Values-Informed Mental Model for New Orleans Climate Risk Management. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 2017, 37, 1993–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bang, M.; Medin, D.L.; Atran, S. Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 13868–13874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coley, J.D.; Betz, N.; Helmuth, B.; Ellenbogen, K.; Scyphers, S.B.; Adams, D. Beliefs about Human-Nature Relationships and Implications for Investment and Stewardship Surrounding Land-Water System Conservation. Land 2021, 10, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gee, H. The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- White, L. The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 1967, 155, 1203–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickering, A. Against Human Exceptionalism. Available online: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10036/18873 (accessed on 22 December 2024).
- Ferrari, M.; Chi, M.T.H. The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 20, 1231–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, K.; Kasturirangan, R. Political ecology, development, and human exceptionalism. Geoforum 2016, 75, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betz, N.; Coley, J.D. Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairns Jr, J. Sustainability, Exceptionalism, and Exemptionalism. Ecosyst. Health 2001, 7, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poling, D.A.; Evans, E.M. Are dinosaurs the rule or the exception? Developing concepts of death and extinction. Cogn. Dev. 2004, 19, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazin, D. A Reading of the conception of man in Hans Jonas’ works: Between Nature and Responsibility. An Environmental Ethics Approach. Ética Econ. Bien Común. 2004, 2, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Eom, K.; Ng, S.T. The Potential of Religion for Promoting Sustainability: The Role of Stewardship. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2023, 15, 480–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dyk, P.J. “Responsible stewardship”—The root of all evil in eco-theology? Old Testam. Essays 2015, 28, 523–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, Y.-K. Human superiority is obvious but does not justify cruelty. Anim. Sentience 2019, 3, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faria, C.; Paez, E. Anthropocentrism and speciesism: Conceptual and normative issues. Rev. Bioética Derecho 2014, 32, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimmerer, R.W. Braiding Sweetgrass; Milkweed Editions: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, B.; Adimo, O.A.; Bao, Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priskin, J. Tourist Perceptions of Degradation Caused by Coastal Nature-Based Recreation. Environ. Manag. 2003, 32, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyles, K.J.; Pahl, S.; Thompson, R.C. Perceived risks and benefits of recreational visits to the marine environment: Integrating impacts on the environment and impacts on the visitor. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2014, 88, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capstick, S.; Whitmarsh, L.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.; Upham, P. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim. Change 2015, 6, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etkin, D.; Ho, E. Climate Change: Perceptions and Discourses of Risk. J. Risk Res. 2007, 10, 623–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, M.A.; Lubell, M.N.; McRoberts, N. The structure of mental models of sustainable agriculture. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaksek, M.; Arvai, J.L. Toward improved communication about wildland fire: Mental models research to identify information needs for natural resource management. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 1503–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bang, M.; Marin, A. Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality: Nature-Culture Constructs in Science Learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 530–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDaid Barry, N.; Bang, M.; Bruce, F.; Barajas-López, F. “Then the Nettle People Won’t Be Lonely”: Recognizing the Personhood of Plants in an Indigenous STEAM Summer Program. Cogn. Instr. 2023, 41, 381–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S. Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMahan, E.A.; Cloud, J.M.; Josh, P.; Scott, M. Nature with a Human Touch: Human-Induced Alteration Negatively Impacts Perceived Naturalness and Preferences for Natural Environments. Ecopsychology 2016, 8, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vining, J.; Merrick, M.S.; Price, E.A. The Distinction between Humans and Nature: Human Perceptions of Connectedness to Nature and Elements of the Natural and Unnatural. Res. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Butler, C.; Pidgeon, N.F. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat. Clim. Change 2011, 1, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denny, R.C.H.; Marchese, J.; Fischer, A.P. Severe Weather Experience and Climate Change Belief among Small Woodland Owners: A Study of Reciprocal Effects. Wea. Climate Soc. 2022, 14, 1065–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Yu, F.; Peng, K. Seeing is more than believing: Personal experience increases climate action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2024, 63, 1410–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, Y.; Bai, Y.; Ali, M.; Ashraf, A.; Li, M.; Li, B. Exploring residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services in nature reserves to guide protection and management. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quintas-Soriano, C.; Brandt, J.S.; Running, K.; Baxter, C.V.; Gibson, D.M.; Narducci, J.; Castro, A.J. Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: A Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) analysis. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, art3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, X.; Eckart, L. Using Social Media to Explore Perceptions of Ecosystem Services by Nature-Based Solution Projects. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2020, 8, 58–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elwell, T.L.; Gelcich, S.; Gaines, S.D.; López-Carr, D. Using people’s perceptions of ecosystem services to guide modeling and management efforts. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 1014–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meli, P.; Carlos Imio, J.; Lisón, F. Tradeoffs in people’s perceptions about ecosystem services and disservices related to bats: Implications for managing agroecosystems and conserving bats. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 66, 101609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, H.M.; Vermue, A.J.; Cardoso, I.M.; Peña Claros, M.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A. Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 33, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhang, G.; Wang, L.; Zheng, D.; Li, S. Perceptions of ecosystem services, disservices and willingness-to-pay for urban green space conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, J.; Sourdril, A.; Deconchat, M.; Barnaud, C.; San Cristobal, M.; Andrieu, E. How farmers feel about trees: Perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with rural forests in southwestern France. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atran, S.; Medin, D.L.; Ross, N.O. The Cultural Mind: Environmental Decision Making and Cultural Modeling Within and Across Populations. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 112, 744–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.-C.; Lin, H. Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Mental Models of the Environment: Are They Related to Environmental Affect and Behavior? J. Environ. Educ. 2014, 46, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, E.W.; Dreger, R.M. Anthropocentrism: Construct validity and measurement. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 1993, 8, 169–188. [Google Scholar]
- Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattell, R.B. The Scree Test for the Number ff Factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1966, 1, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayes, R.; Druckman, J.N. Motivated reasoning and climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2021, 42, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gugushvili, D. Political polarization in the willingness to make sacrifices for the environment: A cross-national analysis. Environ. Sociol. 2024, 11, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, E.W.; Schwadel, P. Political Polarization and Long-Term Change in Public Support for Environmental Spending. Soc. Forces 2019, 98, 915–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCright, A.M.; Xiao, C.; Dunlap, R.E. Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Soc. Sci. Res. 2014, 48, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caviola, L.; Everett, J.A.C.; Faber, N.S. The Moral Standing of animals: Towards a Psychology of speciesism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 116, 1011–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McShane, K. Anthropocentrism vs. Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care? Environ. Values 2007, 16, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Winter, C. The Intrinsic, Instrumental and Spiritual Values of Natural Area Visitors and the General Public: A Comparative Study. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 599–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, M.; Lammers, J. Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 14953–14957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawley, S. Disentangling the relationships between conservative economic and social attitudes and support for environmental action. J. Political Ideol. 2023, 28, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peifer, J.L.; Khalsa, S.; Howard Ecklund, E. Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States. Environ. Politics 2016, 25, 661–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milfont, T.L.; Davies, C.L.; Wilson, M.S. The Moral Foundations of Environmentalism: Care- and Fairness-Based Morality Interact with Political Liberalism to Predict Pro-Environmental Actions. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2019, 14, e32633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinberg, M.; Willer, R. The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rottman, J.; Kelemen, D.; Young, L. Hindering Harm and Preserving Purity: How Can Moral Psychology Save the Planet? Philosophy Compass 2015, 10, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panarello, D. Economic insecurity, conservatism, and the crisis of environmentalism: 30 years of evidence. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2020, 73, 100925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feygina, I.; Jost, J.T.; Goldsmith, R.E. System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change. ” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 36, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, R.E.; Freeman, M. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environ. Politics 2008, 17, 349–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H. The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffarth, M.R.; Azevedo, F.; Jost, J.T. Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2019, 22, 858–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Lange, P.A.M.; Bekkers, R.; Chirumbolo, A.; Leone, L. Are Conservatives Less Likely to be Prosocial than Liberals? From Games to Ideology, Political Preferences and Voting. Eur. J. Personal. 2012, 26, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Healey, D.; Germain, A.; Holstein, J.; Helmuth, B.; Grabowski, J.E.S.; Dittbrenner, B.; Coley, J.D. Exploring Human-Nature Relationships: The Influence of Human Exceptionalist Beliefs upon Social-Ecological Systems Thinking. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Long Beach, CA, USA, 4–9 August 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Kosko, B. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1986, 24, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Coley, J.D. Conceptualizations of the human-nature relationship as a predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 24–27 July 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Henrich, J.; Heine, S.J.; Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 2010, 33, 61–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J.J.H.; Coley, J.D. Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094242
Kim JJH, Coley JD. Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094242
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Joan J. H., and John D. Coley. 2025. "Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094242
APA StyleKim, J. J. H., & Coley, J. D. (2025). Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions. Sustainability, 17(9), 4242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094242