Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Abstract

Mental models—internal, dynamic, incomplete representations of the external world that people use to guide cognitive processes such as reasoning, decision making, and language comprehension—have practical implications for predicting attitudes and behaviors across various domains. This study examines how mental models of the human–nature relationship predict pro-environmental behavioral intentions directly and indirectly as mediated through anthropocentric and biocentric environmental attitudes. To address these aims, participants were asked about mental model components of the human–nature relationship (human exceptionalism, beliefs about human impact on nature, and beliefs about nature’s impact on humans), pro-environmental attitudes (biocentric and anthropocentric), and their pro-environmental behavioral intentions (protection and investment). We found that protection intentions were (1) directly predicted by human exceptionalism beliefs (negatively) and perceived human impact on nature (positively) and (2) indirectly predicted by mental model components via biocentric attitudes. Investment intentions were directly predicted by nature’s perceived impact on humans, and were similarly indirectly predicted by mental model components via biocentric attitudes. The results suggest that mental models of the human–nature relationship provide a cognitive foundation for environmental behavioral intentions both directly and through their association with environmental attitudes. These findings have implications for pro-environmental interventions that deal with conceptual and attitudinal change.

1. Introduction

Climate change continues to be one of the world’s most serious issues; its impacts have touched every continent with little sign of stopping [1]. It will continue to wreak havoc unless drastic shifts are made to encourage long-term sustainable behavioral change [1]. One way in which we might focus on long-term change is by understanding the cognitive mechanisms by which people develop pro-environmental attitudes and behavior [2,3]. While the current literature focuses on how to change behavior or attitudes [4], less work focuses on the cognitive underpinnings, such as mental models of the human–nature relationship (HNR). In this study, we examine how conceptualizations of the HNR may be related to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions.

1.1. Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Pro-environmental attitudes are broadly defined as the range of beliefs and values that shape an individual’s willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [5]. Research in various fields suggests that attitudes serve as the foundation for behavioral intentions, which are the expressions of one’s readiness of commitment to act [6,7]. In the context of sustainability, a large body of empirical works suggests that environmental attitudes promote pro-environmental behavioral intentions. More specifically, individuals with strong pro-environmental attitudes are more likely to exhibit behavioral intentions that reflect their desire to reduce their ecological footprint, conserve resources, or support environmental policies [8,9,10]. Overall, studying this link between attitudes and behavioral intentions is critical because attitudes have been found to precede actual behaviors, acting as a bridge between attitudes and action [11]. The strength of this attitude–behavioral intention relationship, however, varies depending on several factors, such as the perceived difficulty of the behavior, social norms, and the individual’s confidence in their ability to effect change [12].

Pro-environmental attitudes can be further distinguished by an individual’s underlying orientation or valuation of nature, often categorized as ecocentric or anthropocentric perspectives. These orientations reflect the fundamental values individuals hold about the relationship between humans and the environment, and they play a crucial role in shaping both attitudes and behavioral intentions [13,14]. Research suggests that these orientations are tied to broader worldviews and cultural paradigms, which can influence both attitudes toward specific environmental issues and the types of behaviors individuals are willing to adopt [15,16].

Ecocentric attitudes are rooted in the belief that nature has intrinsic value, independent of its utility to humans [17]. Individuals who hold an ecocentric worldview see all living organisms, ecosystems, and natural processes as interconnected and inherently worthy of protection, not just because they serve human needs, but because they have moral or ethical significance on their own. Ecocentrism aligns with concepts such as nature-relatedness and connectedness to nature, as it reflects a deep personal identification with the natural world [18,19]. Those with ecocentric attitudes are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors that prioritize the well-being of ecosystems, even when these actions do not provide direct or immediate benefits to humans [13]. This orientation can lead to strong intrinsic motivations for sustainability, fostering long-term behavioral intentions aimed at protecting and preserving the environment for its own sake [20].

Conversely, anthropocentric attitudes are characterized by a belief that nature primarily exists to serve human needs. Nature is valued based on its utility to human beings, whether in terms of resources, economic benefits, or personal enjoyment. Individuals who hold anthropocentric attitudes may still express concern for nature and environmental degradation, but their motivations for pro-environmental behavior may lie in the belief that nature holds instrumental value [21,22]. While anthropocentric attitudes can drive some pro-environmental actions, the ultimate motivations are human-centered and for human benefit. This mindset might make short-term solutions appealing without taking into context accurate or holistic understandings of ecosystems [23,24]. In this regard, additional research suggests that ecocentric attitudes are a stronger predictor of environmental behavior than anthropocentric attitudes [13,25].

1.2. Mental Models

Mental models are internal representations of the external world that people use to engage with reality, providing an instructional map for cognitive processes such as deductive reasoning, decision making, and language comprehension [26,27]. These mental models are shaped by a combination of personal experiences, technical knowledge, and broader perceptions of the world [27,28], serving as a cognitive framework to help people navigate and make sense of complex situations.

Although mental models provide a useful way to interpret and interact with the world, they are not fixed. Instead, they are dynamic and can be adapted when individuals interact with their environment and are presented with new information [27]. Additionally, mental models act as filters that influence how people process new information [27]. The information that individuals are willing to consider or use to update their beliefs is often influenced by their pre-existing mental models. As a result, these models can sometimes hinder the acceptance of new ideas or the integration of information that challenges deeply held beliefs [29,30,31]. Thus, mental models can be thought of as both dynamic solutions to navigating complexity and as potential barriers to learning.

Importantly, research has demonstrated that mental models are not only theoretical constructs but also have practical implications for predicting attitudes and behaviors across various domains. For instance, in the field of behavior adherence, mental models have been linked to compliance with medical advice and treatment plans [32]. In environmental contexts, mental models influence practices in areas as diverse as soil management [33], farming [34], and lobster fishing [35]. Furthermore, in the realm of climate risk management, mental models play a critical role in shaping how individuals and communities perceive and respond to climate-related risks [36]. These findings underscore the importance of understanding mental models, as they provide a valuable lens through which we can better grasp the factors driving behavior and decision-making in various contexts.

In this study we examine mental models of the HNR, or the beliefs that people hold on how nature and humans are meant to coexist. We focus on three different components of the mental models of the HNR: beliefs about human exceptionalism, beliefs about humans’ impact on nature, and beliefs about nature’s impact on humans.

1.3. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship

1.3.1. Human Exceptionalism

One component of mental models of the HNR is the degree to which one endorses human exceptionalism (HE), the belief that humans are superior to and separate from non-human living beings [15,37,38,39]. This demarcation of humans and the rest of the natural world is a relatively recent development thought to have arisen with the rise of agrarian societies, Western religion, and colonialism [15,40]. Theoretically, it stands to reason that HE can lead to inaccurate beliefs that humans are immune to the laws of nature [15,39,41]. This confidence may arise from beliefs in humans’ ability to adapt through ingenuity, assumptions that major natural events do not impact or include humans, or an implicit or explicit belief in human superiority over natural structures. For example, exceptionalist tendencies may manifest as beliefs in the human race being the pinnacle of evolutionary success [39] or the “most highly evolved species” [42].

Theoretical explorations of HE may suggest that it has a negative relationship with pro-environmentalism [15,43]; a belief of human superiority to nature may lead to a disregard for nature for the sake of human development and comfort. In support of this, Coley and colleagues [38] have shown that HE is anticorrelated with willingness to invest time and money in a hypothetical urban waterway cleanup project. Likewise, Betz and Coley [44] have shown that participants with a higher belief in HE were less likely to attribute extreme weather events to global climate change, which, in turn, made them less likely to report climate change mitigating attitudes and behaviors. Relatedly, beliefs about how the human collective or experience is more important than non-humans may invoke a disregard for non-human life [45]. HE may provide some cognitive justification or permissions for unrestrained human use of natural spaces and abuse of non-human living beings [15]. For example, some philosophers argue that the perceived uniqueness of humans legitimizes individualistic behaviors that prioritize human needs and desires without regard for the ethical treatment of non-human entities. According to Srinivasan and Kasturirangan [43], this belief system supports a view where humans act primarily in their own interest, dismissing the moral obligations towards other forms of life.

HE may also lead to underestimations of how humans will be impacted by climate change. Some research reveals that urban children, their guardians, and medical students hold steadfast beliefs of humans having some inherent protection from extinction [46]. These beliefs can negatively impact pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, leading to decreasing support for climate mitigation. Betz and Coley [44] find that endorsement of HE over nature has been linked to lower levels of concern about environmental degradation and a reduced willingness to engage in behaviors that mitigate environmental harm, such as reducing personal carbon footprint, supporting environmental policies, or participating in conservation efforts.

In contrast, there is some evidence suggesting a nuanced outcome: exceptionalist beliefs might also foster a sense of stewardship [47,48,49]. While humans see themselves as superior, they may also feel a moral obligation to care for the environment in a way that reflects their perceived role as its stewards. For example, beliefs of HE may also invoke feelings of responsibility or concerns about environmental ethics or morality obligation. Animal sentience philosophers contend that while the argument about human superiority is “semi-valid”, humans, as the superior species, have a duty of care and responsibility to “lesser” organisms [50]. Similarly, Faria and Paez [51] argue that while human prioritization over non-human entities may be inevitable, these beliefs are morally unjustified. Human exceptionalist beliefs may also lead to a more accurate understanding of the human ability to change natural systems and human impacts on climate change. For example, Betz and Coley [44] found that undergraduate students (correctly) believe that humans, compared to non-human living beings, uniquely contribute to climate change. Thus, while HE often reinforces separation from nature, it can also inspire a sense of moral responsibility, encouraging humans to acknowledge their unique role in shaping and protecting the environment.

1.3.2. Beliefs About Human Impacts on Nature

Another potential component of mental models of the HNR are beliefs about human impacts on nature (HI). Such beliefs are part of the awareness that humans live within the natural system and that human actions have consequences for social–ecological systems, as well as the awareness that humans may have a disproportionate effect on the natural world [52]. Understanding these influences are important because beliefs about HI may impact the ways that humans interact with, use, and respect nature [37,52]. Of note, these beliefs have less to do with the reality of how humans impact nature and more to do with how these impacts are perceived. For example, some of the literature on perceptions of nature recreation by tourists suggests that people across multiple contexts have some general understanding of the negative impacts that eco-recreation has on nature, which may influence the types of vacation activities they seek out [53,54,55]. Other work on perceptions of HI can be found in climate change-adjacent domains. Researchers investigating beliefs about the link between human action and climate change find that people are somewhat aware that humans are the main drivers of anthropogenic climate change [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Finally, investigations into the mental models of natural resource management suggest that the way that natural systems are perceived play a role in how managers and staff engage with their understanding of the instrumental value of nature [35,58,59]. This is to say that perceptions of HI play a part in how people engage with nature and their willingness to view it as a precious resource with intrinsic or instrumental value. As such, perceptions of HI may be an important component of mental models of the HNR.

1.3.3. Beliefs About Nature Impacts on Humans

A third potential component of mental models of the HNR is beliefs about nature impacts on humans (NI). Perceptions of NI inform beliefs about what nature can do or what the “role” of nature is in relation to humans, which may, in turn, influence pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [60,61]. Similarly to beliefs about HI, beliefs of NI have more to do with perceptions of the relationship between nature and humans. Some research suggests that nature is perceived anthropocentrically, or as a “human-less” construct. For example, the literature on perceptions of human-constructed nature or preferences in urban-green spaces suggest that built environments, such as gardens, are not considered nature [62]. This may be because human-altered nature is perceived as less “natural,” and people seem to prefer wilderness untouched by humans [63]. Additional research finds that while a majority of people perceive themselves as being “a part of nature,” they also describe natural environments as places without human interference [64]. Other work on NI is seen in the climate change domain, where researchers focus on how experiencing climate-related severe weather events influence beliefs about climate change. Some evidence suggests that individuals who experience climate impacts such as flooding [65], drought [66], and extreme temperature fluctuations [67] are (to varying degrees) more likely to endorse climate change and may engage more pro-environmentally. While the literature surrounding beliefs about NI is less clear, current research seems to suggest that understanding beliefs about how nature influences humans is an important step in motivating behavior.

Some related work on beliefs about NI includes research focusing on perceptions of ecosystem services (beliefs of what goods and services nature can provide for humans) and disservices (beliefs of how nature’s goods and services can negatively impact humans). For instance, across socio-ecological contexts, laypeople largely think about, value, and support cultural services or the use of nature as recreation and leisure [68,69,70]. For both laypeople and environmental professionals, perceptions of ecosystem services and the complexity of these understandings are related to tradeoffs in willingness to pay for conservation efforts and management techniques [71,72,73,74]. Surveys of laypeople, wildlife managers, and farmers also show that perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices are inextricably linked and are related to an individual’s relationship with nature [72,73,75]. In sum, perceptions of NI influence how people understand and navigate the natural world, suggesting that it is another critical component of the mental models of the HNR.

1.4. Current Study

In a variety of fields, research has shown that mental models can influence the ways that individuals process information about environmental problems and the solutions that they deem appropriate [32,33,36]. For instance, people who perceive climate change as an immediate threat due to their mental model may be more likely to adopt sustainable behaviors or support policies aimed at mitigating environmental damage [76,77]. By understanding perceptions of the HNR, we may better navigate how to motivate pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Aligning mental models with pro-environmental perspectives can foster a deeper concern for nature, enhancing biocentric motivations and long-term commitment to sustainable practices.

In this study, our goal is to better understand the mental model of the HNR, and how components of this mental model might predict environmentally relevant attitudes and behaviors. To do so, we address two primary research questions: (1) As potential components of mental models of the HNR, how are human exceptionalism, perceptions of human impacts on nature, and perceptions of nature impacts on people related? and (2) Do mental model components of the HNR predict pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions? While the components we measure in this study do not exhaust the list of possible components of mental models of the HNR, understanding these relationships can shed light on the underlying drivers of sustainable behavior (Figure 1).

To address these questions, we presented participants with a survey asking about potential components of mental models of the human–nature relationship, environmentally relevant attitudes, and environmentally relevant behavioral intentions. We examined relations among potential mental model components, and the degree to which they predict pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 500 participants currently residing in the United States were recruited from two sources: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n = 251) and Northeastern University’s Introductory Psychology course (n = 249). Participants were excluded for failing at least two of the three included attention checks, for failing to provide substantive qualitative responses, or for taking the survey more than once, resulting in an analytic sample of 287 (166 students and 121 M-Turk workers). Demographics data can be found in the Supplementary Materials Table S1. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northeastern University (IRB# 23–02–13).

2.2. Design

The participants were randomly assigned to read a scenario (adapted from Coley et al., [38]) about one of three ecosystems: Forest, City Park, or Salt Marsh (See Supplementary Materials for details on scenarios). We varied the scenarios for several reasons: (1) it allowed participants to ground their judgements of “nature” in more concrete, ecologically valid contexts; (2) it allowed us to generalize understandings of the HNR across ecological contexts; and (3) it allowed the potential for greater variability in responses across participants. We had no research questions about differences between scenarios, and therefore we did not use the scenario as an independent variable in this paper. However, some measures described below were scenario-specific; participants were all asked the same questions, but they were contextualized within the scenario presented to that participant. Others were not scenario-specific; all participants were asked identical questions. For each measure described below we note whether it was phrased in a scenario-specific manner or not.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship

Measures of beliefs of human impacts on nature and nature’s impacts on humans were adapted from Coley and colleagues [38] and were scenario-specific; the human exceptionalism measure was not scenario-specific.

Human Impacts on Nature. Participants indicated the extent to which they believed that “the behaviors of the people in the city impact the {forest/salt marsh/city park}” on a scale of 0 (“none at all”) to 100 (“to a great extent”).

Nature’s Impacts on Humans. Participants indicated the extent to which they believed that “the {forest/salt marsh/city park} impacts the people in the city” on a scale of 0 (“none at all”) to 100 (“to a great extent”).

Human Exceptionalism. Participants completed a 12-item questionnaire [78], assessing their agreement with explicit statements about HE (e.g., “The human species is without a doubt the most advanced form of life on earth”) on a scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”). The items were presented in random order.

2.3.2. Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Measures of pro-environmental attitudes were not scenario-specific.

Human Responsibility. Participants rated the extent to which they believed that “humans have a responsibility to protect their surrounding ecosystems” on a scale of 0 (“None at all. They should let nature run its course”) to 100 (“Humans are fully responsible”).

Ecological Connectedness. Participants rated the extent to which they “think that people are ecologically connected to other living things” on a scale of 0 (“Not connected at all”) to 100 (“Fully connected”).

Nature Relatedness. Participants completed three items from Nisbet and Zelenski’s [79] Nature Relatedness Scale on a 6-point Likert scale (1—“Strongly Disagree” to 6—“Strongly Agree”). Items were “I think about how my actions affect the environment”, “I take notice of wildlife wherever I am”, and “I feel connected to all living things and the earth”.

Environmental Concern. The participants completed a scale measuring environmental concern adapted from Schultz [80] by rating each of three items on a scale from 1 (Not Important) to 7 (Supreme Importance) in response to the question: “I am concerned about environmental problems because of the consequences for ___”. The items were “plants and animals”, “me”, and “future generations”, measuring biospheric, egoistic, and altruistic concern, respectively.

2.3.3. Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions

Items used to assess behavioral intentions were scenario-specific.

Government Investment: Federal, State, and Local. Participants were told that “A full restoration of the {forest/salt marsh/city park} could cost up to $100 million” and were asked “How many tax dollars do you think the different branches of the government should invest in {forest/salt marsh/city park} clean up?” Participants responded separately for local (city), state, and federal governments on a scale ranging from 0 to 100 (in millions of dollars).

Willingness to Volunteer. Participants were asked “If you were a resident of the city, how many hours would you be willing to spend on a Saturday to volunteer to clean up the {forest/salt marsh/city park}” on a slider scale from 0 to 12 h.

Support for Protective Action. Participants were asked to indicate their support for (1) new laws designed to protect the {forest/salt marsh/city park} and (2) community-based initiatives to protect the {forest/salt marsh/city park} on a scale from 1 (“Strongly Against”) to 6 (“Strongly in Favor”).

2.4. Procedure

Participants completed the survey online using Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). After providing consent, participants were randomly assigned to a condition, read the corresponding vignette, and completed a comprehension check. After the comprehension check, measures were presented in the following order: investment, willingness to volunteer, human impacts, nature’s impacts, ecological connectedness, support for protective actions, human responsibility, nature relatedness, and human exceptionalism. At the end of the survey, the participants answered several demographics questions. The measures described here were presented along with others as part of a larger survey of environmental attitudes and cognition.

3. Results

3.1. Data Analysis Plan

To address our research questions, we first examined the relations between HI, NI, and HE. We compared HI and NI scores, examined HE scores as a function of the difference between HI and NI scores, and then conducted correlational analyses between the three measures. Then, we examined the relations between mental model components, pro-environmental attitudes, and behavioral intentions. To do so, we conducted multiple mediation analyses to investigate the effects of mental model components on behavioral intentions, both directly and indirectly, via biocentric and anthropocentric attitudes. We ran these separately for investment intentions and protection intentions. We did not consider scenarios in these analyses.

3.2. Scoring

3.2.1. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship

HI and NI responses were each scored as single items, where higher scores represent a greater perceived impact. Exploratory factor analysis of the explicit exceptionalism measure revealed that the four reverse coded items of the measure (reverse scored for analysis) loaded onto a separate factor and were thus dropped. See Supplementary Materials Table S2 for full loadings. The remaining items loaded on a single factor and demonstrated strong reliability (α = 0.88). These items were averaged to a single HE index on which higher scores reflected stronger beliefs in human superiority over and separation from nature.

3.2.2. Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Measures of human responsibility, ecological connectedness, and environmental concern were all scored as single items. In all cases, higher scores represented higher pro-environmental responses. The three items of the nature-relatedness measure were averaged to create a general nature relatedness index (α = 0.79). Higher scores suggest greater feelings of relatedness to nature.

To reduce the dimensionality of the pro-environmental attitudes, we conducted a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The total number of components per analysis was determined using Kaiser’s rule [81] and inspection of scree plot [82]. Analysis of the pro-environmental attitude measures by principal components analysis revealed two components that accounted for 60.34% of the variance. Inspection of the loadings suggested that the measures could be divided into anthropocentric attitudes (egoistic concern and altruistic concern) and biocentric attitudes (human responsibility, ecological connection, nature relatedness, and biospheric concern). See Supplementary Materials Table S3 for factor loadings. A composite score was generated for each factor by taking the mean of the standardized scores for each component measure. Anthropocentric and biocentric attitudes were weakly positively correlated (r (284) = 0.123, p = 0.038).

3.2.3. Behavioral Intentions

The measures for government investment, willingness to volunteer, and support for protective action were each scored as single items, with higher scores representing greater pro-environmental intentions.

To reduce the dimensionality of the behavioral intention measures, we conducted another principal components analysis with varimax rotation, which revealed three components that accounted for 71% of variance. The analyses suggested that one measure (local investment) was a standalone item. We omitted this item; inspection of the loadings of the remaining items suggested that measures could be divided into Investment Intent (federal investment, state investment, and willingness to volunteer) and Protection Intent (support for lawful protection and community initiatives). See Supplementary Materials Table S4 for factor loadings. Composite scores were generated for both factors by standardizing responses across all measures and obtaining means per factor. Investment Intent and Protection Intent composite scores were not correlated (r (271) = 0.033, p = 0.582).

3.3. Research Question 1: Relations Between Human Impact, Nature’s Impact, and Human Exceptionalism

To address this research question, we first examined the relationship between HI and NI scores. We also conducted a series of correlational analyses examining relations across all three components of the HNR.

3.3.1. Comparing Perceptions of Human Impact and Nature’s Impact

One-sample t-tests revealed that both HI and NI were different from the midpoint of the scale (50), (t(286) _{Human Impact} = 89.13, p < 0.001, d = 2.147; t(284) _{Nature Impact} = 37.44, p < 0.001, d = 0.422), which suggests that the perceived impact was high in both directions. Nevertheless, participants perceived humans as having a greater impact on nature (M = 84.5, SD = 16.05) than nature has on humans (M = 61.75, SD = 27.84; t(453.38) = 11.94, p < 0.001, d = 1.00; Figure 2).

We also categorized participants into groups based on their beliefs about the relative magnitude of HI and NI. Participants were categorized as believing in (1) greater HI (n = 189), (2) equal HI and NI (n = 51), and (3) greater NI (n = 47). Chi-square analysis revealed an unequal distribution of impact beliefs (χ² (2) = 136.67, p < 0.001). Standard residuals revealed that greater HI was more frequent than expected (standardized residuals = 11.69) whereas equal impact and greater NI were less likely than expected (std. res. = −5.59 and −6.09, respectively). These findings, again, suggest that a majority of participants perceived humans as having a larger impact on nature than nature has on people.

3.3.2. Relations Among Human Impact, Nature’s Impact, and Human Exceptionalism

To examine the relations between the three components of the mental model of the HNR, we conducted simple correlations between HE, HI, and NI. HE was weakly negatively correlated with both HI (r = −0.16, p = 0.007) and NI (r = −0.17, p = 0.003). HI and NI were weakly positively correlated (r = 0.17, p = 0.003). The significant, albeit weak, correlations suggest that, although these may all be components of an underlying mental model of the HNR, they nevertheless represent distinct components of that model. As such, for the remainder of the paper, HI, NI, and HE are treated as individual components of participant conceptualization of the HNR.

To examine additional relations among these constructs, we took the categorizations of relational impact (Greater HI, Equal HI and NI, and Greater NI) and examined how the participants in these three groups differed in their HE via one-way ANOVA. The results revealed that the HE scores of the three groups differed (F (2, 281) = 6.544, p = 0.002) such that participants in the equal impacts group had lower HE beliefs than participants in both the greater HI group (p = 0.001) and the greater NI group (p = 0.027; see Figure 3).

3.4. Research Question 2: Relations Between Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship, Pro-Environmental Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Mediation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between mental model components (HE, HI, NI), pro-environmental attitudes (anthropocentric attitudes and biocentric attitudes), and pro-environmental behavioral intentions (investment intention and protection intention). HE, HI, and NI were treated as independent, endogenous variables. Pro-environmental attitudes were included as mediators, and behavioral intentions were included separately as outcome variables. Due to the complexity of the models and our sample size, we used the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) as fit indices for these multiple mediation models.

3.4.1. Investment Behavioral Intent

The first mediation analysis examined how investment intention was impacted by the HNR mental model components and pro-environmental attitudes. The model demonstrated a good fit based on the SRMR value of 0.036, which is below the threshold for good fit (0.08). The CFI value of 0.893 was slightly below the conventional cutoff of good fit (>0.9), but still indicated an acceptable fit of the model. See model representation and direct effects in Figure 4.

Relations between Mental Model Components, Biocentric Attitudes, and Anthropocentric Attitudes. The analyses revealed that HE negatively predicted biocentric attitudes (β = −0.241, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.337, −0.144]), whereas both HI and NI positively predicted biocentric attitudes (β_{Human Impact} = 0.314, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.219, 0.408]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.248, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.151, 0.346]). HI also positively predicted anthropocentric attitudes (β = 0.123, p = 0.041, 95% CI [0.007, 0.240].

Relations between Mental Model Components and Investment Intention. Additionally, we found that both NI (β = 0.145, p = 0.018, 95% CI [0.026, 0.263]) and biocentric attitudes (β = 0.209, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.072, 0.346]) had significant direct positive effects predicting investment. Moreover, all three mental model components had indirect effects on investment via biocentric attitudes. HE had a negative indirect effect on investment (β = −0.05, p = 0.013, 95% CI [−0.089, −0.012]), whereas HI and NI had positive indirect effects (β_{Human Impact} = 0.066, p = 0.008, 95% CI [0.018, 0.113]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.052, p = 0.012, 95% CI [0.012, 0.092]).

In summary, the model shows that all three mental model components predict investment intentions through their associations (both positive and negative) with biocentric attitudes and that perceived NI also had a significant direct effect. Additionally, the effects of HE were consistently negative, whereas the effects of perceived human and nature impact were consistently positive.

3.4.2. Protection Behavioral Intent

A second mediation analysis was conducted to examine relations between mental model components of the HNR and pro-environmental attitudes on pro-environmental protection intentions. Similarly to the mediation model for investment behavioral intent, this model for protection behavioral intent demonstrated an acceptable-to-good fit based on the SRMR value of 0.040 (SRMR_threshold < 0.08). The CFI value of 0.884 was, again, slightly below the conventional cutoff of good fit (>0.9) but still indicated an acceptable fit of the model. See the model representation and significant direct effects in Figure 5. Because the relations between the mental model components and attitudes are the same as in the previously described model, we focus on predictors of protection.

Relations between Mental Model Components and Protection Intention. As in the previous model, biocentric attitudes (β = 0.154, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.024, 0.284]) positively predicted protection investment. Unlike the previous model, HE (β = −0.121, p = 0.038, 95% CI [−0.233, −0.008]) and HI (β = 0.237, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.125, 0.350]), rather than NI, also directly predicted protection. And as in the previous model, all three mental model components had indirect effects on protection via biocentric attitudes. Specifically, HE had a negative indirect effect on protection intention (β = −0.037, p = 0.038, 95% CI [−0.072, −0.002]), whereas HI and NI beliefs had positive indirect effects (β_{Human Impact} = 0.038, p = 0.03, 95% CI [0.005, 0.092]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.048, p = 0.037, 95% CI [0.002, 0.074]).

Altogether, we found again that the mental model components predicted protection intentions through their associations (both positive and negative) with biocentric attitudes, and that perceived HI and HE also had a significant direct effect. The effect of HE was consistently negative, whereas the effects of perceived human and nature impact were consistently positive.

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

To demonstrate that mental models of the HNR matter, we need to show that they predict environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions above and beyond other relevant factors. One such factor is political orientation, which has repeatedly been shown to be associated with environmental attitudes, especially in the United States. Specifically, people who identify as politically conservative consistently report lower levels of environmental concern around issues such as climate change [83], willingness to make sacrifices for environmental protection [84], and support for governmental spending on environmental problems [85,86].

Because it is such a consistently strong predictor of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions, we wanted to investigate relations between conservatism and the mental models of the HNR, and, more importantly, to see whether mental model components predicted environmentally relevant attitudes and behavioral intentions above and beyond those predicted by political orientation. To do so, we first conducted a series of correlations. Next, we re-ran the mediation analyses presented in Section 3.3 above, adding conservatism as an endogenous predictor. Mental model components remained endogenous variables, pro-environmental attitudes were mediators, and behavioral intentions were treated as independent outcome variables.

3.5.1. Correlational Analyses

Zero order correlation analyses between conservatism and the mental models of the HNR revealed that conservative ideology was positively correlated with HE (r(282) = 0.36, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with HI (r(285) = −0.20, p < 0.001) and with NI (r(283) = −0.14, p = 0.023). This suggests that people who were more conservative believed in greater human supremacy over non-human living beings, were less likely to recognize humans’ impacts on nature, and were also less likely to recognize nature’s impacts on humans.

3.5.2. Investment Behavioral Intent

A mediation analysis was conducted, examining the relations between the HNR mental model components, conservatism, pro-environmental attitudes, and investment. Model goodness-of-fit indices suggest an acceptable-to-good fit based on SRMR (SRMR = 0.036, SRMR_threshold < 0.08) and CFI (CFI = 0.886, CFI_threshold > 0.9) values. See model representation and significant direct effects in Figure 6.

Effects of Conservatism. Conservatism was directly and negatively associated with anthropocentric attitudes (β = −0.148, p = 0.021, 95% CI [−0.271, −0.024]) and with investment intentions (β = −0.182, p = 0.003, 95% CI [−0.302, −0.062]). In other words, those who identified as more conservative were less likely to acknowledge environmental concern on behalf of themselves or others and were less likely to support investment of time or money in conservation efforts. Conservatism was unrelated to biocentric attitudes.

Effects of Mental Model Components. Adding conservatism to the model had almost no effect on relations between mental model components, biocentric attitudes, and investment intentions. HE negatively predicted biocentric attitudes (β = −0.254, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.357, −0.151]), while HI and NI positively predicted biocentric attitudes (β_{Human Impact} = 0.320, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.224, 0.415]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.251, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.153, 0.348]). Investment intentions were positively predicted by biocentric attitudes (β = 0.223, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.089, 0.357]) and beliefs of NI (β = 0.131, p = 0.03, 95% CI [0.014, 0.248]). Moreover, we found the same pattern of indirect effects on investment intentions via biocentric attitudes: HE had a negative indirect effect (β = −0.057, p = 0.009, 95% CI [−0.098, −0.015]), and beliefs of HI and NI had positive indirect effects (β_{Human Impact} = 0.071, p = 0.005, 95% CI [0.023, 0.120]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.056, p = 0.008, 95% CI [0.016, 0.096]). The only qualitative change in the model was that perceived HI no longer had a significant direct effect on anthropocentric attitudes.

3.5.3. Protection Behavioral Intent

Next, we examined the relationship between mental models of the HNR, conservatism, pro-environmental attitudes, and protection intentions. The mediation model demonstrated acceptable-to-good fit (SRMR = 0.036, SRMR_threshold < 0.08) and CFI (CFI = 0.893, CFI_threshold > 0.9) values. See the model representation and direct effects in Figure 7. Because relations between mental model components, conservatism, and attitudes are the same as in the previously described model, we focus on predictors of protection.

Effects of Conservatism. Conservatism was directly and negatively associated with protection intention (β = −0.140, p = 0.021, 95% CI [−0.257, −0.024]).

Effects of Mental Model Components. Again, adding conservatism to the model had almost no effect on relations between mental model components and protection intention. Both biocentric attitudes (β = 0.167, p = 0.012, 95% CI [0.038, 0.295]) and beliefs of HI (β = 0.211, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.099, 0.327]) positively predicted protection intention. And indirect effects of all components via biocentric attitudes were, again, observed on protection intentions. HE had a negative indirect effect (β = −0.042, p = 0.027, 95% CI [−0.079, −0.001]) whereas beliefs of HI and NI had positive indirect effects (β_{Human Impact} = 0.053, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.009, 0.098]; β_{Nature Impact} = 0.042, p = 0.025, 95% CI [0.006, 0.078]). Again, the only qualitative change in the model was that the direct negative effect of HE on protection intentions was rendered nonsignificant with the addition of conservatism.

4. Discussion

Mental models are representations that help us understand the complexities of the world, influencing attitudes and behavioral intentions. This study investigated the role of the mental model of the HNR in expressing pro-environmentalism. Analyses revealed that human superiority, perceived human impact on nature, and perceived nature impact on humans are distinct components of the mental model of the HNR and that these mental model components predicted pro-environmental attitudes as well as behavioral intentions pertaining to ecosystem investment and protection. Below we elaborate on these findings.

4.1. Human Exceptionalism, Human Impact, and Nature Impact Are Distinct, Albeit Related, Components of Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship

In Research Question 1, we explored the relations between HE, the perceived human impact on nature, and the perceived impact of nature on humans as components of mental models of the HNR. Focusing first on perceived impact scores, the results suggest that the participants believed that humans and nature had a substantial impact on each other, but that humans had a larger impact on nature than vice versa. This was evident both in terms of mean differences and distribution of individual response patterns. This replicates findings by Coley et al. [38] that the perceived impact of humans on an urban waterway was higher than the perceived impact of the waterway on humans and extends it to a wider array of ecosystems.

We also examined relations among the three components. Perceived human impact and perceived impact of nature were positively (albeit weakly) correlated to each other, and both were negatively (albeit weakly) correlated with HE. That HE was negatively related to beliefs about nature impacts echoes a finding from Betz and Coley [44], which links HE to beliefs that humans are unlikely to be impacted by climate change and which suggests that beliefs about humans being separate from and superior to nature could influence beliefs about human dependence on nature. The finding that HE was negatively related to beliefs about human impacts was somewhat surprising; one might expect exceptionalist beliefs to be associated with an exaggerated assessment of humans’ impact on nature, rather than one that minimizes human impact. And indeed, further analysis revealed that participants who rated human impact higher than nature’s impact showed higher levels of HE than those participants who rated human and nature’s impacts as equivalent [38]. Moreover, participants who rated nature’s impacts to be greater than human impacts also showed higher levels of HE than those participants who rated human and nature’s impacts as equivalent. Together, these findings suggest that HE is associated with asymmetric perceptions of the mutual impacts of humans and nature on either, regardless of the direction of the asymmetry.

More generally, we take the weak correlations among these constructs to indicate that they are indeed interrelated as components of the mental model of the HNR, but that they are nevertheless distinct components. Beliefs about HE focus on hierarchical thinking, placing humans above nature, whereas beliefs about the human impact on nature emphasize human agency, responsibility, and potential for harming or helping nature. And beliefs about nature’s impact on humans highlight nature’s contributions to human well-being (including “ecosystem functions”) as well as its potentially destructive power. By treating these components independently, we aimed to capture the unique contributions each makes to shaping individuals’ broader perceptions of the relationship between humans and nature. And, indeed, as discussed below, we demonstrate that each influences pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions in different ways.

4.2. Mental Models of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Our central question was “Do mental models matter?” To address this, we examined relations between the mental models of the HNR, biocentric and anthropocentric pro-environmental attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards environmental protection and investment.

4.2.1. Mental Models Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes

The results suggest a strong relationship between mental models of the HNR and biocentric environmental attitudes, and a much weaker relation between mental models of the HNR and anthropocentric environmental attitudes.

HE was negatively associated with biocentric attitudes. This suggests that individuals who see humans as separate from or superior to nature may be less likely to endorse attitudes that prioritize nature’s intrinsic value, consistent with previous work demonstrating that HE is negatively associated with pro-environmental attitudes [15,21,38,44,87], and, more generally, with work showing that anthropocentrism tends to discourage pro-environmental attitudes and behavior [25,88,89]. In contrast, biocentric attitudes were positively associated with perceived human impact and the perceived impact of nature. This may reflect a more integrated worldview in which humans are seen as part of a larger ecosystem, leading to greater concern for preserving the natural world, as an intrinsically valuable and essential part of a balanced and interdependent relationship. This perspective aligns with research showing that individuals who acknowledge the interconnectedness of human and environmental systems are more likely to adopt biocentric or ecocentric values [80,90]. These values prioritize the intrinsic worth of nature beyond its utility to humans and are associated with greater support for conservation efforts and sustainable practices [91]. Importantly, introducing political orientation into the model did not change the relationships between mental model components and biocentric attitudes. This suggests that integrated worldviews promoting biocentric attitudes operate through cognitive pathways that are distinct from broader ideological influences, underscoring the potential for fostering pro-environmental attitudes across diverse political orientations.

The perceived human impact on nature was the only component associated with anthropocentric pro-environmental attitudes. In other words, the more participants perceived human activities as impacting the natural world, the more likely they were to express concern for nature for the well-being of themselves and/or future generations. This suggests that individuals who believe humans significantly impact the environment are more likely to view nature as valuable for the benefits it provides to humans, reflecting an instrumental valuation of nature.

However, this relationship was no longer detectable when political orientation was factored into the model. Conservatism diminished the effects of human impact on anthropocentric attitudes, with conservatism predicting anthropocentric attitudes instead. Notably, anthropocentric attitudes did not predict protection or investment behaviors, while conservatism negatively predicted both. This suggests that the mediated relationship of mental models on behavioral intent via biocentric attitudes is robust enough to stand up to the effects of conservatism, which has been shown to have negative impacts on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [92,93,94]. These findings also suggest that conservatism may influence pro-environmentalism through a different cognitive pathway than the mental model components, potentially emphasizing other values, such as moral foundations of care and fairness [95] or purity [96,97]. It may also be that those with more conservative values are more concerned with economic growth [98] and the status quo [99] or are more skeptical about environmental risks [100]. Our findings, however, suggest that interventions targeting mental models of the HNR might still reduce the negative effects of conservatism on pro-environmentalism by promoting a more interconnected view of humans and nature, encouraging behaviors associated with environmental protection and investment. Ultimately, addressing the deeper ideological values associated with conservatism, such as distrust of environmental regulation or prioritization of short-term economic gains, may be necessary to fully mitigate its negative impact on pro-environmental behaviors.

4.2.2. Mental Models Predict Behavioral Intentions

Investment Intentions. Biocentric pro-environmental attitudes predicted behavioral intentions towards investment, whereas anthropocentric pro-environmental attitudes were unrelated to investment intentions. This finding aligns with a growing body of literature suggesting that biospheric attitudes are more effective in driving pro-environmental behavior [5,101] compared to anthropocentric attitudes, which may not be as strongly associated with action. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as our measure of biocentric attitudes was much more extensive than our measure of anthropocentric attitudes.

More critically, all three mental model components predicted investment intentions. Beliefs of nature’s impact on humans positively predicted support for investments of time and money in environmental restoration. Individuals who acknowledge nature’s influence on human societies may be more likely to support large-scale, systemic interventions to address environmental issues. Indirect effect analyses revealed that all three mental model components had indirect effects through biocentric attitudes on behavioral intentions towards investment and protection. HE had a negative indirect effect, while perceived human and nature impact had positive indirect effects. Conservatism had a direct negative effect on investment intentions; higher self-rated conservatism was associated with lower willingness to invest time and money in ecological restoration. Again, this fits with a growing body of research showing that conservatism is often associated with reduced environmental concern and skepticism toward systemic interventions, likely due to ideological values emphasizing individual responsibility over collective action and a preference for maintaining the status quo [99,102,103]. This aligns with prior research linking conservative ideologies with lower support for policies addressing climate change and other environmental issues, such as renewable energy transitions and environmental regulations.

The finding that conservatism did not alter the direct or indirect relationships between mental model components and investment intentions underscores the distinct pathways through which these variables operate. It suggests that mental models of the HNR may function as a cognitive framework influencing attitudes and behaviors independently of broader political or ideological orientations. This distinction highlights the potential for interventions targeting mental models to foster pro-environmental behavior, even among individuals with varying political ideologies.

Protection Intentions. Findings for protective behavioral intentions were similar, but not identical, to those for investment. Biocentric pro-environmental attitudes predicted behavioral intentions towards environmental protection, whereas anthropocentric pro-environmental attitudes were unrelated to protection intentions. Again, all three mental model components predicted protective intentions. HE had a direct negative impact on protective intentions, whereas perceived human impact had a direct positive impact. While both beliefs focus on human influence, they drive protective intent in opposite directions; HE discourages action, likely because it promotes the idea that humans are immune to nature’s consequences, while the recognition of human impact motivates it, perhaps as individuals feel a sense of responsibility for the damage caused by human activities. Indirect effect analyses again revealed that all three mental model components had indirect effects on protective intentions through biocentric attitudes. HE had a negative indirect effect, while perceived human and nature impact had positive indirect effects.

Conservatism had a direct negative effect on protective intentions; higher self-rated conservatism was associated with lower willingness to support policies that encouraged ecological restoration. Adding conservatism to the model, again, did not change indirect patterns of association between mental model components and protective intentions. There was one change in direct associations, however; the direct positive relationship between perceived human impact and protective intentions persisted, whereas the direct negative relationship between HE and protective intentions was no longer significant. The effects of mental models on biocentric attitudes and their indirect effects on protection and investment behaviors remained, even with the addition of conservatism.

While this study sheds light on how HI, NI, and HE shape behavioral intentions, our results are not consistent with the hypothesis that HE might promote stewardship and care for non-human living beings. While conceptually, beliefs of superiority to the rest of the natural world may lead to feelings of responsibility, we find that HE has consistently negative implications for pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. This may be because HE not only reinforces the perceived dichotomy between humans and the natural world, but also frames the natural world as an instrument for human use. The notion that humans and nature operate on separate planes additionally obscures the reciprocal relationship between the two. This lack of recognition not only impedes environmental stewardship but can also undermine efforts to cultivate a more harmonious relationship with the natural world.

As such, interventions for pro-environmental attitudes and behavior should start at the conceptualization level. Although the effect sizes are small, the indirect effects suggest that leveraging mental models of the HNR is one way in which we might increase pro-environmental behavior. This implies that changing how individuals conceptualize the interconnectedness between humans and nature could indirectly promote behaviors that support environmental protection and investment. While much work has focused on the link between attitudes and behavior, the mechanism for how people develop their pro-environmental attitudes is less clear. These findings speak to the importance of incorporating mental models into understanding attitudes and behavior. Specifically, they highlight how beliefs about the HNR can shape attitudes, which, in turn, influence behavioral intentions. As such, interventions aimed at fostering pro-environmental attitudes and behavior may benefit from addressing underlying mental models, such as challenging HE or reinforcing the bidirectional impacts between humans and nature. By understanding these mental models, we can identify the mechanisms driving pro-environmental actions or inactions and address the attitude–behavior gap [104].

4.2.3. Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

This work contributes to the ongoing debate about the efficacy of anthropocentric versus biocentric attitudes towards nature in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. We found that our composite score for anthropocentric attitudes, which prioritize the utility of nature for human benefit, did not predict protective or investment-oriented behaviors. This aligns with some empirical studies and theoretical perspectives suggesting that biocentric attitudes are more strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior [5,105,106]. However, our findings contrast with other studies that suggest anthropocentric framings of nature may lead to greater pro-environmental behavior by emphasizing the need to protect nature for human and future generations [21,23]. By leveraging insights into these mental models, interventions can be designed to more effectively align environmental actions with attitudes, promoting more consistent and impactful pro-environmental behavior.

4.3. Limitations, Future Directions, and Practical Implications

4.3.1. Limitations and Future Directions

Building on the findings of this study, there are several avenues for further work. For example, it is important to note that HE, perceived human impact on nature, and perceived impact of nature on humans are not necessarily an exhaustive list of the potential components of mental models of the HNR. There is a multitude of other facets of the HNR, such as investigating the relationship between fuzzy cognitive mapping of ecosystems and socio-ecological systems [107,108]. Future work might address other constructs that measure the HNR to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of conceptualizations of the HNR.

Additionally, while this study assessed beliefs about the magnitude of human and nature’s impacts, it did not address whether these impacts were perceived as positive or negative. Future research might consider capturing valenced data regarding beliefs about the HNR and investigating how the perceived valence of these impacts influences pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. For example, examining valence as well as magnitude of perceived impact [109] or examining beliefs about the specific nature of HI (e.g., deforestation, conservation) or NI (e.g., recreation, food, oxygen) may offer a more nuanced understanding of how mental models shape environmental decision-making.

Furthermore, although we sampled participants from Prolific as well as undergraduates in an attempt to diversify our participant pool, the resulting sample was nevertheless predominantly white and comprised of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) [110] individuals. This demographic homogeneity may limit the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations. To develop a more comprehensive understanding of these constructs, future research should aim to recruit a more diverse sample in terms of race and WEIRD status.

It is also important to note that some of the constructs measured in this study were operationalized using single item scales, such as the measures of HI and NI. Similarly, the composite scores developed to represent biocentric and anthropocentric attitudes were comprised of single item measures and unbalanced. The biocentric attitudes composite score contained mean scores for six items, while the anthropocentric attitudes composite score was based on only two items. Additionally, we did not use existing measures for biocentric and anthropocentric attitudes but, instead, employed a principal components analysis to determine that participants were responding differently to items representing these constructs. While our findings contribute to understanding how these constructs are related, the use of single item scales and unbalanced composite scores, as well as the exploratory nature of our measures, highlight the need for further research using more standardized and equitable scales.

Finally, based on our findings of the effects of mental models in informing pro-environmentalism, future research should also design and test interventions on these beliefs about the HNR. These intervention studies could probe the cognitive underpinnings of the formation and influence of mental models on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Other work might investigate factors such as cognitive construals, information processing styles, and emotional responses to provide deeper insights into how these models impact pro-environmentalism. Additionally, given the findings related to conservatism, future studies should explore how different aspects of people’s political ideologies interact with mental models of the HNR. Understanding these dynamics can inform more effective communication strategies and interventions tailored to different ideological groups.

4.3.2. Practical Implications

This study highlights valuable practical implications for environmental education and community engagement. Educational programs may leverage insights from this work to promote pro-environmental behavioral intentions by focusing on mental models of the HNR to engage biocentric attitudes. Similar community engagement efforts may stimulate environmentalism by tailoring sustainability messages to be anti-human exceptionalist or by encouraging more HI and NI thinking. This research may also be valuable to educators and community organizers because these findings suggest that mental model components inform biocentric attitudes and pro-environmental behavioral intentions beyond the effect of conservatism. By grounding environmental initiatives in this research on mental models of the HNR, organizations may increase bipartisan participation by their communities and may inspire collective action.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores the critical role of mental models in shaping pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. By examining the mental model of the HNR, we identified three distinct components that differentially influence biocentric and anthropocentric attitudes, and, consequently, behavioral intentions toward ecosystem investment and protection. Beliefs about human exceptionalism were found to negatively impact pro-environmental attitudes, whereas beliefs about human and nature’s impacts positively influenced these attitudes. The mediation analysis revealed the significance of biocentric attitudes in driving pro-environmental behavior, while anthropocentric attitudes were less predictive. Moreover, the robustness of these relationships, even when accounting for conservatism, highlights the potential for interventions targeting mental models of the HNR to mitigate the negative effects of conservative ideologies on pro-environmentalism. Our findings extend the current literature by offering a more nuanced understanding of the HNR and its impact on pro-environmentalism. This research provides a foundation for designing interventions that target underlying attitudes rather than merely informing behavior, potentially bridging the attitude–behavior gap in environmental conservation efforts. By continuing to explore the cognitive mechanisms behind pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, we can develop more effective strategies to promote sustainable practices and address pressing environmental challenges.