Next Article in Journal
“What I Want versus What I Will Agree to”—An Analysis of the Views of Ukrainian Refugees toward Work
Previous Article in Journal
Right-Wing Leftists, Left-Wing Rightists, and Traditionalist Liberals: Core Political Values and Ideological Inconsistency at the Party-Elite Level in Bulgaria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci13010013
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Political Beliefs as a Moderator for Predicting Environmental Citizenship through Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy

by
Mykolas Simas Poškus
Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Kristijono Donelaičio Str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(1), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010013
Submission received: 29 August 2023 / Revised: 7 December 2023 / Accepted: 15 December 2023 / Published: 25 December 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Promoting environmental citizenship can be a strong positive force toward addressing our current environmental issues. Informed individuals that act in pro-environmental ways both publicly and privately, as well as engage in civic action aimed at addressing environmental issues, are a substantial force for positive change. However, there is a well-known political divide between the political left and political right, where left-leaning individuals tend to engage more in environmental action that right-leaning individuals. The present study explores whether environmental education and environmental literacy might hold the key for right-wing participation in environmental citizenship. A representative sample of 700 Lithuanian emerging adults (20–39 years of age, mean age 30.6 years, 50% female) was used in the present study. Participants filled in measures of their political orientation, environmental citizenship, environmental literacy, and environmental (self-)education. The results showed that, as expected, left-leaning views were positively associated with environmental citizenship, but when interactions between political orientation and environmental literacy as well as environmental (self-)education were introduced, right-leaning views tended to increase the association between environmental citizenship and environmental literacy as well as environmental (self-)education. The results show a promising outlook toward using quality education to promote environmental citizenship among right-leaning individuals.

1. Introduction

Environmental issues have been a topic of ever-increasing concern globally, and current times can fairly be considered as somewhat defined by universal concern for the natural environment and climate change (Bergquist and Warshaw 2019; Brulle et al. 2012). Increasing pollution, energy scarcity, the loss of biodiversity, global change in temperature, and other environmental issues seem to be at the forefront of societal concern alongside other global issues (Buylova et al. 2020; Skogen et al. 2018; Wuebbles and Jain 2001). Thus, one might expect some universality in the concern and ways to address these issues, yet environmental issues often spark heated political debate, and there are disagreements on both the severity of the issues and how to solve them (McCright et al. 2015; Dunlap et al. 2016). While debate is a healthy approach to any issue, having a divided society prevents governments and communities to effectively address these pressing issues. Thus, it becomes increasingly important to highlight the need for environmental action, not only to come up with practical solutions, but to also understand the source and nature of the societal divide behind various environmental issues.
It is often found that individuals who favor left-leaning politics tend to be more concerned about the environment and are more inclined to actively engage in civic action to address environmental issues (Matuszczak et al. 2020; Hoffarth and Hodson 2016; Neumayer 2004). It must be noted that political beliefs are largely a reflection of our underlying personality traits and likely can be explained through them or have some common hereditary source (Verhulst et al. 2011; Caprara et al. 2006). As a matter of fact, there is meta-analytical evidence to suggest that political beliefs have a hereditary component (Polderman et al. 2015). If this be the case, it may be futile to try and persuade individuals to change their political views, just as it would be futile to try and change one’s personality traits. While some shifts in beliefs and behaviors are possible, adults tend not to change very much in their personality or core beliefs and, if a change in political beliefs occurs, it most often is a shift toward more right-wing views (Peterson et al. 2020).
The left-right political spectrum is quite complicated if analyzed in depth, yet some characteristics are quite straightforward (Sterling et al. 2019). Left-leaning individuals tend to care more about others, and their concerns tend to transcend individual needs and are usually focused on the society. Right-leaning individuals value individual freedom and economic growth; thus, their concerns tend to focus on their own well-being and hoping that others can take care of themselves. When it comes to environmental issues, the connection between concern for others and concern for the environment seems to be quite apparent. As a matter of fact, the link between environmental concern and left-leaning political views has been well established in the literature (Neumayer 2004). However, to say that left-leaning individuals care more for the environment is not equivalent with saying that right-leaning individuals do not care for the environment.
In the present study, the left-right continuum is understood as a “liberty versus safety” dichotomy (Peng 2022), where left-leaning individuals tend toward beliefs that imply more safety (at possible expense of liberty), while right-leaning individuals tend toward beliefs that favor liberty (at possible expense of safety). While being simple, this conceptualization encompasses the main focus of both ends of the political spectrum, and it is not uncommon to reduce the left-right political spectrum to single issues or a choice between two competing values (Byrd and Białek 2021).
Regardless of political beliefs, in order for one to effectively engage in environmental action, one first needs to possess the necessary knowledge to do so. Previous research has shown that knowledge and education regarding environmental issues is associated with pro-environmental behavior (Chekima et al. 2015; Del Rey et al. 2021; Lin and Niu 2018; Liobikienė and Poškus 2019; Maurer and Bogner 2020; Mohiuddin et al. 2018; Pe’er et al. 2007; Poškus 2022; Valor et al. 2013). Thus, the more one knows on how to address environmental issues, the more one is capable of doing so. Not only because one knows the most environmentally friendly alternatives to everyday behaviors, but also because one understands their effectiveness and usefulness in general. The more one understands how their actions contribute to helping the environment, the more one is motivated to engage in these actions (Liobikienė and Poškus 2019). Sufficient knowledge regarding environmental issues is necessary for an individual who wants to effectively address environmental issues through personal and public actions (Hadjichambis et al. 2019). Environmental activism not informed by knowledge may lead to both suboptimal political and societal outcomes.
While one way of addressing the general lack of knowledge regarding environmental issues is through specific courses in university education, right-leaning individuals have been shown to be less likely to choose such courses if they are voluntary but show some degree of belief change if they do indeed participate in them (Hess and Maki 2019). There is also strong evidence that for environmental education to be successful, courses need to be structured in a way that highlights local issues, enables interaction with scientists and other specialists on environmental issues, and engages individuals in hands-on learning (Ardoin et al. 2020). Therefore, it may not be enough to just present the facts, as one needs to place those facts in a tangible context and relate them to real-life actions and their consequences.
Possessing the required knowledge is, however, only the first step in becoming an environmental citizen. In the present study, we use the definition of environmental citizens as individuals who engage in actions to solve or mitigate environmental issues through private and public actions (ENEC 2018) and operationalize it in a way that reflects one’s engagement in civic action that aims to mitigate environmental issues. However, environmental citizenship is a complex concept that encompasses a variety of components and generally is hard to define as one specific thing (Dobson 2007). For example, Hawthorne and Alabaster (1999) included one’s attitudes toward economic issues (being oriented toward immediate economic gain versus being oriented toward long-term environmental outcomes) as an important part of environmental citizenship and highlighted that political beliefs play a role in environmental citizenship as well. Similarly to Dobson (2007), Jagers and Matti (2010) discussed ecological citizenship behavior as a part of citizenship in general, highlighting the duty and responsibility of citizens to take care of the natural environment. While left-leaning individuals more readily engage in activities that are part of environmental citizenship, it is unclear how to persuade right-leaning individuals to do the same and whether having factual knowledge about environmental outcomes of their actions might lead to pro-environmental behavior.

Current Study

The present study focuses on the interaction between environmental citizenship and environmental literacy and (self-)education, moderated by political leaning. In the current study, we aim to explore whether having better knowledge and engaging in more environmental education could potentially help right-leaning individuals more effectively engage in environmental citizenship on their own terms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Characteristics

A representative sample of 700 Lithuanian emerging adults (20–39 years of age, mean age 30.6 years, 50% female) was used in the present study. A surveying company was recruited to gather the data that represent the target age group. Stratified random sampling, with equal representation of both sexes, and representing all demographic groups based on the available demographic data from official government sources was used.

2.2. Procedure

The data were gathered via an anonymous online questionnaire by a surveying company. All participants gave their active consent to participate in the study. The data were gathered from 20 July 2022 to 7 September 2022.

2.3. Measures

The present study uses part of the data gathered in the survey, and participants had to fill in additional measures. All variables are introduced in the order they were presented to the participants.

2.3.1. Political Leaning

Political leaning was assessed with a measure of 6 pairs of statements developed for this study. Each pair of statements was scored on a 9-point scale ranging from −4 to 4, with 0 indicating that one did not have an opinion on the issue. Negative scores indicate agreement for left-leaning positions, while positive scores indicate agreement with right-leaning positions. Responses were averaged to compute the final score for an individual. The measure demonstrated good internal consistency (ω = 0.717; α = 0.696). The full scale is presented in Appendix A.

2.3.2. Environmental (Self-)Education

Environmental (self-)education (Poškus 2022), defined as one’s willingness to engage with educational materials directed at environmental issues and to learn from them, was assessed with 5 items. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The scale showed excellent internal consistency (ω = 0.902; α = 0.902). Higher scores indicate more engagement in environmental (self-)education.

2.3.3. Environmental Literacy

Environmental literacy, defined as one’s ability to find relevant information regarding environmental issues, was assessed with a measure of 11 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely do not know how) to 5 (completely know how to) (Hadjichambis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi 2020; Poškus 2022). The scale showed excellent internal consistency (ω = 0.919; α = 0.918). Higher scores indicate more self-reported environmental literacy.

2.3.4. Environmental Citizenship

Environmental citizenship (Hadjichambis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi 2020), or one’s engagement in environmental action through civic participation, was assessed with 3 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The scale showed good internal consistency (ω = 0.827; α = 0.826). Higher scores indicate higher engagement in environmental citizenship.

2.4. Analysis Strategy and Data Availability

The data were analyzed using JAMOVI v2.3 (The Jamovi Project 2023). Linear regression and moderation analysis were used to analyze the data.
The data used in the present study (https://osf.io/4npsz, accessed on 14 December 2023), as well as the pre-registration of the whole project (https://osf.io/czf68, accessed on 14 December 2023), are openly available on the OSF.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics of all of the variables used in the analysis are presented in Table 1. All variables, based on their skewness and kurtosis, were approximately normally distributed and suitable for linear models. The analysis shows that there was no zero-order correlation between environmental citizenship and political beliefs, yet political beliefs were significantly associated with both environmental (self-)education and environmental literacy.
A regression analysis predicting environmental citizenship through environmental (self-)education, environmental literacy, and political beliefs was run to investigate how the aforementioned variables function in a linear model (Table 2). In this model, political beliefs became a significant predictor, indicating that there might be an interaction among these variables. When controlling for the shared variance between political beliefs and the other two predictors, we can uncover the unique variance political beliefs share with environmental citizenship.
The first moderation analysis was run to examine the interaction between political beliefs and environmental literacy (Table 3 and Table 4). While, in both cases, political beliefs were negatively associated with environmental citizenship, the interaction effect was positive, indicating that when taken alone, left-wing views tend to go together with environmental citizenship. However, when political beliefs are coupled with environmental literacy, the effect is reversed, suggesting that environmentally literate individuals tend to act more pro-environmentally if they are more right-wing. The effect was quite stable at all levels of political beliefs but tended to increase with beliefs shifting to the right (Table 4).
A similar result was observed in the second moderation analysis where the association between environmental (self-)education and environmental citizenship grew in magnitude with increasing values of political beliefs, indicating that leaning toward the right increases the association between environmental (self-)education and engagement in environmental citizenship activities (Table 5 and Table 6).

4. Discussion

The present study is consistent with previous research finding that left-leaning individuals do indeed tend to engage in pro-environmental activities more that right-leaning individuals (Matuszczak et al. 2020; Hoffarth and Hodson 2016; Neumayer 2004). However, an unexpected result emerged indicating that once an individual is knowledgeable and educated enough about environmental issues, right-wing beliefs tend to play a more prominent role in environmental action. While definitely unexpected, this provides us with an intriguing line of inquiry for the future. Could high-quality and factual education help bring together both political sides for a common goal?
We, as a society, must realize that having a political divide on such issues as the current climate crisis is extremely unproductive. And we should also not assume that the currently very common universal approaches are equally effective for all individuals; we should look for ways to promote sustainable behavior and environmental citizenship that are fit for those who we want to help (van den Broek et al. 2017).
The present study suggests that quality education might be one of those specific ways that, while benefiting everyone, has the potential to have a profound effect on right-leaning people. Bearing in mind that right-leaning individuals prefer tangible ideas, a good starting point would be to focus on action-related knowledge, education on the real-life consequences of one’s actions, as well as factual knowledge regarding more complex environmental issues. This idea, however, needs to be developed further as right-leaning individuals might approach any initiatives regarding environmental education with a priori skepticism and might not be inclined to participate in them. Thus, developing an evidence-based, unbiased, and fact-based educational course might not be enough, and additional effort might be needed to facilitate the engagement of right-leaning individuals in such a course.
While we can generally say that knowledge regarding environmental issues tends to be associated with pro-environmental behavior (Poškus 2022; Liobikienė and Poškus 2019; Maurer and Bogner 2020; Del Rey et al. 2021; Lin and Niu 2018; Chekima et al. 2015; Pe’er et al. 2007; Valor et al. 2013; Mohiuddin et al. 2018), we must also remember that humans tend to have a hard time understanding things that are high in scale or with distant consequences. We are simply not evolved to think on a big scale, and we should acknowledge that and focus on educating individuals on things they can see and feel. Thus, it may be more effective to structure environmental education in such a way that brings environmental issues closer to the individual, showing the impact of one’s actions here and now.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study uncovered some interesting and counterintuitive results; thus, it should be taken cautiously, and future research should firstly aim to replicate these findings in other cultures and contexts. Secondly, the interaction between political beliefs and environmental literacy as well as environmental education should be explored through interventions. Correlational data, while providing a good starting point, are not enough to solidify any causal relationship for the aforementioned interaction.
In the present study, we found that there was a small but significant zero-order correlation between right-wing beliefs and environmental literacy as well as environmental citizenship. This relationship was reversed in regression analyses, indicating that there is a possibility of question form effects partly confounding the data. Future research should address this limitation by at least having reverse-scaled items. The zero-order correlations in this study should be interpreted cautiously. Additionally, the measure of political leaning used in the present study is strongly focused on the “libertarian versus statist” and the “liberty versus safety” aspects of political beliefs, which, while in the purest theoretical understanding of the political spectrum do reflect the left-right continuum but might not reflect what people commonly understand as “political left” or “political right”. Future research should be carried out with more complex measures of political beliefs that reflect not simply the left-right continuum but various competing political values.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Social Fund under the No 09.3.3-LMT-K-712 “Development of Competencies of Scientists, Other Researchers, and Students through Practical Research Activities” measure. Grant No: 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-23-0014.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Vytautas Magnus University (protocol code No. 22-09-22 and date of approval 22 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in the present study (https://osf.io/4npsz, accessed on 14 December 2023), as well as the pre-registration of the whole project (https://osf.io/czf68, accessed on 14 December 2023), are openly available on the OSF.

Acknowledgments

I want to acknowledge the help and support of Genovaitė Liobikienė.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Items used to assess political leaning.
Table A1. Items used to assess political leaning.
Lithuanian (Original)English (Translation)
Visuomenei reikia siekti maksimalaus saugumo, net jei dėl to nukenčia jos laisvėVisuomenei reikia siekti maksimalios laisvės, net jei dėl to nukenčia jos saugumasSociety should strive for maximum safety, even if it means a loss of freedomSociety should strive for maximum freedom, even if it means a loss of safety
Reikia kuo didesnių mokesčių, kad niekam nereikėtų savarankiškai kaupti senatvei ar mokėti už sveikatos apsaugąReikia kuo mažesnių mokesčių, net jei tai reikštų, kad patys turime kaupti senatvei ir mokėti už sveikatos apsaugąTaxes should be higher to ensure free health care and guaranteed pensionsTaxes should be as low as possible, even if it means that everyone must save for their retirement and medical expenses individually
Valstybė privalo reguliuoti, ką žmonės gali daryti su savo kūnuŽmogaus kūnas yra neliečiamas ir niekas neturi teisės kištis į tai, ką žmogus su juo daroGovernments should mandate what a person is free to do with their bodyA person’s body is their property, and nobody has the right to mandate what one has to do with it
Pasirūpinti pieliečiu yra valstybės atsakomybėPasirūpinti savimi yra paties piliečio atsakomybėIt is the responsibility of the state to take care of its citizensTaking care of oneself is one’s own responsibility
Valstybė turi riboti tai, ką žmonės turi teisę sakytiŽodžio laisvė negali būti ribojama jokiais atvejaisThe government has the right to regulate what is allowed or not allowed to sayFreedom of speech cannot be infringed under any circumstances
Valstybė turi turėti teisę nusavinti asmeninį turtą siekiant valstybės interesųAsmeninis turtas yra neliečiamas ir valstybė negali jo nusavintiThe state needs to reserve the right to take away property if it benefits state interestsPersonal property is inviolable, and the government has no right to take it away
Notes. Items were presented in pairs, where one had to choose to either agree more to the item on the left or the right. Items representing left-leaning beliefs were presented on the left, and items representing right-leaning beliefs were presented on the right (as depicted in the table). Items were rated on a 9-point scale from −4 (very left-wing) to 4 (very right-wing), with 0 indicating no strong opinion regarding the pair of items.

References

  1. Ardoin, Nicole M., Alison W. Bowers, and Estelle Gaillard. 2020. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation 241: 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bergquist, Parrish, and Christopher Warshaw. 2019. Does Global Warming Increase Public Concern about Climate Change? The Journal of Politics 81: 686–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Brulle, Robert J., Jason Carmichael, and J. Craig Jenkins. 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114: 169–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Buylova, Alexandra, Brent S. Steel, and Christopher A. Simon. 2020. Public Perceptions of Energy Scarcity and Support for New Energy Technologies: A Western U.S. Case Study. Energies 13: 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Byrd, Nick, and Michał Białek. 2021. Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognition 212: 104649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Shalom Schwartz, Cristina Capanna, Michele Vecchione, and Claudio Barbaranelli. 2006. Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice. Political Psychology 27: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chekima, Brahim, Sohaib Chekima, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Oswald@ Aisat Igau, and Stephen Laison Sondoh Jr. 2015. Sustainable consumption: The effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographics. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 23: 210–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Del Rey, Rosario, Mónica Ojeda, Joaquín A. Mora-Merchán, M. Nieves Sánchez-Díaz, Beatriz Morgado, and M. J. Lasaga. 2021. Environmental education: Effects on knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, and gender differences. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 31: 282–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dobson, Andrew. 2007. Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development 15: 276–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dunlap, Riley E., Aaron M. McCright, and Jerrod H. Yarosh. 2016. The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 58: 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. ENEC. 2018. Defining “Environmental Citizenship”. Available online: http://enec-cost.eu/our-approach/enec-environmental-citizenship/ (accessed on 14 May 2023).
  12. Hadjichambis, Aandreas, Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Pedro Reis, Marie-Christine Knippels, and Andri Christodoulou. 2019. Education for Environmental Citizenship in Focus. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-9963-9275-7-9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hadjichambis, Andreas Ch., and Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi. 2020. Environmental Citizenship Questionnaire (ECQ): The Development and Validation of an Evaluation Instrument for Secondary School Students. Sustainability 12: 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hawthorne, Maria, and Tony Alabaster. 1999. Citizen 2000: Development of a model of environmental citizenship. Global Environmental Change 9: 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hess, David J., and Alexander Maki. 2019. Climate change belief, sustainability education, and political values: Assessing the need for higher-education curriculum reform. Journal of Cleaner Production 228: 1157–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hoffarth, Mark Romeo, and Gordon Hodson. 2016. Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jagers, Sverker C., and Simon Matti. 2010. Ecological Citizens: Identifying Values and Beliefs that Support Individual Environmental Responsibility among Swedes. Sustainability 2: 1055–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, Szu-Tung, and Han-Jen Niu. 2018. Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environmental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment 27: 1679–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liobikienė, Genovaitė, and Mykolas Simas Poškus. 2019. The Importance of Environmental Knowledge for Private and Public Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior: Modifying the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Sustainability 11: 3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Matuszczak, Anna, Łukasz Kryszak, Bazyli Czyżewski, and Artur Łopatka. 2020. Environment and political economics: Left-wing liberalism or conservative leftism—Which is better for eco-efficiency? Evidence from Poland. Science of The Total Environment 743: 140779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Maurer, Michaela, and Franz X. Bogner. 2020. Modelling environmental literacy with environmental knowledge, values and (reported) behaviour. Studies in Educational Evaluation 65: 100863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McCright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt. 2015. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics 25: 338–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mohiuddin, Muhammad, Abdullah Al Mamun, Fazal Ali Syed, Muhammad Mehedi Masud, and Zhan Su. 2018. Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, and Business School Students’ Intentions to Purchase Green Vehicles in Emerging Countries. Sustainability 10: 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Neumayer, Eric. 2004. The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics. Ecological Economics 51: 167–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pe’er, Sara, Daphne Goldman, and Bela Yavetz. 2007. Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Environmental Behavior of Beginning Students. The Journal of Environmental Education 39: 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Peng, Yilang. 2022. Give me liberty or give me COVID-19: How social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism explain Americans’ reactions to COVID-19. Risk Analysis 42: 2691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Peterson, Johnathan C., Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Hibbing. 2020. Do People Really Become More Conservative as They Age? The Journal of Politics 82: 600–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Polderman, Tinca J. C., Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, and Danielle Posthuma. 2015. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics 47: 702–09. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Poškus, Mykolas Simas. 2022. Toward the Development and Validation of a Model of Environmental Citizenship of Young Adults. Sustainability 14: 3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Skogen, Ketil, Håvard Helland, and Bjørn Kaltenborn. 2018. Concern about climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and landscape change: Embedded in different packages of environmental concern? Journal for Nature Conservation 44: 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sterling, Joanna, John T. Jost, and Curtis D. Hardin. 2019. Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach. Sage Open 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. The Jamovi Project. 2023. jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 12 May 2023).
  33. Valor, Carmen, Isabel Carrero, and Raquel Redondo. 2013. The Influence of Knowledge and Motivation on Sustainable Label Use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 591–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. van den Broek, Karlijn, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, and Linda Steg. 2017. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychology 53: 145–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Verhulst, Brad, Lindon J. Eaves, and Peter K. Hatemi. 2011. Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies. American Journal of Political Science 56: 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wuebbles, Donald J., and Atul K. Jain. 2001. Concerns about climate change and the role of fossil fuel use. Fuel Processing Technology 71: 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of all used variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of all used variables.
MSDSK123
1. Political beliefs−0.8151.5280.5000.332—
2. Environmental citizenship3.2970.887−0.4270.2150.007—
3. Environmental (self-)education2.8481.070−0.174−0.7070.205 ***0.490 ***—
4. Environmental literacy3.1380.726−0.2140.8690.113 **0.590 ***0.599 ***
Note. S—skewness, K—kurtosis. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Regression analysis predicting environmental citizenship.
Table 2. Regression analysis predicting environmental citizenship.
PredictorEstimateSEtpStand. Estimate
Intercept0.93710.12027.79<0.001
Political beliefs−0.05370.0176−3.050.002−0.0925
Environmental (self-)education0.19320.03126.19< 0.0010.2331
Environmental literacy0.56270.045312.41< 0.0010.4607
Note. R2 = 0.385; F(3, 696) = 145, p < 0.001.
Table 3. Predicting environmental citizenship through environmental literacy using political beliefs as a moderator.
Table 3. Predicting environmental citizenship through environmental literacy using political beliefs as a moderator.
95% Confidence Interval
EstimateSELowerUpperZp
Environmental literacy0.72970.03710.657090.802419.69<0.001
Political beliefs−0.04620.0176−0.08068−0.0116−2.620.009
Environmental literacy × Political beliefs0.05150.02210.008260.09482.330.020
Table 4. Estimates of the relationship between environmental literacy and environmental citizenship at different levels of political beliefs.
Table 4. Estimates of the relationship between environmental literacy and environmental citizenship at different levels of political beliefs.
95% Confidence Interval
EstimateSELowerUpperZp
Low (−1 SD)0.6510.05070.5520.75012.8<0.001
Average0.7300.03720.6570.80319.6<0.001
High (+1 SD)0.8080.04970.7110.90616.3<0 .001
Table 5. Predicting environmental citizenship through environmental (self-)education using political beliefs as a moderator.
Table 5. Predicting environmental citizenship through environmental (self-)education using political beliefs as a moderator.
95% Confidence Interval
EstimateSELowerUpperZp
Environmental (self-)education0.42950.02720.376330.482815.82< 0.001
Political beliefs−0.06460.0190−0.10172−0.0274−3.40<0.001
Environmental (self-)education × Political beliefs0.03580.01700.002430.06912.100.035
Table 6. Estimates of the relationship between environmental (self-)education and environmental citizenship at different levels of political beliefs.
Table 6. Estimates of the relationship between environmental (self-)education and environmental citizenship at different levels of political beliefs.
95% Confidence Interval
EstimateSELowerUpperZp
Low (−1 SD)0.3750.03620.3040.44610.4< 0.001
Average0.4300.02720.3760.48315.8< 0.001
High (+1 SD)0.4840.03910.4080.56112.4< 0.001
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Poškus, M.S. Political Beliefs as a Moderator for Predicting Environmental Citizenship through Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010013

AMA Style

Poškus MS. Political Beliefs as a Moderator for Predicting Environmental Citizenship through Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Poškus, Mykolas Simas. 2024. "Political Beliefs as a Moderator for Predicting Environmental Citizenship through Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy" Social Sciences 13, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010013

APA Style

Poškus, M. S. (2024). Political Beliefs as a Moderator for Predicting Environmental Citizenship through Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy. Social Sciences, 13(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop