Zero-Sum Beliefs About the Human–Nature Relationship: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation, Tolerance of Ambiguity, and Need for Cognition

Abstract

Zero-sum beliefs about human–nature relations represent a relatively understudied psychological construct that can shape prosocial behaviours directed toward both the natural environment and humans. Yet, little is known about the individual difference factors that contribute to these beliefs. This study investigates whether Need for Cognition, Tolerance of Ambiguity, and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) predict zero-sum beliefs about the human–nature relationship (ZSB-NH). A cross-sectional, online survey (N = 355 Australians, M_Age = 52.77) assessed Need for Cognition, Tolerance of Ambiguity, SDO, and ZSB-NH, with hierarchical multiple regression revealing that together, Need for Cognition, Tolerance of Ambiguity, and SDO explained 29.9% of the variance in ZSB-NH. However, only SDO, and specifically SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism, significantly predicted ZSB-NH, with a positive and large effect. Need for Cognition and Tolerance of Ambiguity were not significant predictors of ZSB-NH, despite significant negative correlations with ZSB-NH, highlighting the importance of multivariate research to reveal the true effects of these predictors. The findings contribute to the limited research on ZSB-NH, suggesting that interventions should target hierarchical attitudes to influence zero-sum beliefs about the human relationship with nature.

1. Introduction

As humanity faces escalating environmental and humanitarian challenges, understanding psychological barriers that inhibit prosocial behaviours toward both people and the planet is increasingly vital. Beliefs relevant to this discussion include zero-sum beliefs. Zero-sum beliefs reflect a cognitive bias in which gains for one party are perceived as losses for another (Davidai & Tepper, 2023). Extending this to the environmental domain, zero-sum beliefs about the human–nature relationship (ZSB-NH) describe the perception that benefits to nature necessarily come at the expense of human well-being, and vice versa (Chen & Pensini, 2024). Prior research has indicated these beliefs present a barrier to behaving prosocially toward both nature and human others (Chen & Pensini, 2024). Despite the relevance of ZSB-NH, research on who is more susceptible to these beliefs is limited. Identifying individual traits associated with ZSB-NH can guide interventions and policy communication, fostering prosocial outcomes for both people and the environment. This study aims to examine how individual traits of Need for Cognition (NC), Tolerance of Ambiguity (TA), and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) predict ZSB-NH.

1.1. Zero-Sum Beliefs Between Nature and Humanity

As ZSB-NH involves the perception that any gains or benefit to nature result in a corresponding loss for human societies, while any gain for humanity results in a loss to nature (Chen & Pensini, 2024), it is not possible for both nature and humans to concurrently thrive. The cognitive fallacy of ZSB-NH often manifests in environmental discourse and policy where pro-environmental policies are perceived as depleting societal resources, leading to public resistance (Baker et al., 2017). In line with research on generalised zero-sum beliefs in human contexts (cf., Andrews-Fearon & Götz, 2024), ZSB-NH considers generalised zero-sum beliefs in nature and human relations. As a new construct in the psychological literature, empirical research examining ZSB-NH is limited; however, Chen and Pensini (2024) demonstrate that ZSB-NH negatively predicts prosocial behaviours directed toward human others (humanitarian behavioural intentions), as well as toward the natural environment (pro-environmental behaviours), with medium effect sizes, even after accounting for related constructs. Understanding ZSB-NH is therefore essential to create inclusive and effective solutions to humanitarian and environmental challenges.

Zero-sum belief research to date largely overlooks the zero-sum and confirmation biases that sustain ZSB-NH despite evidence of mutual human–nature benefits. Understanding these biases and individual difference factors underpinning ZSB-NH is key to explaining its persistence. Traits such as Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), low Tolerance for Ambiguity (TA), and reduced Need for Cognition (NC) may sustain these beliefs, which are also tied to broader dynamics like intergroup competition and ideology (see Andrews-Fearon & Götz, 2024; Davidai & Tepper, 2023; Yoo & Pensini, 2025). Yet integrative research is limited, and the links between dispositional traits (e.g., NC, TA) and ideological predictors (e.g., SDO) remain unclear. This study addresses this gap by examining SDO, NC, and TA within a multilevel framework (cf., Doise, 1986).

1.2. Social Dominance Orientation

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) refers to an individual’s preference for hierarchical and unequal social structures (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) and has been found to underpin zero-sum beliefs in social contexts (e.g., Smithson et al., 2017). SDO includes components of Dominance, reflecting dominance of one’s group over others, and Anti-Egalitarianism, reflecting support for intergroup hierarchy and inequality irrespective of the relative positioning of one’s group (Ho et al., 2012). SDO is expected to increase ZSB-NH, as it reflects a desire for dominance and inequality, which parallels the competitive, zero-sum thinking in ZSB-NH whereby either nature or humanity are prioritised.

From a theoretical perspective, ZSB-NH reflects deeper ideological motivations, not just observations about the world. According to System Justification Theory (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012), people may endorse ZSB-NH because they legitimise the positioning of humans as exerting dominance over nature, exhibiting disregard for environmental sustainability, or alternatively as viewing human action as inconsequential against a large and robust nature. Similarly, Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) proposes that individuals who prefer hierarchical structure may endorse ZSB-NH because it reinforces the control, or on the contrary, the potential subordination that humans may feel towards nature. In this line, research generally finds a negative relationship between SDO and pro-environmental action (e.g., Milfont et al., 2018), and prior research examining intergroup relations between human groups has found that people high in SDO tend to favour dominance-oriented approaches to status, support inequality, and discriminate against others (Halabi et al., 2008).

In the current context, it may be expected that those higher in SDO may exploit the environment as it ensures their group has disproportionate access to natural resources (Milfont & Sibley, 2014). This dominance-driven worldview makes individuals higher in SDO more likely to see environmental policies as threatening the current social order, negatively impacting their human group. Likewise, those higher in SDO may be more likely to consider that human thriving necessitates environmental degradation, with little possibility for human advancement without corresponding environmental costs. Indeed, SDO positively predicts support for policies that disadvantage other social groups (Pratto et al., 1998), maintaining one’s group’s higher status. Research has established that dominance-oriented approaches to status positively relate to zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchies (Andrews-Fearon & Davidai, 2023). Further, people who perceive themselves as advantaged are more likely to hold zero-sum beliefs, preventing them from becoming allies with marginalised groups (Stefaniak et al., 2020). In contrast, individuals lower in SDO reject hierarchies and prefer fairness and equality (Pratto et al., 2013), making them less likely to view human–nature relations as zero-sum. From the perspective of Doise’s (1986) multilevel framework, SDO represents a broad, macro-level ideological belief system that not only reinforces hierarchies but also extends these hierarchical attitudes to the way individuals perceive and relate to nature. This suggests that the individual preference for dominance transcends into individual and group relationships, shaping cognitive frameworks that interpret human–nature interactions as zero-sum.

Thus, SDO aligns with ZSB-NH, as both involve viewing societal resources in a competitive manner, whereby gains for one party (e.g., the natural environment) are seen as losses for another (e.g., human groups).

H1a. 

It is hypothesised that Social Dominance Orientation will positively predict ZSB-NH.

1.3. Tolerance of Ambiguity

Tolerance of ambiguity (TA) refers to an individual’s ability to navigate uncertain or ambiguous situations (Furnham & Marks, 2013). It refers to how well a person can accept and tolerate uncertainty without resorting to avoidance behaviours, such as withdrawing from challenging situations or procrastinating (DeRoma et al., 2003). People high in TA tend to remain calm and composed in the face of uncertainty, and they are generally more open to new experiences and able to explore different outcomes, suggesting a sense of security in ambiguous situations (Furnham & Marks, 2013). In contrast, individuals with low TA are more likely to experience anxiety and resistance when faced with ambiguity, often seeking to avoid these situations (Furnham & Marks, 2013). There is no literature available that examines TA and zero-sum beliefs; however, given the cognitive flexibility involved in TA, it is expected that TA will negatively predict ZSB-NH as TA makes one more capable of considering the complexity of environmental issues and recognising that scenarios are not always win-lose. From a multilevel perspective (Doise, 1986), TA is an individual level trait that impacts interpretation and response to uncertainty in environmental situations. This helps to clarify how personal comfort with complexity and cognitive flexibility influences perceptions of human–nature relations.

H1b. 

It is hypothesised that Tolerance of Ambiguity will negatively predict ZSB-NH.

1.4. Need for Cognition

Need for cognition (NC) refers to an individual’s motivation and engagement in effortful cognitive activities, such as critical thinking, intellectual challenges, and problem-solving (Petty et al., 2009). People high in NC tend to engage more deeply in thinking, problem-solving, and tasks requiring sustained mental effort. They are more likely to critically evaluate information and reflect on their thinking processes. In contrast, individuals lower in NC prefer simpler tasks and thinking patterns, often gravitating towards decisions that require minimal cognitive effort (Cacioppo et al., 1996). Indeed, extent of deliberation is known to underpin zero-sum beliefs, with greater deliberation typically required to overcome zero-sum thinking (Davidai & Tepper, 2023). This tendency toward deeper engagement in problem-solving suggests that individuals high in NC will be less likely to endorse ZSB-NH, as they are more inclined to assess available information before concluding that a situation is win-lose. Within Doise’s (1986) multilevel framework, NC is understood as a cognitive style dimension operating at the individual level, influencing the individual’s ability to process information and make decisions. This highlights how NC affects engagement in environmental beliefs.

H1c. 

It is hypothesised that Need for Cognition will negatively predict ZSB-NH.

1.5. The Current Study

ZSB-NH pose a barrier to prosocial behaviours directed toward both humans and the environment (Chen & Pensini, 2024). To address this barrier, the current study examines how the individual difference factors SDO, NC, and TA predict endorsement of ZSB-NH (see Figure 1). Research to date has not examined how dispositional and ideological traits predict ZSB-NH. Building on the recent literature (e.g., Andrews-Fearon & Götz, 2024; Davidai & Tepper, 2023; Yoo & Pensini, 2025), this study extends understanding by integrating political psychology (SDO) with cognitive style (NC, TA) constructs, utilising a multilevel framework (cf., Doise, 1986) to understand ZSB-NH. At the macrolevel, system justification (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012) and social dominance (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) theories show how ideological motivations support ZSB-NH. At an individual level, cognitive styles like NC and TA are used to understand the interpretation of environmental issues and what influences ZSB-NH.

As outlined, SDO reflects a preference for hierarchical and competitive structures and is expected to positively predict ZSB-NH. In contrast, TA and NC reflect openness to complexity and a willingness to engage in deep cognitive processing, respectively, and are expected to negatively predict ZSB-NH. By identifying traits associated with these beliefs, this research aims to inform interventions, communication strategies, and policy approaches that challenge ZSB-NH.

H1. 

It is hypothesised that Need for Cognition (H1a) and Tolerance of Ambiguity (H1b) will negatively predict ZSB-NH, while Social Dominance Orientation (H1c) will positively predict ZSB-NH.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study consisted of 355 participants, 218 (61%) women and 137 (39%) men aged between 18 and 90 years (M_Age = 52.77, SD_Age = 18.56). All participants were Australians or Australian residents, who predominantly identified their ethnicity as Australian (71.5%), with the most common highest education being a post-graduate degree (33.8%). See the Supplementary Materials (Table S1) for detailed demographic information.

Sampling Procedure 

A convenience sample of the Australian population was recruited through social media (Facebook) advertising targeting adults living in Australia and snowballing from the first author’s contacts. Participants were required to be 18 years of age or older, reside in Australia, and identify as either a man or a woman as gender was controlled in the analysis. Participation in the study was voluntary with no incentives offered. Data collection occurred over six weeks between April and June 2024. Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project 41837). Please see the Supplementary Materials for additional information on sampling procedures and ethical principles.

A sample size calculation (G*Power 3.1; Faul et al., 2009) determined 277 participants would be required to detect effects of f² = 0.04 with power = 0.80, alpha = 0.05, in a model with 5 predictors, 3 of which were tested.

2.2. Design and Materials

This study was a cross-sectional online survey hosted on Qualtrics. In addition to demographics, it contained the following measures:

2.2.1. Zero-Sum Beliefs Between Nature and Humanity 

The Zero-Sum Beliefs between Nature and Humanity Scale (ZSB-NH; Chen & Pensini, 2024) measures the extent an individual views the relationship between nature and humanity in zero-sum terms (Chen & Pensini, 2024). Responses on the 6-item scale were given on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items include ‘Environmental conservation means that less resources will be allocated to improving our society’. One of the six items was reverse scored. A mean score of the items was calculated, with higher scores corresponding to greater ZSB-NH. Cronbach’s α = 0.87.

2.2.2. Social Dominance Orientation 

The Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDOS; Ho et al., 2012) was used to assess SDO. Responses on this 16-item scale are given on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with eight items to assess each SDO-Dominance and SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism. Example items include ‘Groups at the bottom should not have to stay in their place’ (SDO-Dominance), and ‘We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed’ (SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism; reversed). Eight of the sixteen items, half of each subscale, are reverse scored. A mean of the items was calculated, with higher scores corresponding to greater SDO. SDO Cronbach’s α = 0.93, SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism α = 0.91, SDO-Dominance α = 0.87.

2.2.3. Tolerance of Ambiguity 

The Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (TAS; Herman et al., 2010) assessed TA, which defines an individual’s ability to deal with situations that are unfamiliar and ambiguous (Herman et al., 2010). Responses on this 12-item scale are given on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), for example, ‘I would like to live in a foreign country for a while’. Seven of the twelve items are reverse scored. A mean of the items was calculated, with higher scores corresponding to greater TA. Cronbach’s α = 0.76.

2.2.4. Need for Cognition 

The Need for Cognition Scale–6 (NCS-6; Lins de Holanda Coelho et al., 2018) assessed NC, which is a person’s tendency to engage in thinking and cognitive activities (Lins de Holanda Coelho et al., 2018). Responses on this 6-item scale are given on a 5-point scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me, 5 = extremely characteristic of me), for example, ‘I would prefer complex to simple problems’. Two of the six items are reverse scored. A mean of the items was calculated, with higher scores corresponding to greater NC. Cronbach’s α = 0.83.

2.3. Procedure

Interested participants viewing the advertisement calling for participants in a study titled “Personality and Views about the World” clicked the hyperlink which took them to the online survey. First, the explanatory statement was presented, outlining details about the study. Inclusion questions were then asked, with any not meeting the criteria directed out of the study. Then measures of NC, TA, SDO, and ZSB-NH, were presented in a counterbalanced order. Participants then completed the remaining demographic questions on their highest education and ethnicity. Completion of the survey implied consent. The survey took around 15 min to complete.

3. Results

Pre-registration with analysis plan did not occur for this research.

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.

Variable	M	SD	Score Range	1	2	2a	2b	3	4	5
1. ZSB-NH	2.54	1.32	1–7	—
2. SDO	2.55	1.15	1–7	0.59 ***	—
2a. SDO-Anti- Egalitarianism	2.60	1.31	1–7	0.60 ***	n/a	—
2b. SDO- Dominance	2.50	1.19	1–7	0.48 ***	n/a	0.69 ***	—
3. TA	3.21	0.57	1–5	−0.18 ***	−0.21 ***	−0.15 **	−0.25 ***	—
4. NC	3.78	0.76	1–5	−0.18 ***	−0.20 ***	−0.14 **	−0.23 ***	0.39 ***	—
5. Age	52.77	18.56	18–90	0.00	0.06	0.12 *	−0.02	0.12 *	0.11 *	—
6. Gender	1.61	0.49	1–2	−0.24 ***	−0.31 ***	−0.33 ***	−0.23 ***	0.07	−0.11 *	−0.25 ***

Note. ZSB-NH = zero-sum beliefs about the relationship between nature and humans, SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; TA = Tolerance of Ambiguity; NC = Need for Cognition. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, n/a = non applicable, gender was coded 1 = man, 2 = woman, N = 355.

. Participants reported, on average, below the scale midpoint for ZSB-NH and SDO, suggesting a relatively low endorsement of these items. In contrast, participants scored, on average, above the midpoint for NC and TA, indicating a general endorsement of these items.

ZSB-NH and SDO were strongly positively correlated, and ZSB-NH’s negative correlations with NC and TA were weak, according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines. Similarly, SDO was weakly negatively correlated with NC and TA. The relationship between NC and TA is moderate and positive. Age was weakly positively correlated with TA and NC, and was unrelated to SDO. Men scored higher on all variables except TA, which did not differ by gender.

3.2. Inferential Statistics

A two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis examined the predictive power of NC, TA, and SDO on ZSB-NH after accounting for age and gender. Model 1, including age and gender, explained 6.2% of the variance in ZSB-NH, R² = 0.06, and was statistically significant, F(2, 352) = 11.63, p < 0.001, adjusted R² = 0.06. Gender was a significant predictor of ZSB-NH (B = −4.19, p < 0.001), indicating that men scored significantly higher on ZSB-NH. Age was not a significant predictor (B = −0.03, p = 0.340).

Model 2 added NC, TA, and SDO. The inclusion of these predictors improved the model’s explanatory power (R² = 0.36), contributing an additional 29.9% to the explained variance, ΔR² = 0.299, and was statistically significant, F(3, 349) = 39.37, p < 0.001, adjusted R² = 0.35. SDO was a significant, strong, and positive predictor (B = 0.63, p < 0.001). In contrast, the effect of gender was no longer significant (B = −0.24, p = 0.064). Age remained non-significant (B = −0.02, p = 0.317), and both TA (B = −0.03, p = 0.617) and NC (B = −0.12, p = 0.164) also did not significantly predict ZSB-NH. These results are summarised in

Table 2. Regression coefficients for predicting ZSB-NH.

Predictor	B	SE B	β	t	p	R2	ΔR2	F
Model 1						0.062	0.057	11.63
Constant	3.92	0.35		11.15	<0.001
Age	−0.01	0.00	−0.06	−1.20	0.23
Gender	−0.70	0.15	−0.26	−4.82	<0.001
Model 2						0.361	0.351	39.37
Constant	2.11	0.54		3.92	<0.001
Age	−0.02	0.00	−0.05	−1.00	0.32
Gender	−0.24	0.13	−0.09	−1.86	0.06
SDO	0.63	0.05	0.55	11.68	<0.001
TA	−0.03	0.11	−0.02	−0.50	0.62
NC	−0.12	0.08	−0.07	−1.4	0.16

Note. Gender was coded 1 = man, 2 = woman, N = 355. ZSB-NH = zero-sum beliefs about the relationship between Nature and Humans; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; TA = Tolerance of Ambiguity; NC = Need for Cognition.

.

3.3. Supplementary Analyses

Examining the subscales of SDO-Dominance and SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism in a two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis like above revealed that SDO’s relationship to ZSB-NH is driven primarily by SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism (β = 0.52, p < 0.001). The predictive effect of SDO-Dominance (β = 0.07, p = 0.260) on ZSB-NH was not significant.

Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether either NC or TA moderated the relationship between SDO (including subscales) and ZSB-NH, after controlling for age and gender. None of these analyses revealed a significant interaction, suggesting that the effects of SDO on ZSB-NH are not buffered by NC or TA in our sample.

Please see the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2 and S3) for these findings.

4. Discussion

This study found that while NC and TA were negatively correlated with ZSB-NH, only SDO, and specifically SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism, predicted ZSB-NH when all variables were considered together. This highlights the dominant role of hierarchical worldviews over cognitive style in shaping ZSB-NH. These findings provide partial support for the hypothesis. Additionally, neither NC or TA buffered the relationship between SDO and ZSB-NH, further underscoring the stronger influence of ideological over cognitive style variables.

SDO, and specifically SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism, emerged as a strong predictor of ZSB-NH, suggesting that individuals who endorse hierarchical worldviews also perceive human and environmental interests as fundamentally opposed. That it was Anti-Egalitarianism, not Dominance, that predicted ZSBs-NH suggests that ZSB-NH is not necessarily underpinned by the view of humanity in domination over nature. Instead, ZSB-NH may represent a distinct form of zero-sum beliefs, differing from zero-sum views typically observed in human–human hierarchies (Pratto et al., 1998). From the perspective of Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), those endorsing anti-egalitarianism views in this context may perceive nature as an immutable power, consequently leading to the endorsement of a zero-sum perspective as the benefits to nature from protecting it will not be reciprocated. Once these views are culturally established (cf., Jost & van der Toorn, 2012) they may persist even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In both instances, this may justify a lack of engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, a known correlate of ZSB-NH (Chen & Pensini, 2024). In this vein, that SDO emerged as a strong predictor of ZSB-NH aligns with research linking SDO to competitive zero-sum thinking (Smithson et al., 2017) and to reduced pro-environmental action (Milfont & Sibley, 2014).

Contrary to expectations, NC did not predict ZSB-NH once SDO and TA were controlled. While individuals high in NC typically engage in deeper, more deliberate processing (Cacioppo et al., 1996), this cognitive engagement may be insufficient to counteract the hierarchy-based worldview associated with SDO. TA also failed to predict ZSB-NH when considered alongside SDO and NC. Although TA involves openness to uncertainty (Furnham & Marks, 2013; DeRoma et al., 2003), these findings suggest that hierarchical values exert a stronger influence on zero-sum thinking than cognitive flexibility, overall highlighting the relative importance of ideological over cognitive style variables in predicting ZSB-NH (cf., Doise, 1986).

4.1. Implications

4.1.1. Theoretical Implications 

The current study offers enhanced understanding of ZSB-NH, particularly regarding the dominant role of SDO (Anti-Egalitarianism) underpinning these beliefs. These findings suggest that holding ZSB-NH does not imply a dominance of humanity over nature. Further, findings suggest that socio-political attitudes, such as SDO, may be consequential for legitimising ZSB-NH, while cognitive style variables offer little effect or buffer of these impacts.

4.1.2. Practical Implications 

Given holding ZSB-NH does not imply a dominance of humanity over nature, interventions aimed at reducing ZSB-NH may benefit from challenging hierarchical beliefs, with little benefit in challenging dominance (human superiority) beliefs. Communication strategies could emphasise how pro-environmental actions generate mutual benefits for human societies, reframing environmental protection as compatible with economic and social progress, and leveraging psychological factors that may accompany viewing humanity’s relative positioning. It seems that targeting hierarchy-oriented concerns may be more effective than focusing on enhancing cognitive engagement or tolerance for ambiguity.

4.2. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

A key strength of the current study is its novelty, as it is the first known research to examine psychological underpinnings of ZSB-NH. The multivariate approach is another strength of the study, allowing for variance shared between predictors to be accounted for, revealing the ‘true’ relationships between variables. The main limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which prevents establishing causality. Indeed, relationships observed may be bidirectional, and subject to cultural factors and the sociopolitical climate at the time of data collection. While rationale was provided for the positioning of the variables in the current study, future research would be needed to examine the longitudinal and developmental trajectories of SDO and ZSB-NH, considering factors such as sociopolitical climate, and nature exposure (e.g., Engwerda & Pensini, 2025). The current study may also be limited by sampling adequacy, as the convenience sample may not provide a representative sample of the Australian population. For instance, some research indicates that SDO can vary significantly across different populations and contexts (Pratto et al., 2013; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), and that age positively relates to SDO (Zubielevitch et al., 2023). The current study also fails to consider the potential variability in worldviews, such as in indigenous ecological knowledge, or collectivist social norms, and how these may lead to different patterns of ZSB-NH. Future research should aim to recruit a more diverse and representative sample of participants to replicate the current findings, and to examine these constructs across cultural contexts. Future research may benefit to examine the Anti-Egalitarianism facet of SDO to understand perceptions of human positioning relative to nature, and how this may drive or inhibit pro-environmental engagement. Finally, future research may also benefit to explore mediators and moderators of the effect of SDO on ZSB-NH to understand more precisely the mechanism and conditions whereby SDO impacts ZSB-NH. Belief in a competitive social world, and right-wing authoritarianism, may be promising avenues to explore here.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights SDO as a dominant driver of ZSB-NH, overshadowing the effects of the cognitive style variables Need for Cognition and Tolerance of Ambiguity. Thus, addressing hierarchical worldviews is necessary to reduce barriers to prosocial and pro-environmental behaviours. By challenging this hierarchy-based thinking underpinning ZSB-NH, we can work towards creating a future where both humanity and nature can thrive.