The Influence of Neuroticism On Proenvironmental Behavior

NEUROTICISM AND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR
The Influence of Neuroticism on Proenvironmental Behavior1

Simon J. N. Holmstrm
rebro University
Abstract
Recent research suggests that personality traits are associated with
proenvironmental behavior. However, it is unclear how the specific
trait neuroticism might relate to it. This study aimed to investigate
the influence of neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior and
tested the hypothesis that higher neuroticism leads to more
proenvironmental behaviors by higher levels of proenvironmental
attitudes. Two hundred sixty-two Swedish participants answered an
online survey, which included the NEO-PI-3 Neuroticism scale, the
New Ecological Paradigm Scale, and the Pro-environmental
Behavior Scale. Results revealed that neuroticism was not
associated with proenvironmental behaviors, but that neuroticism
to a small positive extent influences proenvironmental behavior by
stronger proenvironmental attitudes. The author then made
suggestions for why neuroticism might affect proenvironmental
behavior indirectly but not directly.
Keywords: Neuroticism, Proenvironmental Attitudes,
Proenvironmental Behavior
1
Psychology C, Spring 2015. Supervisor: John Barnes
Neuroticisms inverkan p miljvnligt beteende

Simon J. N. Holmstrm
rebro universitet
Sammanfattning
Den senaste forskningen tyder p att personlighetsdrag r kopplade
till miljvnligt beteende. Dremot r det oklart hur det specifika
personlighetsdraget neuroticism kan relateras till det. Denna studie
syftade till att underska hur neuroticism pverkar miljvnligt
beteende och testade hypotesen att neuroticism leder till miljvnliga
beteenden genom hgre grad av miljvnliga attityder.
Tvhundrasextiotv svenska deltagare svarade p en enkt online som
innefattade neuroticism-skalan frn NEO-PI-3, new ecological
paradigm-skalan och pro-environmental behavior-skalan. Resultaten
visade att neuroticism inte var associerat till miljvnliga beteenden,
men att neuroticism till en liten, positiv grad inverkar p miljvnliga
beteenden genom starkare miljvnliga attityder. Frfattaren gav
sedan en frklaring fr hur neuroticism kan pverka miljvnliga
beteenden indirekt men inte direkt.
Nyckelord. Neuroticism, miljattityder, miljvnligt beteende
Handledare: John Barnes

Psykologi C
VT 2015

The Influence of Neuroticism on Proenvironmental Behavior
Managing the environmental crisis is one of the most crucial issues of our time, and
mitigating the environmental degradation is a collective mission. Yet, we know that not
everyone is willing to do something about this situation, even those holding positive
environmental attitudes (Bamberg & Mser, 2007; Gardner & Stern, 2002). There are many
other factors than proenvironmental attitudes that contribute to proenvironmental behavior,
such as a sense of capability to complete tasks (i.e. self-efficacy; Taberno & Hernndez,
2010), to be worried about the environment (Ojala, 2007), and to have emotions bound to the
behaviors in question (see Gatersleben & Steg, 2013, for review). A proenvironmental
behavior has been defined as an action that harms the environment as little as possible, or
even benefits the environment (Steg & Vlek, 2009, p. 309). Research has recently shown that
personality traits can predict many factors that influence proenvironmental behaviors. For
instance, to be open-minded leads people to have strong proenvironmental attitudes and to
feel more connected to the nature, which in turn makes them engage in more
proenvironmental behaviors (Brick & Lewis, 2014; Markowitz, et al., 2012). In fact,
proenvironmental attitudes are one of the prominent factors triggered by personality traits that
lead to proenvironmental behavior (Hashim, Alias, Mariam, & Farzana, 2015; Stern, 2000).
Environmental attitudes denote beliefs, affect, and behavioural intentions a person holds
regarding environmentally related activities or issues (Schultz, Shriver, & Khazian, 2004, p.
31). So, by having positive beliefs, affect and an intention to act, the propulsion to engage in
those behaviors will increase. However, the literature is scarce about the effect of the specific
trait neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior. In a time of global procrastination of
effective interventions against environmental degradation (International Panel of Climate
Change, 2014), it is crucial to understand the personality factors that affect peoples
inclination to go green.

What is neuroticism? Neuroticism is one of five universal personality traits and refers
to a constant emotional instability, which includes feelings of nervousness, worry, and anxiety
(McCrae & Costa, 1997; Muris, Roelofs, Rassin, Franken, & Mayer, 2005). People high in
neuroticism tend to be more concerned about negative outcomes rather than positive ones and
pay more attention to possible threats and unpleasant stimuli in the environment (Bolger &
Schilling, 1991; Zelenski & Larsen, 1999). Neuroticism consists of five dimensions, or facets:
a) anxiety, b) angry-hostility, c) depression, d) self-consciousness, e) impulsiveness, and f)
vulnerability (McCrae & Costa, 2010/2014). When being high in all these elements in various
degrees, one is considered as emotionally unstable, that is, high in neuroticism.
So, what influence might neuroticism have on the inclination to go green? First of all,
there are reasons to believe that individuals high in neuroticism have positive environmental
attitudes. According to research, individuals high in neuroticism exhibit stronger
proenvironmental attitudes than emotionally stable people do across countries and age groups
(Brick & Lewis, 2014; Hirsh, 2010; Liem & Martin, 2015; Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic,
Snelgar, & Furnham, 2010; Wiseman & Bogner, 2003), although the positive connection is
not always significant (Hirsh & Dolderman, 2007; Markowitz, et al., 2012). At a more
specific level, people high in neuroticism have reported to hold positive attitudes towards
waste-prevention (Karbalaei, Abdollahi, & Momtaz, 2014). In contrast, Milfont and Sibley
(2012) found that people high in neuroticism have negative environmental attitudes, but their
claim is based on only one item. Thus, it is probably not corresponding to the entire construct
environmental attitudes, but just to a part of it. Others have suggested that there is no
relationship between being high in neuroticism and engagement in proenvironmental attitudes
(Boeve-de Pauw, Donche, & Petegem, 2010). However, research is not always unanimous,
partly because there are moderating contextual variables (Hirsh, 2014). Despite this, it appears
that the majority of researchers agree on that individuals high in neuroticism are inclined to

have stronger proenvironmental attitudes than emotionally stable people. So, what might be
the explanation for this? Hirsh (2010) suggested that individuals with high neuroticism
engage in worry about the environmental situation because they are sensitive to negative
outcomes in general, which in turn results in higher levels of proenvironmental attitudes.
Similarly, Liem and Martin (2015) gave evidence that persons high in neuroticism have
higher levels of proenvironmental attitudes because they have negative thoughts about the
future and worries about it. This worry also leads them to search for information about the
environmental hazards, which strengthens the attitudes. Thus, there is both empirical and
theoretical support for the claim that people high in neuroticism exhibit stronger
proenvironmental attitudes than emotionally stable people do.
If individuals with high neuroticism hold positive environmental attitudes, then they
should also be likely to act in line with their attitudes to a certain extent. According to Hashim
et al. (2015), holding positive attitudes towards proenvironmental behavior predicts the
behavior in question. This seems to be true. In fact, a meta-analysis showed that positive
attitudes towards the environment lead to proenvironmental behavior (Bamberg & Mser,
2007). For example, specific proenvironmental attitudes towards proenvironmental behaviors
has been shown to predict the behaviors, such as using energy-saving light bulbs, turning off
the faucet while brushing teeth, and not driving a car (Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 1999).
General proenvironmental attitudes also predicts specific behaviors. For instance, general
proenvironmental attitudes lead people to recycle (Hornik & Cherian, 1995), buy
environmental friendly products (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997), and
save energy (Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004). In addition, holding high levels of general
proenvironmental attitudes makes people to generally engage in proenvironmental behaviors,
not only in specific activities (Kaiser, Wlfing, & Fuhrer, 1999; Meinhold & Malkus, 2005).
The rationale is easily understood: the more people agree on the notion that the nature is

worth saving and that the nature is not meant for just humans, the greater the inclination to
engage in proenvironmental behvior (Schultz, 2001). So, if individuals high in neuroticism
show positive environmental attitudes, it would be reasonable to predict that having
neuroticism leads to proenvironmental behaviors.
Interestingly, there is no research indicating that people with neuroticism engage in
proenvironmental behaviors at a general level. At a more specific level, though, individuals
with high neuroticism were more prone to save electricity (Milfont & Sibley, 2012) and to be
environmentally responsible tourists (Kvasova, 2015). Yet, these two behaviorally specific
correlations cannot reveal if having high levels of neuroticism entails engagement in more
proenvironmental behaviors at a general level. Even worse, Markowitz et al. (2012) found
that neuroticism can predict behaviors that even harm the environment. Apparently, there is
much to be learned in this respect. Still we cannot ascertain whether individuals high in
neuroticism have a tendency to act proenvironmentally or not.
However, if it were true that individuals with neuroticism generally are holding higher
levels of proenvironmental attitudes, and if proenvironmental attitudes induce
proenvironmental behavior, it would indicate that neuroticism has an indirect effect on
proenvironmental behavior. As already mentioned, personality traits are in general believed to
operate in the same indirect manner (Hashim, et al., 2015; Stern, 2000). Could it apply to this
context as well?
The literature about neuroticism, proenvironmental attitudes, and proenvironmental
behavior has many limitations. Primarily, there is not much research on the topic, especially
when it comes to neuroticism and proenvironmental behavior. No one has examined the
impact of the facets of neuroticism on proenvironmental attitudes and behavior, which is
relevant as neuroticism is a broad aspect of human nature. This is not surprising as the
research field about personality traits and proenvironmental behavior is still in its infancy.

When there is research, however, there is no unity in how to define and operationalize
environmental constructs. Some researchers want to use environmental concern and
environmental values as synonyms to environmental attitudes whereas others do not, but the
preferred construct is (pro)environmental attitudes because it is overarching (Milfont &
Duckitt, 2010). It is, for that sake, highly problematic to use one item as an indicator of an
entire construct as Milfont and Sibley (2012) did when measuring participants environmental
attitudes. In addition, when scales of environmental behavior are used, they do not always
reflect the actual impact of their items (Markle, 2013). How, then, can we know if people
exhibit real proenvironmental behaviors or not? Another drawback of the literature is the
focus on attitudinal research. Only measuring attitudes as the dependent variable,
automatically assuming that it will lead to proenvironmental behavior is a fallacy. Although
attitudes towards specific proenvironmental behaviors make people more predisposed to
engage in the behaviors in question (Bamberg & Mser, 2007), there are still many barriers to
action (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Eilam & Trop, 2012). Examining attitudes may not be wrong
for that sake; it may give insight to how and when to push individuals into action and how
personality traits may play a role in the shaping of environmental behaviors. It is therefore
advisable to include both measures of proenvironmental attitudes and measures of
proenvironmental behavior in the research. Lastly, no one has previously investigated the
relationship between neuroticism, proenvironmental attitudes, and proenvironmental behavior
in a Swedish population. This is important because contextual factors may influence the
extent to which personality traits may affect proenvironmental behavior (Hirsh, 2014). For
example, Swedes have more positive environmental attitudes than Norwegians and Americans
(Olofsson & hman, 2006) and value environmental issues higher than most other countries
residents do when it comes to policy making (NORC, 2013). If it is true that Swedish
residents endorse proenvironmental attitudes generally, it is also plausible that it will lead to

proenvironmental behaviors (Bamberg & Mser, 2007; Widegren, 1998). All these limitations
obstruct the understanding of the effects of neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior.
In order to overcome these limitations, this study aims to investigate the relationship
between neuroticism and proenvironmental behavior, both directly and indirectly. Given the
previously demonstrated theoretical justifications and positive correlations observed between
neuroticism and proenvironmental attitudes, and proenvironmental attitudes and
proenvironmental behavior, these three factors will be examined simultaneously. The first task
is to replicate the research regarding the relationship between neuroticism and
proenvironmental attitudes with the well-established NEO-PI-3 Neuroticism scale (McCrae &
Costa, 2010/2014) and the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, &
Jones, 2000). The second step involves examining if holding positive environmental attitudes
and being high in neuroticism, respectively, leads to engagement in proenvironmental
activities by using the reliable Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale, which items match their
actual environmental impact (Markle, 2013). Thirdly, a test for indirect effect will clarify if
proenvironmental attitudes make people with high neuroticism exhibit more proenvironmental
behaviors. Besides, in order to test how neuroticism might relate to both proenvironmental
attitudes and proenvironmental behavior, I scrutinize the influence of the six facets of
neuroticism. Including the facets in the analyses could shed light on the validity of the
theorys assumptions that higher neuroticism leads people to worry about the environment,
which entails stronger proenvironmental attitudes (Hirsh, 2010; Liem & Martin, 2015). If
worry is related to greater levels of proenvironmental attitudes, then the facet anxiety should
correlate to proenvironmental attitudes as worry is positively linked to anxiety (Davey,
Hampton, Farrell, & Davidson, 1992). Data from a cross-sectional survey targeted to Swedish
inhabitants will provide the study with data. These procedures should resolve the limitations.
Hence, the purpose of this study is to investigate the direct and indirect influence of

peoples neuroticism on their proenvironmental behavior. Specifically, this study replicates
the research regarding the relationship between neuroticism and proenvironmental attitudes,
neuroticism and proenvironmental behavior, and proenvironmental attitudes and
proenvironmental behavior. Earlier research suggests that personality traits underlie
proenvironmental behavior (Brick & Lewis, 2014; Hashim, et.al, 2015; Markowitz, et. al,
2012; Stern, 2000), and that higher degrees of neuroticism makes individuals prone to adopt
strong proenvironmental attitudes owing to their extensive worrying about the environmental
degradation (Hirsh, 2010; Liem & Martin, 2015). Moreover, given that there is a huge body of
evidence showing that endorsing high proenvironmental attitudes leads to more
proenvironmental behaviors (Bamberg & Mser, 2007), I also expect the same finding in this
study. Accordingly, I hypothesize that people with high levels of neuroticism have positive
environmental attitudes, which eventually makes them to engage in more proenvironmental
behaviors.
The research questions are:
1. Are people high in neuroticism holding strong proenvironmental attitudes?
2. Are people high in neuroticism exhibiting proenvironmental behaviors?
3. Which facets of neuroticism relate to proenvironmental attitudes and
proenvironmental behaviors?
4. Are people with strong proenvironmental attitudes engaging in proenvironmental
behaviors?
5. Does being high in neuroticism lead to more proenvironmental behaviors by
proenvironmental attitudes?
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited to the questionnaire by convenience and snowball

sampling. The only inclusion criterion was that the participants must be from Sweden. No
incentives were in question. The total number of participants who initiated the survey was 262
but only 174 of them completed the entire survey, which entails a dropout rate of 34 %. In
order to deal with the missing data I used pairwise deletion, meaning that participants
answers were used when they were present. When the data was missing, it was not included in
the analyses. The advantage of this approach is that all available data will produce more
statistical power in contrast to listwise deletion, which means that the author deletes a
participants entire survey response when there is missing data in it (Howell, 2008). It is
important to have as high amount of participants as possible because statistical power
influences the inferences.
The participants were to report to which age group they belonged. The majority of
participants were young adults (see Table 1). About 69 % considered themselves females, 27
% males, and 4 % another sex.
Table 1
Age distribution of the participants included in the study.
Age
Amount
Percentage
0 18
24
10
19 29
122
53
30 39
37
16
40 49
22
10
50 59
21
60 and above
231
100
Total
Note. The total amount of participants is in this table lower than 262 because the question
about participants age group was in the last part of the questionnaire.
10

Measures
Neuroticism. The measure of neuroticism was extracted from the Swedish version of
the widely established personality scale NEO-PI-3, which stands for NEO Personality
Inventory-3 (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005; McCrae & Costa, 2010/2014). Researchers
frequently use this personality test because it has been shown to be reliable, easily
understandable, and cross-culturally applicable (de Fruyt, de Bolle, McCrae, Terracciano, &
Costa, 2009). The Swedish translation is also reliable (McCrae & Costa, 2010/2014), and
when used in this study, the scale showed Cronbachs alpha .94, which is very high according
to guidelines (Cohen, 1988). Also the six facets of neuroticism demonstrated reliability:
anxiety ( = .86), angry-hostility ( = .76), depression ( = .86), self-consciousness ( = .83),
impulsiveness ( = .70), and vulnerability ( = .79). Every facet consisted of eight items each
and the statements included for example I often worry about things that might go wrong,
sometimes I feel absolutely useless, and I find it hard to resist my strong desires and
needs. Participants judge the match on each item on a five point Likert scale from 0
(disagree strongly) to 4 (strongly agree). Many of the items were reverse coded. The scores
where then added together.
In this sample, 51.0 % reported to be high in neuroticism and 19.5 % emotionally
stable according to the guidelines of NEO-PI-3 (McCrae & Costa, 2010/2014). The variation
was normally distributed. The participants were generally higher in neuroticism (M = 88.85,
SD = 30.76) than the normative data (M = 82.7, SD = 22.3; McCrae & Costa, 2010/2014), but
the scores were more widespread.
Proenvironmental attitudes. Despite that there is no consensus in how to
operationalize environmental attitudes, most researchers use the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale when measuring a general attitude towards the environment (Dunlap, 2008; Hawcroft &
Milfont, 2008). Specifically, the scale measures whether participants hold an ecocentric
11

versus an anthropocentric worldview (Dunlap, et al., 2000). Holding an ecocentric perspective
indicates that you think the nature is worth saving and more important than the desires of
humanity (i.e. proenvironmental attitudes), whereas anthropocentricism denotes thinking that
humans are to rule over nature. The scale contains three subscales: balance of nature, limits to
growth, and humans over nature. The scale is comprehendible for adolescents (Petegem &
Blieck, 2006) and demonstrates acceptable reliability (Dunlap, et al., 2000). The measure has
also previously been used in a Swedish population (e.g., Olofsson & hman, 2006). In the
present study, Cronbachs alpha was .75, which is reliable (Cohen, 1988). Participants
answered to 15 items, which participants rated on a five point Likert Scale from 1 (disagree
strongly) to 5 (strongly agree). The odd numbered items were reverse coded. We are
approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support is one example of an
item from the scale. The scores of all items were added together. The translated version of this
scale is in Appendix A.
Most participants exhibited high scores of environmental attitudes (M = 60.60, Mdn =
61.00, SD = 7.15). According to guidelines, a median of 45 suffices to predict
proenvironmental behaviors (Pienaar, Lew, & Wallmo, 2015).
Proenvironmental behavior. As with environmental attitudes, there are many scales
measuring proenvironmental behavior, many of which comprise items that may have very
little environmental impact (Markle, 2013). After reviewing 42 measures of the concept,
Markle developed the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale based on environmental
significance, factor analysis, tests of validity and reliability analysis. Despite no one has tested
whether participants may over-report their behaviors to appear in better light when responding
to this scale, research suggests this should not be a major concern (Milfont, 2009). The scale
is 19-item long and showed Cronbachs alpha .76 in Markles study, which is above the
guidelines (Cohen, 1988). The reliability of the scale in the present study was a bit lower, still
12

acceptable ( = .71; Cohen, 1988). The subscales are conservation, environmental citizenship,
food, and transportation. The statements include how often do you cut down on heating or air
conditioning to limit energy use? and during the past year have you decreased the amount
of beef you consume?. Participants had to answer the statements in different graded scales.
Some items required only yes/no responses; in other items, participants answered on three and
five point Likert scales. The scores of the items were then added together.
Many participants reported the following item as problematic: Please answer the
following question based on the vehicle you drive most often: approximately how many miles
per gallon does the vehicle get? Those who did not use a vehicle for transportation had
problems with answering this item. Reliability analysis indicated that this item did not match
participants answers on the other items and would make the entire scale unreliable.
Therefore, I deleted the item. See appendix B for the translated scale.
Although there are no guidelines for assessment of the scale scores of the Proenvironmental Behavior Scale, the present mean value, M = 62.73, SD = 9.71, is closer to the
possible intermediate 45 scores than to the maximum value 90. Thus, the obtained mean value
indicates that most the participants report moderate proenvironmental behaviors.
Procedure
The survey program at www.webbenkter.se provided the adequate tools for designing
and administering the questionnaire. Research has demonstrated that this data collection on
the Internet has not any remarkable difference to pen-and-paper questionnaires (Riva, Teruzzi,
& Anolli, 2003; Tolstikova & Chartier, 2009). A pilot study assessed for instance the time for
completing the survey, item adequacy, and the potential impacts of the design. Two of the
scales, the New Ecological Paradigm Scale and the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale, had
not Swedish counterparts and needed translation. Using different Internet translation tools to
translate the scales from English to Swedish and back again for checking the correspondence,
13

along with the feedback from the pilot study yielded an understandable and correct
translation.
I shared the link via social media. Sharing the link on relevant Facebook groups was
the frequently used course of action, including groups for students and green politicians. From
there, people shared the link further. The questionnaire contained a presentation of the study,
the neuroticism scale from NEO-PI-3, the New Ecological Paradigm Scale measuring
proenvironmental attitudes, the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale, and demographic
information (i.e. gender and age group), in this order. Participants were encouraged to respond
honestly throughout the survey. Despite that the survey tool ensured one answer per IPnumber, it guaranteed anonymity. IP-numbers were stored in the website but were not
available to anyone. Completion of the questionnaire took 10 15 minutes. Data collection
lasted for 12 days.
Analyses
The statistical program IBSM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22
provided the adequate tools for the analyses. Initially, I calculated Cronbachs alpha in order
to test the reliability of the measures and produced descriptive statistics. I conducted bivariate
correlation analyses between neuroticism, its facets, proenvironmental attitudes, and
proenvironmental behavior to assess the nature of the associations between the variables. As
gender and age group may influence the degree of neuroticism, proenvironmental attitudes
and proenvironmental behavior, these two variables were controlled for when assessing the
correlation and regression coefficients.
In order to test for indirect effect, series of linear regressions were conducted. First, a
simple linear regression tested the predictive power of neuroticism on proenvironmental
attitudes and on proenvironmental behavior. Then the variable proenvironmental attitudes was
set as a predictor to proenvironmental behaviors when controlling for neuroticism in a
14

multiple regression. At the same time, the effect of neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior
when controlling for proenvironmental attitudes was examined. If significant relations, then
one may proceed to the test for indirect effect. These procedures constitute mediation
analysis, but I prefer to use test for indirect effect because the hypothesis was not to find a
relation between the predictor neuroticism, and the outcome proenvironmental behavior. As
knowledge about research statistics has grown recently a relationship between x
[neuroticism] and y [proenvironmental behavior] is not a condition of mediational analysis in
the 21st century (A. F. Hayes, personal communication, June 6, 2015). That is, neuroticism
does not need to relate to proenvironmental behavior in order to test for indirect effect
because there may be confounding, suppressing, and other effects from variables that limits
the significance of the relation between the predictor and the outcome (see Mathieu & Taylor,
2006, for the difference of indirect effect and mediation). Nevertheless, the procedures to the
test for indirect effect are the same as to mediation analysis.
I used bias-corrected bootstrap test in order to evaluate the statistical significance of
the indirect effect of neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior via proenvironmental
attitudes. The number of bootstrap samples was 5,000 and the confidence interval was 95 %.
Despite that the bootstrapping procedure is preferable over the Sobel test as it accepts
violations from the assumption of symmetric distribution (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), I also
included the Sobel test for comparison. If the results from the bootstrapping test produce
confidence intervals including zero, one can conclude that there is no indirect effect. Finally, I
chose the kappa-squared (2) as the estimator of the effect size of the indirect effect (Preacher
& Kelley, 2011). The statistical macro PROCESS provided the tools for testing indirect effect
and effect size with bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013). These procedures will
answer the questions whether and how neuroticism influences proenvironmental behavior.
Results
15
16
The present study investigates how the personality trait neuroticism might affect
proenvironmental behavior. The measures were the neuroticism scale from NEO-PI-3, the
New Ecological Paradigm Scale, and the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale. Correlation
analyses showed the associations between the variables and series of regressions checked the
requirements of the test for indirect effect. Lastly, I examined the indirect effect of
neuroticism on proenvironmental behavior by proenvironmental attitudes.
Table 2
Bivariate Pearsons correlation coefficients between proenvironmental attitudes,
proenvironmental behavior, neuroticism, and its six facets.
1
1. PEA
2. PEB
.34***
3. N
.18**
.03
4. A
.13*
-.05
.90***
5. A/H
.22**
.14*
.76***
.60***
6. D
.14*
.04
.89***
.79***
.60***
7. S
.17*
.01
.86***
.77***
.53***
.77***
8. I
.08
.01
.52***
.30***
.44***
.33***
.28***
9. V
.14*
.02
.84***
.76***
.55***
.72***
.69***
.33***
Note. PEA = proenvironmental attitudes; PEB = proenvironmental behavior; N = neuroticism;

A = anxiety; A/H = angry-hostility; D = depression; S = self-consciousness; I =
impulsiveness; V = vulnerability.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Are people high in neuroticism holding strong proenvironmental attitudes? According
to the participants self-reports there is a significant positive correlation between neuroticism
and proenvironmental attitudes, r (232) = .18, p = .006. After controlling for the effects of age

and gender, the relationship was still significant, r (226) = .16, p = .018. That is, the more
neurotic an individual is, the stronger are the proenvironmental attitudes.
Are people high in neuroticism exhibiting proenvironmental behavior? Correlation
analysis reveals that neuroticism is not significantly linked with proenvironmental behavior,
r (228) = .03, p = .622. The connection was still non-significant when controlling for age and
gender, r (226) = .05, p = .434. In other words, individuals high in neuroticism do not engage
in proenvironmental activities at a general level.
Which facets of neuroticism relate to proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors?
Impulsive individuals reported to have neither proenvironmental attitudes, r (226) = .02, p =
.727, nor proenvironmental behavior, r (226) = .00, p = .973, but impulsiveness was not a
strong part of neuroticism in any case according to the correlations to the other facets of
neuroticism (see Table 2). All other facets were linked to higher levels of proenvironmental
attitudes. In addition, individuals high in anger and hostility did report more proenvironmental
behaviors, r (226) = .13, p = .045. No other facet related to proenvironmental behavior.
Are people with strong proenvironmental attitudes engaging in proenvironmental
behaviors? According to the participants responses, there was a significant, positive
relationship between their proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental behaviors, r
(228) = .34, p < .001. This value represents a moderate correlation (Cohen, 1988). After
controlling for gender and age, the moderate correlation persisted, r (226) = .31, p < .001. In
other words, the higher a person endorses positive environmental attitudes, the higher the
inclination to exhibit proenvironmental behavior.
Then, does being high in neuroticism lead to more proenvironmental behaviors by
proenvironmental attitudes? As Table 3 shows, neuroticism did not make people to report
more proenvironmental behaviors, = .03, p = 622, but it did lead to stronger
proenvironmental attitudes, = .18, p = 006. Moreover, holding positive environmental
17
18
Table 3
Summary of linear regression analyses.
Unstandardized
coefficients
Outcome
SE
Standardized
coefficients
PEB
(Constant)
Neuroticism
62.13
1.83
33.98
.000
.01
.02
.03
.49
.622
PEA
(Constant)
Neuroticism
56.84
1.42
40.03
.000
.04
.02
.18
2.80
.006
PEB
(Constant)
R2
.24
.00
7.85
.03
14.65
.11
37.34
4.91
7.60
.000
Neuroticism
-.01
. 02
-.02
-.38
.708
PEA
.43
.08
.34
5.39
.000
Note. PEB = proenvironmental behavior; PEA = proenvironmental attitudes.

attitudes did predict proenvironmental behaviors when controlling for neuroticism, = .34,
p < .001. Therefore, the requirements for testing for indirect effect were met. When testing the
significance of the indirect effect, the bootstrapped 95 % bias-corrected confidence interval
ranged from 0.004, 0.034. Thus, the indirect effect was statistically significant. The indirect
effect also demonstrates significance with the Sobel test, z = 2.12, p = .034. The total
influence of the indirect effect on proenvironmental behavior, 2 = .06, [0.014, 0.116], was
small according to rule of thumb (Cohen, 1988). When controlling for age and gender, the
indirect effect was still significant, 95 % BCa CI [0.003, 0.032], z = .2.04, p = .042. In other
words, neuroticism seems to a certain extent make people adopt strong proenvironmental
attitudes, which in turn lead them to engage in more proenvironmental behaviors (see Figure

1).
Figure 1. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between neuroticism and
proenvironmental behavior by proenvironmental attitudes.
* p < .01, ** p < .001.
Discussion
This study has taken a closer look at the influence of neuroticism on proenvironmental
behavior. Results showed that individuals high in neuroticism did not report to exhibit more
proenvironmental behaviors, but as predicted, they did report to have higher levels of
proenvironmental attitudes. Besides, all facets of neuroticism but impulsiveness were related
to higher levels of environmental attitudes, which paves the way for more elaborate
interpretations of the relationship between neuroticism and proenvironmental attitudes. In
turn, the higher proenvironmental attitudes lead to more proenvironmental behaviors among
people high in neuroticism, as expected. That is, neuroticism played a role on
proenvironmental behavior indirectly. However, the effect size of the indirect effect was not
big indicating that other factors might suppress the relationship between being high in
neuroticism and engaging in proenvironmental activities.
In the present study, peoples level of neuroticism was positively associated with their
degree of proenvironmental attitudes. Similarly, most researchers have found a positive
association in this respect, suggesting that neuroticism leads people to have strong
19

proenvironmental attitudes by higher environmental worry (Hirsh, 2010; Liem & Martin,
2015). Although this study might offer support to previous research, the present results cannot
be generalized into all settings because contextual factors might obstruct the relationship
between neuroticism and proenvironmental behavior (Hirsh, 2014). Nonetheless, it seems that
Swedish individuals high in neuroticism hold more positive environmental attitudes.
This study also contributes to the understanding of how personality traits can operate in
the formation of proenvironmental behaviors. Previously, researchers have argued that several
personality factors are remote triggers of proenvironmental behaviors (Brick & Lewis, 2014;
Markowitz, et al., 2012; Swami, et al., 2010). However, obstructing factors has not been given so
much attention. This study suggests there may be suppressing elements that do not make people to
engage in proenvironmental activities. This is interesting as proenvironmental attitudes have been
targeted as strong factors between personality and proenvironmental behaviors (Hashim, et al.,
2015; Stern, 2000). In other words, given that individuals high in neuroticism did not engage
in proenvironmental behaviors in spite of the positive indirect effect via proenvironmental

attitudes, it is reasonable to believe that there are many other intervening factors between
neuroticism and proenvironmental behavior.
The present study also enlarges the literature when it comes to the influence of
emotions on proenvironmental behavior. All facets of neuroticism but one showed to be
associated with proenvironmental attitudes. These findings are consistent with claims that
emotions are important in explaining environmental concern (see Gatersleben & Steg, 2013,
for review). For instance, participants who reported to be easily upset reported to have higher
degrees of proenvironmental attitudes, and those who were high in angry-hostility even
exhibited more proenvironmental behaviors. However, by correlations we cannot ascertain
what causes what. Future research should therefore examine how emotions operate in the
shaping of environmental attitudes and proenvironmental behavior.
Then, what might be the explanation for why high scorers on neuroticism exhibit
20

higher levels of proenvironmental attitudes? Research have suggested that individuals high in
neuroticism have higher levels of proenvironmental attitudes due to their worrying about the
negative consequences of the environmental degradation, and that this concern leads them to
search for information about what worries them (Hirsh, 2010; Liem and Martin, 2015). Worry
has been linked to higher anxiety (Davey, et al., 1992), and anxiety was in this study
correlated to stronger proenvironmental attitudes. Moreover, environmental worry has
previously been considered as a motivator for proenvironmental behaviors (Ojala, 2007). It is
still difficult to posit that feeling anxious leads to environmental worry because it may as well
be the other way around. Future research has to investigate the validity of this theory by
including environmental worry.
However, the theory does not cover proenvironmental behavior. The reasonable
explanation for why neuroticism generally did not lead people to engage in more
proenvironmental behaviors is that the path from personality traits to proenvironmental
behavior generally is remote (e.g., Brick & Lewis, 2014). Many things can happen throughout
the path in various contexts (Hirsh, 2014). As earlier mentioned, other factors not included in
this study might cancel out the positive indirect effect found in this study by for instance
being positively associated with neuroticism and negatively associated with proenvironmental
behavior. One example is self-efficacy, that is, a sense of capability to complete tasks, which
research has linked with higher proenvironmental behaviors (Taberno & Hernndez, 2010).
As people high in neuroticism often are anxious and feel bad about themselves, it would be
reasonable to speculate that they are not prone to feel themselves empowered to accomplish
tasks, which in turn leads to less proenvironmental behaviors. Consequently, individuals high
in neuroticism may not act proenvironmentally because there may be other factors beyond the
scope of this thesis that interfere with the demonstrated positive indirect effect.
Unexpectedly, those who feel angry and hostile in this study reported to engage in
21

more proenvironmental behavior, whilst no other facet of neuroticism was associated with
proenvironmental behavior at all. One speculation for this finding is that the environmental
crisis might provoke anger in people to the extent that they engage in proenvironmental
behavior. The behaviors might therefore reflect a type of coping strategy by which the
individual tries to release some steam and get rid of their negative feelings. Again, there is
much to be learned about the influence of peoples emotions on their proenvironmental
behavior.
There are, however, some limitations to the study worth mentioning. The biggest of
them all is the correlational design of the study, which limits us to make causal inferences. A
longitudinal study could have clarified cause and effect. Thus, this study may only provide
hints of the human nature. Second, it is plausible that the questionnaire attracted already
environmentally engaged people due to the convenience and snowball sampling method.
Indeed, the sampling methods tend to have an impact on the result of the New Ecological
Paradigm Scale, particularly if the respondents are environmentalists (Hawcroft & Milfont,
2008). One may argue that the links from attitudes and behaviors could have been
strengthened by that. Third, the connection between attitudes and behaviors could also have
been altered by the order effect of the scales. Unfortunately, having the scales on one web
page each made it possible for participants to overestimate their environmental behavior after
having thought about their environmental attitudes. Random sampling methods and a mixed
order of items would have been preferred. Yet, the fact that the answers in all the scales were
comparably widespread indicates that the effects of the sampling method and the missing data
were limited. Fourth, the use of the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale had some
disadvantages. We do not know if self-reported proenvironmental behaviors are factual; can
we trust that people responds to the question honestly and do as they say? According to
research, we can, because respondents on scales that measure environmental attitudes and
22

environmental behavior are not generally over-estimating their survey responses in order to
appear in a better manner (Milfont, 2009). Fifth, the Pro-environmental Behavior Scale may
be culturally inappropriate in some ways. A behavior that is not common is the US may be the
norm in Sweden. For instance, one item was deleted from the analyses due to complaints
about that the scale assumed the participants had a car. However, although the behavior scale
should have been culturally adjusted and more validated before usage, it is probably one of
the better alternatives when it comes to measuring environmental behaviors that reflect the
environmental impact. It demonstrated also reliability after deletion of a confusing item.
Lastly, the dropout rate may also have influenced the results. Participants who left the study
could have been individuals who do not see the point of research on proenvironmental
behavior; they may think environmental issues are unimportant. Consequently, the results may
have been less significant if using random sampling method with a low dropout rate. All these
limitations have to entail a more humble interpretation of the results.
Despite these concerns, the present study has several strengths. Researchers have
previously mostly focused on the impact of traits on environmental attitudes. This study has
contributed to the pull in a new direction: to include self-reported behavior. This is important
because proenvironmental attitudes do not always lead to proenvironmental behaviors
(Bamberg & Mser, 2007; Gardner & Stern, 2002). The present study also replicates the
positive connection between being high in neuroticism and having strong proenvironmental
attitudes in Swedish conditions. Moreover, this is the first study to investigate the correlations
of the facets of neuroticism, proenvironmental attitudes, and proenvironmental behaviors, in
the same time making suggestions about the validity of the theory between neuroticism and
proenvironmental attitudes. Lastly, the study found an indirect effect of neuroticism on
proenvironmental behaviors by proenvironmental attitudes. This is not so interesting in itself,
but it implicates that something else is hindering people high in neuroticism to engage in
23

proenvironmental behaviors. The present study indeed contributes to an emerging research
field.
The lack of highly significant results is also a result. I have showed that there is a path
for individuals with neuroticism to proenvironmental behavior through proenvironmental
attitudes. Further research has to examine the other pathways that counteract this positive
indirect effect. In general, more research has to discover personality factors underlying
proenvironmental behavior as the literature still is very scarce. By targeting barriers and
contributors to proenvironmental behavior, the society can optimize environmental
interventions. After all, understanding what makes people go green is vital in a time when the
alarm bells of the environment constantly are ringing. In doing so, we could reach a point
when the power to mitigate the effects of the environmental degradation is strong enough so
that future generations also can reside on earth.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my sincere thanks to John Barnes for providing me with scientific
supervising and continuous encouragement for the thesis despite the allocation of unsocial
working hours. I am also grateful to Mats Liljegren, who provided me with the neuroticism
scale and relevant supplements crucial for this study, and to Matti Molin and Vilgot Engberg
Pramling for their intellectual feedback. I take this opportunity to thank the participants in the
study as well; without them, I would be standing in the rain by now. As a severe disease
prohibited weeks of work, I lastly want to place on record my sense of gratitude to one and all
who have lent their hand in my recovery.
24

References
Bamberg, S., & Mser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-25, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., Donche, V., & Petegem, P. V. (2010). Adolescents environmental
worldview and personality: An explorative study. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31, 109-117, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.003.
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role
of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stresors. Journal of Personality, 59,
355-386, doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep9110141805.
Brick, C., & Lewis, G. J. (2014). Unearthing the green personality: Core traits predict
environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior, 1-24,
doi:10.1177/0013916514554695.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2 ed.). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Davey, G. C., Hampton, J., Farrell, J., & Davidson, S. (1992). Some characteristics of
worrying: Evidence for worrying and anxiety as separate constructs. Personality and
individual differences, 13(2), 133-147, doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90036-O.
de Fruyt, F., de Bolle, M., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T. (2009). Assessing
the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEOPI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment, 16(3), 301-311, doi:10.1177/1073191109333760.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide
use. The journal of environmental education, 40(1), 3-18, doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.318.
25

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of
the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425442, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176.
Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2012). Environmental attitudes and environmental behavior: Which is
the horse and which is the cart? Sustainability, 2210-2246, doi:10.3390/su4092210.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston,
Mass.: Pearson Custom.
Gatersleben, B., & Steg, L. (2013). Affective and symbolic aspects of environmental behavior.
In Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de Groot, J. I. (Eds.), Environmental Psychology:
An Inroduction (pp. 165-174). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and
behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528, doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x.
Hashim, Z., Alias, R., Mariam, S., & Farzana, N. (2015). Understanding recycling behaviour
using personality traits. Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review, 1(2),
581-587. Retrieved from
http://www.gjbssr.org/pdf_volume2/GJBSSR_Zalina%20Hashim.pdf
Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2008). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental
paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hirsh, J. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(2), 245-248, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.004.
Hirsh, J. B. (2014). Environmental sustainability and national personality. Journal of
26

Environmental Psychology, 38, 233-240, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.02.005.
Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and
environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Difference, 43(6),
1583-1593, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.015.
Hornik, J., & Cherian, J. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research
results. Journal of Socio.Economics, 24(1), 105-127, doi:10.1016/10535357(95)90032-2.
Howell, D. C. (2008). The analysis of missing data. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner, Handbook
of Social Science Methodology. London, England: Sage, Revived from
https://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/More_Stuff/Missing_Data/missing_data_fin
al.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the.
Geneva: [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC.
Kaiser, F. G., Wlfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-9,
doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0107.
Karbalaei, S., Abdollahi, A., & Momtaz, V. (2014). Locus of control, neuroticism, and
spirituality as predictors of waste-prevention behaviors. Ecopsychology, 6(4), 252-259,
doi:10.1089/eco.2014.0038.
Kvasova, O. (2015). The Big Five personality traits as antecedents of eco-friendly tourist
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 111-116,
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.011.
Liem, G. A., & Martin, A. J. (2015). Young peoples responses to environmental issues:
Exploring the roles of adaptability and personality. Personality and Individual
27

Differences, 79, 91-97, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.003.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green
buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189-204, doi:10.1080/00224549709595430.
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how its measured?
Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human
Ecology, 41, 905-914, doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8.
Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the "proenvironmental individual": A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1),
81-111, doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for
mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(8), 1031-1056, doi:10.1002/job.406.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2014). NEO Inventories: Professional manual. (H. Bergman,
H. Kllmn, & P. Wenngren, Trans.) Stockholm: Hogrefe Psykologifrlaget (Original
work published 2010, Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources).
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEOPI3: A more readable revised
NEO personality inventory. Journal of personality assessment, 84(3), 261-270,
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.
Meinhold, J. L., & Malkus, A. J. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors. Can
knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment & Behavior,
37(4), 511-532, doi:10.1177/0013916504269665.
Milfont, T. L. (2009). The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental
28

attitudes and ecological behaviour. Environmentalist, 29(3), 263-269,
doi:10.1007/s10669-008-9192-2.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and
reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80-94, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001.
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental
engagement: Associations at the individul and societal level. Journal of Environmental
Muris, P., Roelofs, J., Rassin, E., Franken, I., & Mayer, B. (2005). Mediating effects of
rumination and worry on the links between neuroticism, anxiety and depression.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1105-1111,
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.005.
NORC. (2013, Februari 25). International surveys show environmental issues rank low among
most peoples concerns. Retrieved from NORC:
http://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/internationalsurveys-show-environmental-issues-rank-low-among-most-peoples-concerns.aspx
Ojala, M. (2007). Confronting macrosocial worries: Worry about environmental problems and
proactive coping among a group of young volunteers. Futures, 39(6), 729-745,
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.007.
Olofsson, A., & hman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern: Translantic
comparisons. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 768-790,
doi:10.1177/0013916506287388.
Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable
future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 373-390. Retrieved from
http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20
29

Resources/J%20Soc%20Issues%202000/oskamp_2000_2_generalobstacles_c.pdf.
Petegem, P. V., & Blieck, A. (2006). The environmental worldview of children: Acrosscultural perspective. Environmental Education Research, 12(5), 625-635,
doi:10.1080/13504620601053662.
Pienaar, E. F., Lew, D. K., & Wallmo, K. (2015). The importance of survey content: Testing
for the context dependency of the new ecological paradigm scale. Social Science
Research, 51, 338-349, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.09.005.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental
behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment & Behavior, 36(1), 70-93,
doi:10.1177/0013916503251466.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879891, doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative
strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93-115,
doi:10.1037/a0022658.
Riva, G., Teruzzi, T., & Anolli, L. (2003). The use of the Internet in psychological research:
Comparison of online and offline questionnaires. CyberPsychology and Behavior,
6(1), 73-80, doi:10.1089/109493103321167983.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people,
and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339,
doi:doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., J., T. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with
nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42, doi:10.1016/S02724944(03)00022-7.
30

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review
of Psychology, 43, 269-302, doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001413.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Snelgar, R., & Furnham, A. (2010). Egoistic, altruistic,
and biospheric environmental concerns: A path analytic investigation of their
determinants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 139-145, doi:10.1111/j.14679450.2009.00760.x.
Taberno, C., & Hernndez, B. (2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsig motivation guiding
environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658-675,
doi:10.1177/0013916510379759.
Tolstikova, K., & Chartier, B. (2009). Internet method in bereavement research: Comparison
of online and offline surveys. OMEGA: The Journal of Death and Dying, 60(4), 327349, doi:10.2190/OM.60.4.b.
Widegren, . (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms [Abstract].
Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 75-100.
Wiseman, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its
relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 783-794,
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00071-5.
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Susceptibility of affect: A comparison of three
personality taxonomies. Journal of Personality, 67(5), 761-791, doi:10.1037/0033295X.100.4.674.
31

Appendix A
The New Ecological Paradigm Scale translated into Swedish
1. Vi nrmar oss grnsen fr antalet personer som jorden kan frsrja.

2. Mnniskor har rtt att frndra den naturliga miljn fr att passa deras behov.
3. Nr mnniskan ingriper i naturen, ger det ofta katastrofala fljder.
4. Mnniskans uppfinningsrikedom kommer att frskra att vi inte gr jorden obeboelig.
5. Mnniskor missbrukar allvarligt miljn.
6. Jorden har gott om naturtillgngar, om vi bara lr oss hur vi utvecklar dem.
7. Vxter och djur har lika mycket rtt som mnniskor att existera.
8. Balansen i naturen r stark nog att klara av effekterna av moderna industrinationer.
9. Trots vra speciella frmgor r mnniskor fortfarande freml fr naturens lagar.
10. Mnsklig frstrelse av den naturliga miljn har kraftigt verdrivits.
11. Jorden har endast begrnsat utrymme och resurser.
12. Mnniskan var tnkt att hrska ver resten av naturen.
13. Balansen i naturen r mycket knslig och ltt att rubba.
14. Mnniskor kommer s smningom lra sig tillrckligt om hur naturen fungerar fr att
kunna kontrollera den.
15. Om saker fortstter p sin nuvarande kurs, kommer vi snart att uppleva en stor
ekologisk katastrof.
Appendix B
The Pro-environmental Behavior Scale translated into Swedish
1. Hur ofta slcker du lamporna nr du lmnar ett rum?
32

2. Hur ofta stnger du av standby-lget p elektroniska apparater?
3. Hur ofta skr du ner p vrmen eller luftkonditioneringen fr att begrnsa
energianvndningen?
4. Hur ofta stnger du av TV:n nr du lmnar ett rum?
5. Hur ofta begrnsar du din tid i duschen fr att spara vatten?
6. Hur ofta vntar du tills du har fullt i tvttmaskinen eller diskmaskinen?
7. Vid vilken temperatur tvttar du de flesta av dina klder?
8. r du just nu medlem i ngon milj-, naturskydds-, eller djurrttsgrupp?
9. Under det senaste ret, har du bidragit med pengar till en milj-, naturskydds-, eller
djurrttsgrupp?
10. Hur ofta tittar du p tv-program, filmer eller internetklipp om miljfrgor?
11. Hur ofta har du pratat med andra om ditt miljbeteende?
12. Under det senaste ret, har du kat mngden ekologiskt odlade frukter och grnsaker
du konsumerar?
13. Under det senaste ret har du minskat mngden ntktt du konsumerar?
14. Under det senaste ret har du minskat mngden flsk du konsumerar?
15. Under det senaste ret har du minskat mngden fjderf du konsumerar?
16. Under det senaste ret, hur ofta har du anvnt bilpool?
17. Under det senaste ret, hur ofta har du anvnt kollektivtrafik?
18. Under det senaste ret, hur ofta har du gtt eller cyklat istllet fr att kra bil?
33

The Influence of Neuroticism On Proenvironmental Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Neuroticism On Proenvironmental Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEUROTICISM AND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR