Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Pro-environmental behavior in a common-resource dilemma: The role

of beliefs
Annika M. Wyss a, *, Sebastian Berger b, Daria Knoch a
a
Department of Social Neuroscience and Social Psychology, University of Bern, Switzerland
b
Department of Sociology, University of Bern, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: W. Schultz Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence about the anthropogenic nature of climate change, a vocal minority
continues to spread skepticism. This inhibits pro-environmental action and fosters a false perception of social
reality, leading people to underestimate the pro-environmental intentions and actions of others required to
facilitate rapid and deep decarbonization. Previous efforts to address these beliefs through environmental in­
terventions have yielded inconsistent outcomes. In two studies, we jointly examine the role of first-order climate
change beliefs and beliefs about others’ behavior (Study 1) as well as second-order climate change beliefs (Study
2) in pro-environmental decision-making in controlled laboratory settings. The studies involve a common-
resource dilemma – in which a negative environmental externality is triggered depending on the group’s col­
lective decision-making. Our findings show that while first-order climate change beliefs weakly predict pro-
environmental behavior, second-order climate change beliefs do not correlate with participants’ choices when
accounting for first-order climate change beliefs. However, beliefs about others’ behavior strongly predict
people’s choices. We discuss the results in terms of the role different types of beliefs play in environmental
decision-making.

1. Introduction
Despite scientists’ overwhelming consensus about the anthropogenic
nature of climate change (IPCC, 2022), a considerable part of society
remains skeptic about the human responsibility for climate change (e.g.,
27% in the United States, Leiserowitz et al., 2023). This climate skep­
ticism is insofar problematic as people’s climate change beliefs are
routinely seen as a crucial variable influencing pro-environmental in­
tentions, behavior, and policy support (Berger & Wyss, 2021b; Hornsey
et al., 2016; Steg, 2023; van Valkengoed et al., 2021). Furthermore,
climate skeptics are often a particularly vocal minority, which may
contribute to a false perception of the social reality, with some detri­
mental behavioral consequences at the social level (Maibach et al.,
2016). Exacerbating this problem, research has found that people vastly
overestimate their fellow citizens’ climate skepticism and strongly un­
derestimate their support for effective climate policy (Leviston et al.,
2013; Maibach et al., 2016; Mildenberger & Tingley, 2019; Sparkman
et al., 2022). This perception of a false social reality can inhibit one’s
own willingness to combat climate change, consistent with pluralistic
ignorance (Geiger & Swim, 2016; O’Gorman & J, 1986; Sargent &
Newman, 2021). Therefore, belief in climate change, belief about
others’ belief in climate change, as well as belief about others’ behavior
have been particularly strong candidates for psychological in­
terventions, yielding mixed results (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010;
Bergquist et al., 2023; Eyring et al., 2021; Goldberg et al., 2020;
Jachimowicz et al., 2018; van der Linden et al., 2019). How beliefs affect
behavior therefore remains a crucial research task of environmental
psychology.
Here, we contribute to this broader research topic through a joint
assessment of first-order climate change beliefs, second-order climate
change beliefs, and beliefs about others’ behavior and their role in un­
derstanding pro-environmental behavior. Following calls to more
frequently use measures of actual behaviors rather than self-reports
(Lange et al., 2023), we rely on a behavioral experimental paradigm
with personal and environmental consequences. In particular, we model
pro-environmental behavior as a common-resource dilemma where
environmental consequences co-depend on a decision maker’s actions as
well as the decisions of other study participants. Thereby, we mimic an

* Corresponding author. Department of Social Neuroscience and Social Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
E-mail address: annika.wyss@unibe.ch (A.M. Wyss).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102160
Received 27 April 2023; Received in revised form 5 September 2023; Accepted 15 October 2023
Available online 16 October 2023
0272-4944/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A.M. Wyss et al.
actual commons problem, as climate mitigation hinges on our ability to
successfully coordinate collective action (S. Chen et al., 2022), as
frequently done in related disciplines such as ecological economics (see
Lange, 2023, for a review on validated and ad-hoc behavioral
paradigms).
2. The present research
In the present research, we report on two behavioral studies
involving an ad-hoc behavioral paradigm to assess pro-environmental
behavior in an intergroup context. Due to the structural similarity be­
tween both studies, we report both studies jointly. Separate analyses for
each study – showing qualitatively identical results – are presented in
the Supplementary Material. The behavioral assessment of pro-
environmental behavior was accompanied by self-report assessments
of first- and second-order climate change beliefs, alongside items
assessing support for climate policy and demographics. The overarching
research questions tested the relative importance of first-order climate
change beliefs, beliefs about others’ behavior, and second-order climate
change beliefs in predicting pro-environmental behavior.
3. Open science and ethical statement
Both studies were implemented using the free software oTree (D. L.
Chen et al., 2016), and all data was analyzed using the open source
software R (R Core Team, 2017). All original experimental code to
replicate the studies, all raw data, and all statistical code to computa­
tionally reproduce all reported results are available in the associated
OSF project (https://osf.io/6ymwz). For both studies, the data inclusion
protocol was pre-registered using the As Predicted template within the
OSF, but the specific correlational pattern was not. The studies received
ethical approval from the University of Bern (protocol number
2020-08-00006] and were conducted according to the principles
expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were recruited
via the platform Prolific (Palan & Schitter, 2018), provided written
informed consent, and were financially compensated for their partici­
pation, in part using behavior-contingent payoffs (see below). Neither
study involved deception. In order to be eligible to participate, pro­
spective participants had to be at least 18 years of age and fluent in
English.
4. Pre-registered participant exclusion protocol and statistical
power
Across both studies, sample sizes were determined so that samples
exceed the sample size at which correlations stabilize (i.e., 250)
(Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013), alongside budgetary constraints
(Lakens, 2021). In each study, we posted 800 participant slots on the
platform Prolific. We followed an identical, pre-registered exclusion
protocol in both studies. Participants were excluded from the analysis if
they failed to correctly pass two bot checks, if they failed to correctly
answer three control questions, or an additional attention check. Finally,
participants who timed out on more than 20% of the extraction decisions
(see below) were also excluded from the analysis. Following these
pre-registered exclusion criteria resulted in samples sizes of n = 500
(41.20% female, age: M = 26.58, SD = 9.47) for Study 1, and n = 397
(42.57% female, age: M = 26.36, SD = 8.56) for Study 2. Consequently,
Study 1 yields 80% power to detect zero-order correlations of r ≥ 0.12
and 95% power to detect correlations of r ≥ 0.16. Study 2 yields 80%
power to detect zero-order correlations of r ≥ 0.14 and 95% power to
detect correlations of r ≥ 0.18. All power analyses relied on the “pwr”
package within R.
2
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160
5. Measures and procedures
5.1. Assessment of pro-environmental behavior and belief about others’
behavior
As a central consequential measure of pro-environmental behavior,
we relied on a common-resource dilemma, a threshold game that trig­
gers a negative environmental externality conditional on excessive
group consumption. Although such stylized games under controlled
conditions tend to oversimplify the complexity of real-world climate
behavior (Brekke & Johansson-Stenman, 2008; Tavoni et al., 2011),
they enable testing critical contingencies of interest (Lange, 2023),
avoid common method bias of purely self-report research (Lange et al.,
2023), and allow interdisciplinary engagement between social scientific
disciplines (Berger & Wyss, 2021a).
Upon enrolling in the study via Prolific, participants formed quasi-
random groups of four. Participants were given the opportunity to
anonymously extract between one and six points out of a common pool
in ten rounds of play, with a monetary reward of 0.10 GBP attached to
each point taken. Thus, an additional monetary payoff of between 1 GBP
and 6 GBP was possible. Collectively extracting more than 80 points
after ten rounds, however, resulted in a detrimental environmental
consequence. If a group stayed under the critical threshold, we pur­
chased and retired a certificate of 200 lbs of carbon dioxide from the
European Union Emission Trading System (EU-ETS). If a group exceeded
the threshold, no certificate was purchased and retired. Thus, excessive
consumption had an actual environmental consequence of 200 lbs of
carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere.
The dependent variable was the total extraction per individual after
the first five rounds of play. After round five, the game continued with a
behavior-contingent warning (as in Wyss et al., 2021; and the in­
structions in the supplementary material). After the warning or control
message respectively, participants were asked to indicate their current
emotional state in terms of five emotions (guilty, worried, hopeful,
angry, powerless) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The
attention check was embedded into this assessment of emotional states,
asking participants to select the option “not at all” in one survey item.
Behavior after the warning, the emotions, and belief updates after the
warning are not relevant in the present study and merely served as a
means to gather data for potential replication of prior work.
In order to assess participants’ beliefs about others’ behavior, we
asked them to indicate their beliefs about the average extraction rate of
the other three group members (following their own decisions) after
round two. At the end of the game, participants received feedback about
how much their group had collectively extracted as well as their indi­
vidual extractions and the corresponding bonus payment. They were
also informed whether their group had surpassed the critical threshold
of 80 points, which caused the actual carbon emission. Although par­
ticipants interacted in groups, all analyses are performed on an indi­
vidual level, as group members made anonymous and independent
decisions, not receiving any feedback whatsoever until round 5.
5.2. Questionnaires
Following the common-resource dilemma, participants continued to
complete a battery of self-report scales. In Study 1, three constructs were
administered. First, participants completed the Social Value Scale (SVS;
Steg & de Groot, 2012), including egoistic, hedonic, altruistic, and
biospheric values. Items were rated on a scale ranging from − 1 (opposed
to my guiding principles) to 7 (extremely important). Next, we assessed
participants’ belief in climate change with five items (Lewandowsky
et al., 2013) using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). To measure participants’ willingness to accept climate
policies, we included and adapted items from Nisbet et al. (2013). All
eight items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Finally, participants completed a series of demographic
A.M. Wyss et al.
questions, which included information about their gender, age, level of
highest education, employment, household income, as well as their
political orientation on the liberal-conservative spectrum, ranging from
1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative).
In Study 2, we additionally included a scale to measure second-order
climate change beliefs by adapting the first-order climate change beliefs
questionnaire. Instead of reporting their own beliefs, prompts were re-
phrased to target second-order climate change beliefs. The items were
preceded by the sentence: “To the best of your knowledge, how much on
average do participants in this study agree with the statement: (…)”.
Note that in Study 2, first and second-order climate change beliefs as
well as climate policy acceptance were assessed before the common-
resource dilemma in randomized order.
6. Results
6.1. Behavioral results and zero order correlations
The results are based on a total of 897 participants (Study 1: n = 500;
Study 2: n = 397), following the pre-registered exclusion protocol dis­
played above. During the first five rounds of play, participants extracted
on average 2.44 (SD = 1.4) points per round (see Fig. 1). They expected
the average extraction behavior of their group members to be 2.92 (SD
= 1.2) points per round. Thus, people extracted less than they expected
others to do (exploratory paired t-test: t(897) = 12.37, p < .001). Ulti­
mately, 496 participants were part of a group that collectively exceeded
the critical threshold of 80 points. Thus, behavior in both studies
resulted in a total carbon emission of 11.2 tons.
Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations. Participants’ beliefs
about others’ behavior and their first and second-order climate change
beliefs significantly correlated with their extraction behavior. More
specifically, beliefs about others’ behavior were strongly correlated with
pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.59, p < .001), whereas the correla­
tions between first and second-order climate change beliefs and pro-
environmental behavior were weaker (first-order: r = − 0.21, p < .001;
second-order: r = − 0.16, p < .01). Second-order climate change beliefs
correlated with beliefs about others’ behavior (r = − 0.14, p < .01).
Extraction behavior was also correlated with biospheric values (r =
− 0.30, p < .001), which were significantly linked to all types of beliefs
(about others’ behavior: r = − 0.18, p < .001; first-order: r = 0.31, p <
.001; second-order: r = 0.18, p < .001) as well as policy support (r =
0.43, p < .001) and political views (r = − 0.10, p < .01).
Policy support was further correlated with first-order climate change
beliefs (r = 0.60, p < .001), own behavior (r = − 0.19, p < .001), and
Fig. 1. Mean extraction rate (collapsed data).
3
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160
beliefs about others behavior (r = − 0.15, p < .001). Income and edu­
cation correlated with each other (r = .18, p < .001), but not with any
other measure. Political views were further correlated with personal
climate change beliefs (r = − 0.25, p < .001), policy support (r = − 0.23,
p < .001), and weakly with pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.09, p <
.05), but not with any other measure.
7. The relative importance of beliefs in predicting pro-
environmental behavior
As a next step, we aimed to assess the (relative) importance of both
types of beliefs in predicting participants’ pro-environmental behavior.
To do so, we included our predictors of interest in a multiple regression
model and assessed their relative importance. Table 2 (Models 1 to 3)
shows that belief in climate change and beliefs about others’ behavior
were both uniquely linked to participants’ extraction decisions. Second-
order climate change beliefs, on the other hand, did not predict pro-
environmental choices above and beyond beliefs about others’
behavior and first-order climate change beliefs (Models 2 to 3). In order
to estimate the variance explained by each individual predictor variable,
we applied the “lmg” method (Lindeman et al., 1980) using the statis­
tical package “relaimpo” (Grömping, 2006) in R (R Core Team, 2017).
“Lmg” calculates the relative contribution of each individual predictor
to the R2 taking into account the order in which they appear in the
regression model.
As displayed in Fig. 2A, the relative contribution of belief about
others’ behavior was 91.80% (95% CI [85.09%, 96.62%]) compared to
8.20% (95% CI [3.38%, 14.91%]) for first-order climate change beliefs
(total R2 of all predictors = 36.04%). This difference was statistically
significant (Δbeliefs = 83.60%, 95% CI [70.57%, 93.95%]). Fig. 2B
shows that when including second-order climate change beliefs, the
relative contribution of belief about others’ behavior was 86.74% (95%
CI [72.27%, 95.95%]) compared to 10.03% (95% CI [3.25%, 21.76%])
for first-order and 3.23% (95% CI [0.64%, 9.57%]) for second-order
climate change beliefs (total R2 of all predictors = 31.5%). The differ­
ence in contributions between first-order climate change beliefs and
belief about others’ behavior (Δbeliefs = 76.71%, 95% CI [49.55%,
92.57%]), as well as the difference between second-order climate
change beliefs and beliefs about others’ behavior (Δbeliefs = 83.52%,
95% CI [64.47%, 94.57%]) were statistically significant. However, there
was no statistically significant difference between first- and second-
order climate (Δbeliefs = 6.80%, 95% CI [− 2.25%, 18.59%]). Thus,
participants’ beliefs about the behavior of other group members
explained more variance in pro-environmental behavior than their first-
and second-order climate change beliefs.
8. General discussion
In the present research, we investigated the role and relative
importance of first-order climate change beliefs, second-order climate
change beliefs, and beliefs about others’ behavior on pro-environmental
behavior in a common-resource dilemma game. In terms of zero-order
correlations, all three forms of beliefs correlated with pro-
environmental (i.e., individual consumption) behavior. Regarding the
relative importance of the three forms of beliefs, beliefs about others
behavior were the variable that most strongly correlated with behavior
and hence explained most of the variance. Second-order climate change
beliefs, on the other hand, did not predict pro-environmental decisions
above and beyond first-order climate change beliefs as well as beliefs
about others’ behavior.
8.1. Contribution to environmental psychology
Taken together, the results contribute to a better understanding of
the factors that relate to pro-environmental behavior. First, the fact that
beliefs about others’ behavior correlate quite strongly with pro-
A.M. Wyss et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160

Table 1
Zero order correlations between main variables (collapsed data).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 41 5 6 7 8 ω2
1. Extraction behavior 2.44 1.40

2. Beliefs about others’ behavior 2.93 1.20 .59***

[.54, .63]

3. 1st order climate change 4.21 0.60 − .21*** − .14*** 0.77/

belief 0.76
[-.27, [-.21,
− .14] − .08]

4. 2nd Order Climate change 3.90 0.49 − .16** − .14** .49*** 0.68
belief1
[-.25, [-.24, [.41, .56]
− .06] − .04]

5. Biospheric values 5.41 1.26 − .30*** − .18*** .31*** .18*** 0.92/

0.92
[-.36, [-.25, [.25, .37] [.08, .27]
− .24] − .12]

6. Policy acceptance 5.17 0.90 − .19*** − .15*** .60*** .27*** .43*** 0.86/
0.83
[-.25, [-.21, [.56, .64] [.18, .36] [.37, .48]
− .12] − .09]

7. Education 1.75 0.93 − .05 − .02 .01 − .02 .07* .08*

[-.12, .01] [-.09, .04] [-.05, .08] [-.12, [.01, .14] [.02, .15]
.08]

8. Income 2.54 2.34 .00 .02 − .04 .10 − .08* − .02 .18***
[-.06, .07] [-.05, .08] [-.10, .03] [.00, .20] [-.14, [-.09, .04] [.11, .24]
− .01]

9. Political views 2.30 1.87 .09* .03 − .25*** − .08 − .10** − .23*** − .03 .04
[.02, .15] [-.03, .10] [-.32, [-.18, [-.17, [-.29, [-.09, [-.03,
− .19] .02] − .04] − .17] .04] .10]

Note. Correlation coefficients represent Pearson’s r. Education and political views are treated as numerical variables, with higher values representing higher levels of
education or more conservative views, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval. All correlations based on n = 897 except from
correlations with second order climate change beliefs, where n1 = 397. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 2First value refers to Study 1, and
second number to Study 2.

Table 2
Multiple regression models predicting mean extraction behavior.
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B CI p B CI p B CI p

(Intercept) 2.13 1.50–2.75 <0.001 1.94 0.91–2.96 <0.001 2.01 0.93–3.10 <0.001
1st order climate change beliefs − 0.31 − 0.43–− 0.18 <0.001 − 0.25 − 0.45–− 0.04 0.017 − 0.24 − 0.45–− 0.03 0.025
2nd order climate change beliefs − 0.08 − 0.32–0.17 0.548 − 0.09 − 0.34–0.15 0.464
Belief about others’ behavior 0.66 0.60–0.72 <0.001 0.58 0.48–0.67 <0.001 0.57 0.48–0.67 <0.001
Study − 0.24 − 0.39–− 0.09 0.002
Income − 0.03 − 0.07–0.02 0.240
Political views 0.02 − 0.04–0.08 0.487

Observations 897 397 396

R2/R2 adjusted 0.367/0.365 0.315/0.310 0.323/0.315

Note. The dependent variable is participants’ extraction behavior in the threshold public goods game during the first five rounds of play, with higher values reflecting
less pro-environmental behavior. Model 1 is based on collapsed data whereas Model 2 and Model 3 are based on data from Study 2 only, as second order climate change
beliefs were not assessed in Study 1.

environmental behavior may inform research about the relevant ante­
cedents of pro-environmental behavior. Research has found that indi­
vidual values, climate change beliefs, or other individual factors
sometimes stand only in a modest relationship with actual pro-
environmental behavior (see, e.g., the broad literature on the environ­
mental attitude-behavior gap, Farjam et al., 2019; Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002; Nielsen et al., 2022; Wyss et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). The
strong correlation between belief about others’ behavior and
pro-environmental choices may contribute to the fact that individual
motivation and behavior are often misaligned. If people systematically
underestimate other people’s support for climate mitigation, as is re­
ported in various research (Sparkman et al., 2022), this could explain an

4
A.M. Wyss et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160

Fig. 2. Relative Importance (Percentage in R2) for Extraction Behavior

Note. A) Based on collapsed data (n = 896), Total R2 = 36.04%. B) Based on data from Study 2 (n = 396), Total R2 = 31.5%. LMG Method was applied, vertical lines
indicate 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. Metrices are normalized to sum 100%.

own reluctance to engage in costly pro-environmental behavior despite
one’s own climate change beliefs or environmental values – in addition
to variables such as working memory (Langenbach et al., 2020),
self-control (Wyss et al., 2022), or behavioral costs (Berger & Wyss,
2021c; Kaiser & Lange, 2021). Second, and quite surprisingly,
second-order climate change beliefs did not predict pro-environmental
choices above and beyond first-order climate change beliefs and be­
liefs about others’ behavior, inconsistent with recent theorizing (e.g.,
Eyring et al., 2021; Goldberg et al., 2020) and empirical findings (e.g.,
Jachimowicz et al., 2018; Schuldt et al., 2019; van der Linden et al.,
2019). However, research suggests that second-order climate change
beliefs may have a stronger effect on peoples’ willingness to engage in
pro-environmental action if the belief is held by closer and more influ­
ential others (Goldberg et al., 2020; Schuldt et al., 2019). Thus, it is
possible that second-order climate change beliefs are in fact not as
relevant as previously thought, but also that our contradictory finding
may be explained by the fact that we assessed second-order climate
change beliefs of an unknown reference group (i.e., anonymous partic­
ipants on Prolific). Third, the fact that belief in climate change is only
moderately linked to private pro-environmental behavior in prior
research (Hornsey et al., 2016) may underestimate the true behavioral
consequences of climate skepticism. If climate skepticism also operates
via belief about others’ behavior, this would necessarily imply lower
correlation between one’s own beliefs and behavior (Eyring et al.,
2021).
Another contribution of the present work is methodological in na­
ture. Research on second-order climate change beliefs has thus far been
largely conducted through a collection of verbal behaviors in surveys (i.
e., self-reported intentions or past behaviors) or in field settings without
strict control about behavior and contexts under which the behavior
occurs (Jachimowicz et al., 2018). Contributing direct behavioral evi­
dence through stylized behavioral paradigms supplements the existing
work in a meaningful way (Lange et al., 2023). For example, in a
discipline that routinely relies on self-reports (Lange & Dewitte, 2019),
adding behavioral data about antecedents of pro-environmental
behavior may help to provide a more multifaceted evidence base that
can increase our confidence in the robustness of correlational patterns.
Furthermore, adopting methods that are used by related disciplines (e.
g., economics, political science) may foster interdisciplinary exchange
(Berger & Wyss, 2021a; Lange et al., 2023).
8.2. Limitations
Turning to some limitations, two distinctive elements emerge. First,
studying critical contingencies of pro-environmental behavior through
highly abstract behavioral games necessarily comes at the cost of losing
some of the realism that is typically present in naturally occurring be­
haviors (Tavoni et al., 2011). This artificiality may lower the external
validity if the chosen paradigm misses some of the crucial functional
drivers of real-world behavior (Lange et al., 2023). A second relevant
limitation is the correlational nature of present study. Here, we
measured three forms of beliefs and pro-environmental behavior, and as
a result provide merely correlational patterns between the four assessed
variables. Although theoretical models (e.g., Battigalli & Dufwenberg,
2009) and related empirical results on belief-dependent behavior (All­
cott, 2011; Andre et al., 2022; Berger et al., 2019; Fischbacher et al.,

5
A.M. Wyss et al.
2001) support a causal path from climate change beliefs or beliefs about
others behavior to one’s own behavior, other results raise some caution
(see Bellmare & Sebald, 2022, and the references therein). For example,
cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) or the effects surrounding
the false consensus effect (Ross et al., 1977) provide conceptual
frameworks that allow beliefs to follow from behavior, rather than the
other way around.
9. Conclusion
As the urgent transformation of service provisioning systems requires
a profound understanding of the complex interaction of individual, so­
cial, and structural factors surrounding choice (Creutzig et al., 2022), an
improved understanding of the factors that promote or inhibit individ­
ual willingness to engage in pro-environmental behavior remains a
crucial research topic in environmental psychology. In the present
research, we show that beliefs about others’ behavior are strongly
correlated with pro-environmental choices, whereas first- and second-
order climate change beliefs are not. This may critically augment prior
work and inspire new work to disentangle how beliefs about behavior
and beliefs about beliefs are interrelated and how they functionally
affect pro-environmental behavior.
Declaration of competing interest
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Daria Knoch
gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Typhaine
Foundation.
Author statement
Annika M. Wyss: Conceptualization, Methodology, Analysis,
Writing, Reviewing and Editing. Sebastian Berger: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing, Reviewing and Editing. Daria Knoch: Supervi­
sion, Conceptualization, Methodology, Reviewing and Editing, Funding
acquisition.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102160.
References
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95
(9–10), 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
Allcott, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Behavior and energy policy. Science, 327(5970),
1204–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1180775
Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F., & Falk, A. (2022). Misperceived social norms and
willingness to act against climate change. Econtribute Discussion Paper.
Battigalli, P., & Dufwenberg, M. (2009). Dynamic psychological games. Journal of
Economic Theory, 144(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2008.01.004
Berger, S., Christandl, F., Bitterlin, D., & Wyss, A. M. (2019). The social insectivore: Peer
and expert influence affect consumer evaluations of insects as food. Appetite, 141,
Article 104338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104338
Berger, S., & Wyss, A. M. (2021a). Measuring pro-environmental behavior using the
carbon emission task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, Article 101613.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101613
Berger, S., & Wyss, A. M. (2021b). Climate change denial is associated with diminished
sensitivity in internalizing environmental externalities. Environmental Research
Letters, 16(7), Article 074018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac08c0
Berger, S., & Wyss, A. M. (2021c). Climate change denial is associated with diminished
sensitivity in internalizing environmental externalities. Environmental Research
Letters, 16(7), Article 074018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac08c0
Bergquist, M., Thiel, M., Goldberg, M. H., & van der Linden, S. (2023). Field
interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-
analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), Article
e2214851120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214851120
Brekke, K. A., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). The behavioural economics of climate
change. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grn012
6
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160
Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oTree—an open-source platform for
laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Finance, 9, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.12.001
Chen, S., Wan, F., & Yang, S. (2022). Normative misperceptions regarding pro-
environmental behavior: Mediating roles of outcome efficacy and problem
awareness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, Article 101917. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101917
Eyring, V., Mishra, V., Griffith, G. P., Chen, L., Keenan, T., Turetsky, M. R., Brown, S.,
Jotzo, F., Moore, F. C., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Reflections and projections on a
decade of climate science. Nature Climate Change, 11(4), 279–285. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41558-021-01020-x
Farjam, M., Nikolaychuk, O., & Bravo, G. (2019). Experimental evidence of an
environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations. Ecological Economics,
166, Article 106434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106434
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative?
Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9
Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to
climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002
Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Leveraging social science to
generate lasting engagement with climate change solutions. One Earth, 3(3),
314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.011
Grömping, U. (2006). Relative importance for linear regression in R: The package
relaimpo. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v017.
i01
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the
determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6),
622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
IPCC. (2022). Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: IPCC special Report on Impacts of global Warming of
1.5◦ C above pre-industrial Levels in Context of strengthening Response to climate change,
sustainable development, and Efforts to eradicate poverty (1. Aufl.). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
Jachimowicz, J. M., Hauser, O. P., O’Brien, J. D., Sherman, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018).
The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation.
Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-
0434-0
Kaiser, F. G., & Lange, F. (2021). Offsetting behavioral costs with personal attitude:
Identifying the psychological essence of an environmental attitude measure. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 75, Article 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2021.101619
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Lakens, D. (2021). Sample size justification [preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/
10.31234/osf.io/9d3yf
Lange, F. (2023). Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: A
systematic review. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-
01825-4
Lange, F., Berger, S., Byrka, K., Brügger, A., Henn, L., Sparks, A. C., Nielsen, K. S., &
Urban, J. (2023). Beyond self-reports: A call for more behavior in environmental
psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, Article 101965. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101965
Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and
recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
Langenbach, B. P., Berger, S., Baumgartner, T., & Knoch, D. (2020). Cognitive resources
moderate the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and green behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 52(9), 979–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916519843127
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S. A., Kotcher, J. E., Carman, J., Verner, M.,
Lee, S., Ballew, M. T., Uppalapati, S., Campbell, E., Myers, T., Goldberg, M. H., &
Marlon, J. (2023). Climate change in the American mind: Beliefs & attitudes, December
2022. Yale University and George Mason University.
Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Morwinski, S. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might
not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 334–337. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate1743
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation
and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One, 8(10), Article e75637.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
Lindeman, R. H., Merenda, P. F., & Gold, R. Z. (1980). Introduction to bivariate and
multivariate analysis. Foresman: Scott.
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019). The gateway belief model: A
large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49–58. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
Maibach, E., Woods Placky, B., Witte, J., Seitter, K., Gardiner, N., Myers, T., Sublette, S.,
& Cullen, H. (2016). Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.505
Mildenberger, M., & Tingley, D. (2019). Beliefs about climate change beliefs: The
importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political
Science, 49(4), 1279–1307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000321
Nielsen, K. S., Brick, C., Hofmann, W., Joanes, T., Lange, F., & Gwozdz, W. (2022). The
motivation–impact gap in pro-environmental clothing consumption. Nature
Sustainability, 5(8), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00888-7
Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in
competitive framing environments? Open-/Closed-Mindedness, framing effects, and
A.M. Wyss et al.
climate change: Framing and open-mindedness. Journal of Communication, 63(4),
766–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040
O’Gorman, H., & J. (1986). The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: An ironic lesson.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 333–347.
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbef.2017.12.004
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical com-puting.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias
in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
Sargent, R. H., & Newman, L. S. (2021). Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: A
scoping review of topic and method variation and directions for future research.
Review of General Psychology, 25(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1089268021995168
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?
Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2013.05.009
Schuldt, J. P., Yuan, Y. C., Song, Y., & Liu, K. (2019). Beliefs about whose beliefs?
Second-Order beliefs and support for China’s coal-to-gas policy. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 66, Article 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2019.101367
Sparkman, G., Geiger, N., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Americans experience a false social
reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature
Communications, 13(1), 4779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102160
Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1),
391–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905
Steg, L., & de Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005
Tavoni, A., Dannenberg, A., Kallis, G., & Loschel, A. (2011). Inequality, communication,
and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(29), 11825–11829. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1102493108
van Valkengoed, A. M., Steg, L., & Perlaviciute, G. (2021). Development and validation
of a climate change perceptions scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, Article
101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101652
Wyss, A. M., Berger, S., Baumgartner, T., & Knoch, D. (2021). Reactions to warnings in
the climate commons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, Article 101689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101689
Wyss, A. M., Knoch, D., & Berger, S. (2022). When and how pro-environmental attitudes
turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 79, Article 101748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2021.101748
Zhang, Y., Bai, X., Mills, F. P., & Pezzey, J. C. V. (2021). Examining the attitude-behavior
gap in residential energy use: Empirical evidence from a large-scale survey in
Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, Article 126510. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126510