Click one of the links below or scroll down the page to see:
- Communicating re. Climate Change: Focus on Values
- Personal Norms
- Is Nature-Connectedness A Trait?
- Howard Gardner’s ” Naturalist Intelligence”
- Gender Differences In Environmental Attitudes & Behaviors
- The ” Animal Lover” Personality?
- The Materialistic Values Orientation
- Materialism and Well-Being
- Optimism for Me, Pessimism for We
- Right-Wing Authoritarianism And Green Justice
- Individual Differences And Environmental Attitudes & Behaviors
- Materialistic Media
- Considering Values
- Make a Commercial to Promote Sustainable Behavior (Group Assignment)
- Motive For Sensory Pleasure
- Faith-Based Responses to Climate Change
- Moral Motives
- Website and Talk: Questions for a Resilient Future
- Talk: Climate Change: Faith & Fact
- Website and TedxTalk: The Practice of Hope
- Film: Tim Kasser, The High Price of Materialism
- Film: Shop ‘Til You Drop
- Film: Affluenza
Suggested Readings for Students
References Cited in This Section
In 2013, the Earth Day Network created a photo montage, called The Face of Climate Change, depicting who and what will be affected by a warming world. Instructors could display some of the photos on the site, or, alternatively, ask students to collect photos/images (e.g., from magazines) to illustrate each of the following three types of values: altruistic values focus on the relevance of climate change for other humans, including children and future generations; egoistic values relate to direct, personal impacts; whereas biospheric values view other species and ecosystems as valuable in their own right, and imbue a moral responsibility to act on their behalf. This discussion could also lead into the topic of Deep Ecology, a philosophical perspective emphasizing the inherent value of other beings and nature as a whole. Students could discuss which type of values resonate the most for them, and why.
Introjected personal norms cause guilt if they’re broken, whereas integrated personal norms are so well internalized into one’s behavior (i.e., habitual) that avoiding guilt isn’t even an issue (see chart). Various pro-environmental behaviors such as buying organic groceries or energy saving light bulbs, composting kitchen waste, and using public transportation for work and shopping are all under the control of different types of personal norms. Buying organic food appears to be more internalized, while use of public transportation, less so (Thogersen, 2006).
“Biophilia” is a term used to describe humans’ affinity for nonhuman nature, a love of nature, an attraction to nature, and a feeling of connection to nature (Kellert, 1997; Wilson, 1984). Wilson theorizes that biophilia stems directly from our ancestral past, a past in which humans evolved as part of the natural landscape, not separated from it; therefore, it should be universal. In our experience, however, when students are introduced to the concept, they tend to immediately posit individual differences in the biophilic orientation. Some students reject the idea that nature-connectedness is universal, while others will allow for universality only if there is the possibility of variability in degree across individuals. Mayer and Frantz (2004) describe five studies assessing the validity and reliability of their Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), an individual-difference measure of “experiential oneness with the natural world” (p. 504). The 14-item scale includes items such as ” I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong,” “Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded within the broader natural world,” and “My personal welfare is independent of the welfare of the natural world.” For a broader discussion of individual differences in “environmental identity” and theoretical perspectives on factors affecting environmental identity, see Clayton and Opotow (2003a). Chapter 3 of this edited volume presents Clayton’s 24-item Environmental Identity Scale (EIS) which includes some items tapping into nature-connectedness and the personal value associated with it (e.g., “I think of myself as part of nature, not separate from it” and “Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am”) as well as items about environmental attitudes (e.g., “My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists”) and environmental behaviors (e.g., “I spend a lot of time in natural settings” and “If I had enough time or money, I would certainly devote some of it to working for environmental causes”).
In his book Frames of Mind, Howard Gardner (1983) proposed that psychologists’ conceptualization of “intelligence” was too narrowly defined. He suggested that individuals differ not only in general IQ, but in seven intelligence dimensions: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Gardner used eight criteria to determine whether an ability qualifies as an “intelligence,” including that the ability has associated with it a core set of operations, a distinctive developmental history, a plausible evolutionary history, and support from psychological research. Since he presented his original list of seven, Gardner and others have discussed whether there may be other intelligences that should be included in the list. In 1999, Gardner suggested that there was sufficient research evidence to merit inclusion of an an eighth intelligence, which he called “naturalist intelligence.” In an interview with Durie (1997), Gardner explained,
The core of the naturalist intelligence is the human ability to recognize plants, animals, and other parts of the natural environment, like clouds or rocks. All of us can do this; some kids (experts on dinosaurs) and many adults (hunters, botanists, anatomists) excel at this pursuit. While the ability doubtless evolved to deal with natural kinds of elements, I believe that it has been hijacked to deal with the world of man-made objects. We are good at distinguishing among cars, sneakers, and jewelry, for example, because our ancestors needed to be able to recognize carnivorous animals, poisonous snakes, and flavorful mushrooms.
Research on gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors suggests that women tend to have stronger proenvironmental attitudes and, especially, display more proenvironmental behavior (Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Several individual studies have reported higher environmental advocacy among girls and women. One particularly interesting example is the paradox reported by Zinn and Pierce (2002). These researchers surveyed nearly 2500 participants in Colorado regarding their attitudes about mountain lions. They found that women were more fearful than men of mountain lions but more in favor than men of protecting mountain lions. As with any gender difference, the causes of the observed differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors may be due to socialization, due to biology, or due to an interaction between the two. Zelezny et al. (2000) describe several ways gendered socialization may contribute to the difference: females are socialized to have a stronger “ethic of care,” females are socialized to have more of an “other” orientation, and females may have more of an “ecocentric” orientation (as opposed to an anthropocentric one)– as an extension of their other orientation. In contrast to the socialization explanations, Wilson, Daly, Gordon, and Pratt (1996) suggested that men’s lower concern for the environment may stem from an evolved general tendency for males to take risks and discount the future in favor of short-term gains.
Hunter, Hatch, and Johnson (2004) reported on a survey of men and women in 22 nations which revealed that women across cultures engage in more proenvironmental behaviors than men do, especially private behaviors such as household recycling (versus public behaviors such as social protests).
Ecological sustainability is related to attitudes toward animal welfare in several ways. Zoos cultivate appreciation for animals in an effort to encourage support for wildlife conservation. Appeals to empathy for animals are used to educate people about the negative aspects of factory farming, a practice that has a substantial impact on the environment in the forms of pollution and resource consumption. Charismatic megafauna, such as bears and dolphins, are used in many a fundraising appeal from wilderness preservation groups. Some researchers have explored the possibility that there may be personality differences between those who feel an affinity for animals and those who do not. For example, Broida, Tingley, Kimball, and Miele (1993) administered the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory and a measure of attitudes toward animal research to a sample of more than one thousand college students. They found that individuals classed as Intuitive and Feeling types tended to be more opposed to animal experimentation (and more ecologically concerned) than other types. Mathews and Herzog (1997) administered an animal attitudes scale and The Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory to a sample of college students and found that two personality factors– sensitivity and imaginativeness– were significantly positively correlated with attitudes toward animals. Furnham, McManus, and Scott (2004) measured empathy, the Big Five personality traits, and attitudes toward animal experimentation in more than 800 college students. They found that Agreeableness, Openness, and Empathy were all significant negative predictors of attitudes toward animal experimentation. Liking for animals and beliefs that animals have feelings were also positively related to Openness. Extraversion was positively associated with attitudes toward use of animals in research. Bagley and Gonsman (2005) administered a pet attachment scale and the Keirsey Four Types Sorter to a sample of more than 150 participants and found that individuals with Idealist type personalities reported significantly higher attachment to their pets than did Rationalists and Artisans (but not Guardians). Austin, Deary, Edwards-Jones, & Arey (2005) compared how personality and attitudes toward farm animals correlated in farmers and agriculture students. Both farmers and students who scored high in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness tended to score high on animal welfare; in students, there was also a positive correlation with Openness.
Overconsumption is a significant contributing factor in the current environmental crisis. Humans in the developed world consume and possess far more material goods than are required to meet basic needs. The production of these goods has negative implications for social, economic, and environmental sustainability. The cultural context encourages material consumption among all of us, but there are differences in the extent to which individuals are oriented toward material acquisition. Belk (1985) and Richins and Dawson (1992) represent early attempts to operationalize individual differences in materialistic values. While the Richins and Dawson measure focuses on a general materialistic values orientation, the Belk scale (later revised in Ger & Belk, 1996) measures specific traits associated with materialism (possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy). In a study of the impact of social circumstances on materialism, Ahuvia and Wong (2002) found that an economically deprived upbringing was a significant predictor of materialistic personality traits in a sample of U.S. college students. In a cross-cultural study of nearly 1,000 university students from six countries, Schultz, et al. (2005) found that valuing power and achievement was associated with viewing humans as consumers of nature– rather than as part of nature. More recently, Hirsh & Dolderman (2007) measured the Big Five personality traits in college students and found that while Agreeableness was a significant positive predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and sense of connection to nature, it was a significant negative predictor of a materialistic values orientation.
Materialistic values are negatively correlated with pro-environmental behaviors, as well as various measures of subjective well-being. Instructors could illustrate this relationship during class by simulating a classic study by Kasser and Ryan (2001):
Ask students, in what order do you prioritize your goals for:
|Social status||Personal growth|
(Note that instructors may wish to vary the presentation of these items)
Kasser and Ryan divided their study participants into four groups based on their perceived level of attainment of both materialistic and non-materialistic goals; i.e., to what extent have you attained your (materialistic and non-materialistic) goals.
Participants were compared with respect to their subjective well-being, drug use, and self-esteem. Well-being scores were almost equivalent for groups 1 (high/high) and 2 (high non-mat/low mat), so material gains didn’t add anything to benefits of non-material achievements (or vice versa). Well-being scores were quite low for high materialistic/low non-materialistic (group 3), and the lowest for the low/low attainers. Kasser and Ryan reported similar results for other measures of psychological health (self-esteem, low levels of drug use).
Bennett (2014) described the paradox between public pessimism about various issues in the U.S., ranging from the economy to the state of our national democracy and values, to environmental concerns including climate change, a negativity which contrasts with an “optimism bias” regarding our personal lives. A cognitive heuristic, comparative optimism, leads individuals to believe they are less vulnerable than other people to all types of risks, including environmental threats, even though objectively there is no reason to think the risks are any different for one individual versus another (Pahl et al., 2005). Bennett notes that an internal locus of control is associated with less disability, longer lives, and greater mental health. She suggests that in times of crisis, we recognize that our individual prospects are intertwined with the collective’s (as opposed to the tragedy of the commons; see materials for social psychology), and can harness our optimistic outlook to increase empowerment to tackle the big challenges.
Instructors could assign Bennett’s article or the research on which it was based, and have students discuss this argument in small groups. How might internal locus of control and feelings of self-efficacy be collectively enhanced?
The current political climate in the United States positions environmental concern on the liberal left and concern with individual land use rights and corporate profits on the conservative right. Although some anti-environmental efforts tend to be more libertarian than authoritarian in tone (e.g., the Wise Use movement; see Helvarg, 2004), some researchers have tested for an association between right-wing authoritarianism and anti-environmental attitudes. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), as conceptualized and operationalized by Robert Altemeyer (1988), consists of three facets: generalized hostility toward outgroups, high respect for authority, and conventionalism. Peterson, Doty, and Winter (1993) found that among undergraduates, RWA was associated with hostility toward environmentalists. Schultz and Stone (1994) conducted two studies, one in the field with citizens ranging from their twenties to their nineties, and one in the lab with college students. In both studies the researchers found a significant and strong (> -.5) negative correlation between RWA and environmental concern (measured in the lab study with Dunlap & VanLiere’s original New Environmental Paradigm scale). Individuals high in RWA tend to have traditional notions about justice, tend to strongly support societal hierarchies, and tend to favor harshly punitive penalties for lawbreakers. A few studies have explored possible connections between these characteristics and environmental issues. For example, Feather (2002) presented adult participants with a scenario of either a senator or citizen, who supported or opposed uranium mining in the vicinity of an Australian national park and defied a police order to defend the position. Individuals low on authoritarianism had less favorable attitudes toward penalties for the citizen offender. (Overall, participants were more lenient toward offenders whose position on the issue matched their own.) Allen, Wilson, Ng, and Dunne (2000) found that meat eaters tended to endorse social hierarchies more than vegetarians or vegans did. A recent study in East Germany found that individuals with a more environmentalist worldview tended to have an egalitarian and broad justice outlook, while right-wing extremists tended to be anti-egalitarian, were motivated by self interest, and displayed a narrower scope of justice (Sabbagh, 2005). Clayton and Opotow (2003b) suggested that social identity is a strong factor in determining an individual’s approach to justice, and they used environmental issues to illustrate the intersection between identity and justice.
The topics above offer several examples of individual difference variables that may be associated with environmental attitudes and behaviors. Have students select one of those, or hypothesize a connection of their own, and conduct an original data collection among their peers. Advanced students may want to go beyond a simple correlational analysis to a regression model including more than one individual difference variable.
Ask students to pay attention to and record the number, variety, and sources of ALL advertising they see for 2 full days. What’s being communicated? How are their behaviors being manipulated? Alternatively, they could unplug from ALL media for 2 full days. In either case, they could be asked to write a reflection paper. (Note that the point is that either assignment is ‘virtually’ impossible (pun intended☺)).
a) Define values: things/principles we feel strongly about and that guide our behavior and goals; personal standards (“should,” “ought”); that which provides a sense of meaning or purpose in life).
b) Have students complete an exercise to identify their primary values. You could have them (i) complete an online survey; (ii) use this survey (adapted from Kasser & Ryan, 1996); (iii) make lists of at least five values in each of the following areas: social, moral, intellectual, family, career; or (iv) ask them how they would spend $1,000,000 if they won the lottery, or received an unexpected inheritance.
c) Ask students to consider the source(s) of the values they identified in (a), e.g., family, religious affiliation, friends, media.
d) Students can then compare their responses to the categories in Schwartz’s (1994) Values Scale (self-transcendence (universalism, benevolence); self-enhancement (power, achievement); openness (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism); tradition (conformity, security)). Note that self-transcendent values predict pro-environmental behavior, whereas self-enhancement is negatively correlated with environmental and other pro-social behaviors.
For this assignment, student groups will make a commercial/skit about an ecologically relevant behavior on your campus. Choose one of four categories of impacts (energy, water, food, material goods) and identify a specific sustainable behavior related to this category that you would like to increase among your peers. Address the following questions as you develop your commercial/skit:
- How can you increase ecological literacy related to this behavior?
- Review the individual difference, Locus of Control. What kind of message will reach people with internal LOC, and what will reach people with external LOC? Is there a universal message that will resonate with both?
- What can be done to improve individual self-efficacy regarding this behavior? What kind of training and practice do people need?
- Address people who haven’t yet developed an attitude about this behavior. How can you make sure it is relevant to them?
- Identify 2-3 external factors (e.g., norms) that might cause the attitude-behavior gap. Address those in your commercial.
- Pick one biospheric value that could be evoked as relevant for guiding one’s personal norms regarding this behavior.
Bell et al. (2012) described a class exercise based on the personality trait termed the “Motive for Sensory Pleasure,” (MSP) where students first take the MSP scale (below; reverse-score items marked with (R)), and then evaluate images of scenes (e.g., slides shown on powerpoint from the National Park Service). Student ratings of each image are made on a 9-point scale (e.g., using i-clicker, or on paper), including: unpleasant-pleasant, uncomfortable-comfortable, unattractive-attractive, unnatural-natural, ugly-beautiful, and dislike a lot-like a lot. Comparing high vs. low MSP scorers on their ratings of pictures can illustrate how a personality characteristic impacts one’s relative appreciation of (and thus, perhaps, actions to protect/preserve) natural spaces.
- Beautiful scenery has always been a significant part of my life.
- People always exaggerate the beauty and joys of nature. (R)
- The smells of outdoors give me no pleasure. (R)
- Flowers aren’t as beautiful as most people claim. (R)
- A brisk walk has sometimes made me feel good.
- Experiencing nature is central to my life.
- I have found the sound of rustling leaves to be pleasant.
- I enjoy long walks.
- The beauty of sunsets is greatly overrated. (R)
- When I pass by flowers, I have often stopped to smell them.
- I think flying a kite is silly. (R)
- I don’t understand why people enjoy looking at the stars at night. (R)
- Pleasant smells have a strong, positive effect on me.
- On seeing a soft, thick carpet, I have sometimes wanted to take off my shoes and walk barefoot on it.
- I enjoy walking barefoot outdoors.
Have students locate and read a moral/religious/faith-based statement about the call to respond to climate change, and write a reaction paper, indicating a) What faith/religious tradition is represented? b) Is the author a minority or majority voice within their denomination? c) Does the student identify with a spiritual/religious tradition? d) If so, is his/her congregation’s/pastor’s view convergent with or divergent from the perspective they read?
Potential readings include:
In her talk, (Questions for a Resilient Future), moral philosopher Kathleen Dean Moore described the following class exercise:
On cards, write out the 14 reasons (listed in this table) given by a number of moral leaders as to why we should address the risks posed by climate change, and our obligation to the future. Place the cards around a large table. Have students bring in three objects from the natural world with which to ‘vote’ for the three that mean the most to them. Alternatively, you could ask students to write out their own sense of moral responsibility. Acknowledge the “altar” of natural objects that your class has created, that affirms your collective love for the Earth, and the imperative to take action on climate change.
Follow the activity with a discussion of what it means to “love.” Is it a way of feeling? A sense of comfort? Or a way of acting in the world? Is “love” a noun or a verb? Dean Moore states that “loving is a sacred trust – to love is to affirm the absolute worth of what you love, and to pledge your life for its thriving – to protect it fiercely and faithfully, for all time.”
Well-known personality characteristics include optimism and pessimism. A third option is Possibilism, for instance, as described by Lappé’ (2011; see this summary of her book by Couto (2012) including “thought traps” and alternative “ecomindfulness” perspectives); i.e., imagining a different, more sustainable world. Ask students to pair up and discuss their personal leanings. How might possibilism be taught or encouraged?
Questions for a resilient future: What does Earth ask of us? Kathleen Dean Moore is a moral philosopher and essayist. In this talk, she describes why it is not only unwise but also morally wrong to “wreck the world” (e.g., via climate change). See also her website.
Climate change: Faith & fact. Climate scientist and evangelical Christian, Katharine Hayhoe, speaks to Bill Moyers about ending the gridlock between science and religion in order to find solutions to the widespread threats associated with global warming. Information isn’t the answer; the answer is about who we are as humans.
This short animated film argues that the “goods life” is not a good life. Materialism is associated with depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and fewer environmentally responsible behaviors.
This film examines the negative aspects of our society’s pursuit of happiness through consumerism, exposing the erosion of natural resources and basic human values that stem from our buying habits. Experts from a variety of fields weigh in on this subject and provide insight into its far reaching consequences and causes.
This film is a vivid accompaniment to a discussion of materialistic values and consumption behaviors. The film describes “affluenza” as a society-wide affliction, but students can think critically about factors associated with individual differences in the consumptive tendency.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Couto, R. A. (2012). Overcoming the environmental stalemate. Solutions, 3(2), 66-68. Retrieved Oct. 11, 2018 from https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/overcoming-the-environmental-stalemate/.[This is a summary of Frances Moore Lappe’s (2011) book, EcoMind: Changing the way we think, to create the world we want.]
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.
Ahuvia, A., & Wong, N. Y. (2002). Personality and values based materialism: Their relationship and origins. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 389-402.
Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 405-422.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 107-120.
Bagley, D. K., & Gonsman, V. L. (2005). Pet attachment and personality type. Anthrozoos, 18, 28-42.
Bennnett, L. (2014, April 22). Optimism for Me, Pessimism for We. Greater Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. Retrieved 10/8/15 from http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/optimism_for_me_pessimism_for_we .
Bell, P. A., et al. (2012). Classroom exercises and demonstrations on human and natural environment impact. Ecopsychology, 4, 148-157. DOI: 10.1089/ECO.2012.0013. Note that there are a number of relevant exercises in this article.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265-280.
Broida, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R., & Miele, J. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society and Animals, 1, 129-144.
Campbell, B. (1997). The naturalist intelligence. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved March 15, 2006 at http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/mi/campbell.htm.
Clayton, S. (1998). Preference for macrojustice versus microjustice in environmental decisions. Environment and Behavior, 30, 162-183.
Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (Eds.) (1994). Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50.
Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003a, Eds.). Identity and the natural environmentCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003b). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 298-310.
Couto, R. A. (2012). Overcoming the environmental stalemate. Solutions, 3(2), 66-68. Retrieved Oct. 11, 2018 from https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/overcoming-the-environmental-stalemate/.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ” new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
Durie, R. (1997). An interview with Howard Gardner. New Horizons for Learning. Zephyr Press. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2005 from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/durie_gardner.htm.
Eisenberger, R., et al. (2010). The motive for sensory pleasure: Enjoyment of nature and its representation in painting, music, and literature. Journal of Personality, 78, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00628.x Retrieved 10/13/15
Feather, N. T. (2002). Reactions to supporters and opponents of uranium mining in relation to status, attitude similarity, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1464-1487.
Furnham, A., McManus, C., & Scott, D. (2004). Personality, empathy, and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoos, 16, 135-146.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books.
Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 55-77.
Helvarg, D. (2004). The war against the greens: The wise use movement, the new right, and the browning of American (Rev. ed.). Boulder, CO: Johnson Books
Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, A. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583-1593.
Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677-694
Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining pro-environmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14, 367-385.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 281-288. Their complete Aspiration Index is available at http://faculty.knox.edu/tkasser/aspirations.html
Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life Goals and Well-Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving (pp. 116-131). Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. See also Kasser, T. (2002). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Koger, S. M. & Winter, D. D. (2010). The Psychology of Environmental Problems, 3e. New York: Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press, pp. 97 & 103.
Lappé, F. M. (2011). EcoMind: Changing the way we think, to create the world we want. New York: Perseus Books.
Macy, J. & Johnstone, C. (2012). Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in Without Going Crazy. Novato, CA: New World Library, p. 32.
Mathews, S., & Herzog, H.A. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals, 5, 169-175.
Mayer, F. S. & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.
Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2000). Political implications of psychological research on ecological justice and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 168-176.
Pahl, S., Harris, P. R., Todd, H. A., & Rutter, D. R. (2005). Comparative optimism for environmental risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 1-11.
Peterson, B. E., Doty, R. M. & Winter, D. G. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward contemporary social issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 174-184.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.
Sabbagh, C. (2005). Environmentalism, right-wing extremism, and social justice beliefs among German adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 118-131.
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457-475.
Schultz, P. W. & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward the environment. Environment and Behavior, 26, 25-37.
Thogersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247-261.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New dimensions of values. Individualism and Collectivism: Theory Application and Methods. U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, M., Daly, M., Gordon, S., & Pratt, A. (1996). Sex differences in valuations of the environment. Population and Environment, 18, 143-157.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.
Zinn, H. C., & Pierce, C. L. (2002). Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior, 34(2) , 239-256.
E.g., at https://netfiles.umn.edu/umm/www/career/planning/ValuesQuestionnaire.pdf