sustainability
Article
Identification of Six Emergent Types Based on
Cognitive and Affective Constructs that Explain
Individuals’ Relationship with the Biosphere
Andrea Marais-Potgieter * and Andrew Thatcher
Department of Psychology, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa;
Andrew.Thatcher@wits.ac.za
* Correspondence: andrea@plunge.co.za
Received: 11 June 2020; Accepted: 24 August 2020; Published: 16 September 2020
Abstract: To address the pathological human–nature nexus, psychological processes that impact
this relationship need to be further understood. Individual differences related to personality,
values, worldviews, affect, and beliefs are likely to influence how people relate to the natural world.
However, there is a lack of empirically-based ecopsychological research exploring multiple individual
attributes. Understanding individual differences enables the strategic design of planetary-focused
interventions, such as advocacy, policy, and technology development. Using a theoretical model that
incorporates intrinsic, affective, cognitive, and behavioral constructs, this study sought to identify
and describe different types of people and their relationship with the biosphere. Seven hundred
and fifty-three people completed an online quantitative questionnaire battery. Results from the
cluster analyses of the cognitive and affective constructs showed that six heterogeneous types existed.
Their different descriptive expressions of intrinsic, affective, cognitive, and behavioral constructs
provide a deeper understanding of each type’s relationship with the biosphere.
Keywords: typologies; environmental concerns; values; interventions; ecopsychology
1. Introduction
The world is entering its 6th mass extinction, and this one is anthropogenic [1]. Ecopsychology [2]
isolates this as evidence that the relationship that people have with the biosphere is pathogenic.
Individual attitudes and actions, such as having one fewer child, living car-free, avoiding airplane
travel, and eating a plant-based diet, are highly effective strategies to reduce an individual’s impact
on the biosphere [3]. However, research focusing on understanding the relationship that individuals
have with the biosphere needs further exploration to understand why everyone is not adopting these
high-impact actions, and how nuanced strategies might target them.
2. The Relationship between Individuals and the Biosphere
Exploration of the underlying components (such as affect) of the human–nature nexus is needed [4],
since it influences environmental beliefs, values, and attitudes [5]. This study defines a “relationship
with the biosphere” as a complex interaction between the psychological constructs of individual factors,
affect, cognition, and the behavioral experience of nature that is more inclusive compared to a linear
understanding of climate change, environmental attitudes, and behavior.
Nature affinity/commitment, biophilia, ecological self/identity, or environmental sensitivity
describe close relationships with nature [6] and are often a consequence of early childhood nature
experiences [7]. Understanding how people define their relationship with the biosphere explains their
affect [8]. There is an inherent complexity in the human–nature nexus, as some people see themselves
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614; doi:10.3390/su12187614
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
2 of 28
as part of nature, yet consider the definition of nature to be undisturbed and free from humans [8].
There is a need for a broader understanding of the deeper psychological processes that impact the
complex relationships that people have with the biosphere.
Typologies as Ways to Understand Complex Relationships
Typologies are organized systems of types that explore relationships and allow for theory
building [9]. The role of typologies is to reduce complexity in the empirical realm by constructing a
minimum number of types with a maximum amount of homogeneity [9]. Furthermore, the role of
typologies is to acknowledge the multidimensionality of human nature by considering interactions
between multiple human attributes [10]. Typologies stretch beyond traditional linear models of
causality; they allow for the exploration of multiple relationships between variables; they can account
for levels of causal complexity, and can function as a shorthand device for cognitive simplification of a
complex relationship [9]. Typologies identify, organize, and describe patterns of emergence without
sacrificing the wholeness of individuals (i.e., “pigeon-holing”) that make up the typology [11].
There is no standardization of what components must be assessed to develop a typology, but some
guidelines exist: each variable should have equal opportunity to be a clustering or a profiling
variable [12], rigor needs to be used in concept formation, and there needs to be a hierarchical structure
of concepts with an overarching concept that contains explicit dimensions [13]. Typologies should
include salient elements related to the phenomenon under investigation, each feature needs to be shared
by many participants, and each participant needs to possess many features [14]. Typologies need to
be interpretable [14], explain complex social realities [15], and be homogeneous [12], with maximum
deviation between types [14].
Previous typologies identified, explored, and understood the human–nature nexus from a range of
perspectives. The typological landscape typically ranges from global warming [16], climate change [17],
sustainability [18,19], positionality [20,21], biodiversity [22], behavior [23,24], animals [25,26],
eco-tourism [27], policy [28], green marketing [29], risk and culture [30], and environmental moral
reasoning and values [31]. Although these typologies provide insight into the human–nature nexus,
some gaps exist. These typologies mostly used limited variables, often excluding explanatory
psychological processes, such as personality, values, and affect. Most typologies also tended
to be constructed in the USA, with some work extending into Asia and Europe, but not Africa.
Finally, the typologies often followed linear conclusions that failed to acknowledge the interconnected
processes that underlie the human–nature nexus.
There exists an opportunity to expand the understanding of the human–nature nexus by using
multiple psychological variables to identify the underlying psychological processes that influence the
relationship. There is a need to move beyond only behavioral aspects, but also to explore those related
to intrinsic, cognitive, and affective components.
The main aim of the study was to identify and describe types through emerging properties of
complex, multi-factorial relationships with the biosphere using multiple psychological constructs
(i.e., intrinsic, cognitive, affective, and behavioral constructs). In this paper we report a more complete
understanding of the human–nature nexus to allow for nuanced interventions, targeted psychological
disaster preparedness, and strategic policy development.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and Procedure
Ethical clearance (number H15/11/15) was granted unconditionally by the university’s Human
Research Ethics Committee (non-medical). A statistician evaluated the questionnaire battery before
it was pilot-tested with eight participants. The self-developed questionnaires were adjusted:
simplification of attributes, explanation of concepts (i.e., fair trade), and repetitive attributes were
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
3 of 28
either clarified or removed. Online survey tools were used to collect the data (Vision Critical and the
Jung Type Indicator online).
Participants were recruited primarily using social media. Therefore, the sample was purposively
shaped to include mainly urban, literate individuals with Internet access, and was likely to consist
primarily of individuals with the highest carbon footprints [32]. When the participants opted in,
they were screened to identify as South African, with English competence, at least 18 years old, and with
desktop computer access. They were then directed to the online questionnaire battery. A lucky draw
in a separate survey option was offered as compensation for their time.
The total sample included 753 participants, consisting of 39.6% men and 60.4% women.
Sample ethnicity was 40.9% White, 38.2% Black, 11.2% Mixed, and 6% Indian; 2.3% refused, and 1.5%
stated “other” compared to South African middle-class statistics of 51% Black, 9% Mixed, 6% Indian,
and 34% White [33]. The majority of the sample was based in Gauteng (51.8%) with 21.5% in the Western
Cape, 14.2% in KwaZulu-Natal, 6.1% in the Eastern Cape, and 6.4% in one of the other provinces in
South Africa. The age spread consisted of 27% 18–25 years, 29.9% 26–35 years, 19.9% 36–45 years,
18.9% 46–55 years, 3.5% 56–65 years, and 0.9% 66+ years.
3.2. Measures
To select and design the measures, a literature review was conducted to identify aspects that provide
insight into the human–nature nexus. Based on this literature review, the variables (i.e., personality
versus behavior, etc.) were grouped into four explanatory constructs. The explanatory constructs
were: intrinsic [34–37], cognitive [38–43], affective [6,44–46], and behavioral [47–50]. These explanatory
constructs and dimensions were chosen for inclusion into the study test battery to explore whether
they are collectively able to provide a fuller picture of the human–nature nexus, especially related
to typology building. Each variable in each construct was chosen based on its ability to provide a
nuanced understanding of the human–nature nexus rather than being guided by an underlying a priori
theory. The purpose of this study was to provide a framework for new theory rather than to test an
existing theory. The variables were therefore purposely drawn from multiple theoretical frameworks.
3.2.1. Intrinsic Construct
The intrinsic construct is defined as individual aspects that are stable and, to some extent,
unconscious traits, such as personality and values [51], and able to explain the human–nature nexus [52].
The variables used in the intrinsic construct were: demographics, personality, and values [53].
Personality assists the understanding of environmental views [54] since it describes how a person
relates to and interprets the world [55]. Jung’s work often focused on the repression of nature, animals,
creative fantasy, and the primitive side of humans, and therefore his personality theory took this
into consideration [36]. The Jung Type Indicator (JTI) measured personality by asking the degree of
agreement on a scale of 1–5 on 60 items to identify psychological types based on attitudes (extraversion
versus introversion—EI), psychological functions (sensing versus intuiting—SN; thinking versus
feeling—TF), and secondary processes (judging versus perceiving—JP) [56]. The JTI had a high
level of internal reliability across samples, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 (EI), 0.78 to 0.86 (SN), 0.75 to
0.84 (TF), and 0.75 to 0.85 (JP) [56]. The JTI was chosen because it uses modern psychometric test
theory (identifying preferences across four dimensions rather than a dichotomous model); it interprets
psychological types as being on a continuum rather than as discrete categories. A limitation of using
the JTI was that due to the proprietary nature of the measure, individual items were not available
for Cronbach alphas to be calculated and therefore reliability and internal consistency could not
be established.
The Schwartz value theory describes values as linked to affect, motivating action, as transcending
situations, serving as standards or criteria, and hierarchical; according to the theory, values of
importance guide action [37]. Individuals are more likely to protect things that they value [37,57].
The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) was chosen for this study because it is the most widely used values
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
4 of 28
survey, measures ten universal values, and is adequate for research across cultures [37]. The SVS uses
57 items to measure ten culturally universal values, namely power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation,
self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security, using a rating of between
−1 (opposed to value) to 7 (value of supreme importance). Across 212 samples, alpha reliabilities of the
ten values averaged 0.68, ranging from 0.61 for tradition to 0.75 for universalism [37]. The Cronbach
alpha was calculated using raw scores as was done in a South African study [58] and showed 0.72 for
conformity, 0.68 for tradition, 0.70 for benevolence, 0.75 for universalism, 0.60 for self-direction, 0.60 for
stimulation, 0.64 for hedonism, 0.73 for achievement, 0.67 for power, and 0.60 for security. A limitation
of using the SVS is the lack of research using this instrument in the South African context; therefore
comparative data are sparse.
3.2.2. Cognitive Construct
In the context of this study, the cognitive construct is defined as the mental process of knowing,
awareness, perception, reasoning, and judging [59–63] rather than affect [64]. The cognitive construct
was captured by the various aspects of environmental awareness [60,65].
Environmental awareness, attitudes, and concern are the extent to which individuals are cognitively
aware and concerned about environmental issues [62,66]. To understand issues that individuals
prioritize versus marginalize [67], a measure of awareness, concern, and attitudes towards the
environment (the Environmental Issues and Attitudes Questionnaire—EIAQ) was developed to include
concerns specific to South Africa (i.e., canned lion hunting; poaching). No single existing questionnaire
could be found that included issues such as natural disasters, water scarcity, human overpopulation,
poaching, use of pesticides, animals used in entertainment, over-fishing, animal cruelty, factory farming,
and vivisection. This questionnaire contained four sections, namely ranking, environmental (awareness,
concerns, and accountability), animal (awareness, concerns, and accountability), and general attitudes.
The first section explored the level of awareness to personal safety, economic, social, religious,
environmental, health, political, animal rights, and international tension issues on a 4-point scale,
where 0 = I do not know, 1 = I am now less aware than before, 2 = My awareness is the same
as before, and 3 = I am more aware than before. The second section then explored the degree of
concern about specific environmental versus animal issues on a 6-point scale, where 0 = No opinion,
1 = Not at all concerned, 2 = Slightly concerned, 3 = Somewhat concerned, 4 = Moderately concerned,
and 5 = Extremely concerned. The third section contained an accountability question asking the
participants the extent to which they felt they had control (locus of control) over the items they were
concerned about on a 4-point scale, where 0 = I do not know, 1 = I have no control over this, 2 = I can
maybe change something small or help in a small way, and 3 = What I do could have a direct impact.
The final section in the questionnaire explored attitudes towards the environment, domestic animals,
farm animals, wild animals, and general topics on 6-point scale, where 0 = Do not know, 1 = Strongly
disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly agree.
Varimax (orthogonal) rotation factor analysis was conducted on the EIAQ to determine
underlying dimensions in the data and to reduce the dimensionality of the data for further
analysis. The factor analysis reduced the items from 67 to 60, where items with loadings <0.50
were removed. The environmental concern subscale yielded four factors: human-centric (items
included human overpopulation, loss of natural rea, waste generation, urbanization, over consumption,
and biodiversity loss) (α = 0.795), climate-centric (items included climate change, rising sea level,
global warming, natural disaster, and ozone depletion) (α = 0.824), resource-centric (items included
air pollution, water scarcity, and natural resource depletion) (α = 0.752), and science-centric
(items included nuclear energy, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms GMO) (α = 0.668).
The animal concern subscale yielded two factors: animal exploitation (items included animals
used in entertainment, animals’ legal rights, domestic breeding, wild breeding, factory farming,
domestic/farm animal welfare, vivisection, and animals used in consumer products) (α = 0.894) and
animal extinction (items included canned lion hunting, deforestation, overfishing, whale hunting,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
5 of 28
dolphin capture, cruelty, poaching, and trophy hunting) (α = 0.886). The attitudes subscale had
five factors: shifting responsibility (items included environmental/domestic animals/farm animals/wild
animals issues are overstated/exaggerated, environmental/domestic animals/farm animals/wild
animals issues are for future generations to deal with, and wild animals should contribute to the
economy) (α = 0.904), role of the individual (items included each individual can contribute to better
environmental/domestic/farm/wild animal welfare) (α = 0.707), role of government (items included
environmental/domestic/farm/wild animal issues are the government’s responsibility) (α = 0.809),
role of technology (items included environment/domestic/farm/wild animal issues will be solved
through technological progress) (α = 0.826), and apathetic attitudes (items included hard to change,
environment is not a priority, effects of environmental destruction is too far in the future, too much effort
to adopt an environmentally friendly lifestyle) (α = 0.747). A limitation of the EIAQ is that many of the
items are specific to South Africa, such as canned lion hunting, and therefore the instrument might not
be a reliable measure for use in countries where environmental issues of this nature are unknown.
3.2.3. Affective Construct
Understanding affect towards nature allows for a movement away from single superficial issues
(like changing light bulbs) towards a deeper understanding of the underlying emotional processes
that impact ecological behavior [64]. Affect influences beliefs, values, behavior, attitudes, and moral
disengagement [68]. The affective construct sought to understand how the individual feels about
nature [64] and draws on the theoretical guidelines of the field of ecopsychology [45].
The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) [64] measures an individual’s affective connection to
nature using 14 items. Connectedness to nature includes feelings such as a sense of community, kinship,
egalitarianism, and belongingness to nature. The CNS was chosen as it is linked to Leopold’s (1948) [69]
and ecopsychology’s [45] interpretation of affective connectedness to nature. Participants responded on
a 5-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. An overall Cronbach’s α = 0.84 and
test–retest reliability of r = 0.79 were reported [64]. In this study the Cronbach α = 0.83. It unknown
whether the CNS is stable for use across cultures. Although it was a limitation, the Cronbach for this
study was sufficient.
3.2.4. Behavioral Construct
Behavior is not an adequate form of typology on its own [70], but is impacted by locus of control,
personality, accountability [71], and values [72]. Including a behavioral construct would provide a
broader understanding of each type.
The Behavioral Questionnaire (BQ) was self-developed to evaluate current behaviors, such as
waste, transport, energy, purchase and consumption, water, and general behaviors. No existing
behavioral questionnaire included broad-ranging aspects related to waste, transport, energy, purchase,
consumption, water, and charitable behaviors. Questionnaires and attributes used by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [23] and the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development [49] were used as a framework. The BQ asked participants to what extent they
participated in a range of behaviors on a scale of 1 = never do it, 2 = rarely do it, 3 = sometimes do it,
4 = often do it, and 5 = always do it. Sample items were as follows: the waste section included “recycle
glass bottles/containers”; the transport section included “find ways to reduce fuel consumption”;
the energy section included “switch off lights when not needed”; the purchase and consumption section
included “purchase products that generate the least amount of waste”; the water section included
“bath less, shower more”; and the general section included “I grow my own vegetables and fruits”.
Varimax (orthogonal) rotation factor analysis was conducted on the BQ to determine underlying
dimensions in the data and hence to reduce the dimensionality of the data for further analysis.
The factor analysis reduced the questionnaire items from 58 to 41, where items with loadings <0.50 or
those loading on multiple factors were removed. The BQ had nine factors: recycle (items included
recycle glass, plastic, cans, paper, batteries, medication, and reuse cans) (α = 0.885), energy reduction
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
6 of 28
(items included switch off lights, energy saving lightbulbs, use appliances less, and turn off appliances
off) (α = 0.776), conscious consumption (items included purchase products with least waste, purchase
organic/fair trade/non-endangered fish/free range, carbon count purchases, boycott bad companies,
and purchase local/environmentally friendly) (α = 0.853), environmentally friendly travel (items
included public transport, recycled tires, and walk or cycle) (α = 0.681), charitable behavior (items
included give money to wildlife/animal welfare groups and volunteer time to wildlife/animal welfare
groups) (α = 0.866), environmentally conscious travel (items included reduce air travel, reduce fuel
use, and adapt driving style) (α = 0.723), individual water reduction (items included bath less, shorter
showers, and turn off water when brushing teeth) (α = 0.613), re-use (items included glass, plastic,
and paper re-use) (α = 0.759), and smart gardening (items included capture rain water, use grey water,
and grow own fruit and vegetables) (α = 0.666). The BQ fails to cover all behavioral items imaginable
and therefore might not be a complete measure for use across studies.
The benefits of self-report measures include: they are practical and effective, convenient and
easy to administer, affordable, provide direct insight into unique information, give individual
inspiration to respond, provide control of most response biases, and provide some readily available
psychometrically-tested inventories [73]. Self-report measures are ideal for exploring issues related
to the environment since participants feel less burdened [74]. Some drawbacks include that they are
open to social desirability, agreeable, or extreme responding. There is the assumption that participants
are self-knowledgeable and do not have distorted self-perceptions, issues with non-context-specific
use of language, and cultural limitations in studies with moral overtones [73]. Limitations such as
self-selection, demand characteristics, and response burden were minimized by allowing participants
to remain anonymous, confirming that there were no right or wrong answers, and excluding repetitive
responses in the data. Participants were able to complete the questionnaire in various sittings to reduce
fatigue and were screened for English proficiency.
3.2.5. Demographic Descriptive Variables
Demographics can be a good predictor [47] or a poor predictor [53] of environmental issues.
Demographics were therefore only included for descriptive purposes. The Demographics Questionnaire
(DQ) asked for geographical location, age, gender, population group, religion, English competency,
and educational level.
3.2.6. Confirmatory Descriptive Variables
While worldviews might also be considered as an aspect of the cognitive construct, the measure
selected for this study correlated significantly with the measure for the affect construct and therefore
was treated only as a confirmatory descriptive variable in this study. Worldviews represent an
individual’s inner experience of the outer world [60] and inform how reality is interpreted [61].
The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) was selected based on its extensive use for establishing
environmental worldviews [62], and its use in emerging economies [63]. The NEP does not measure
emotional or physical connections to the natural world [64]. It uses 15 items, including an ecological
paradigm (8 items) and a dominant social paradigm (7 items) [38]. Participants responded on a 5-point
scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree [38]. In this study, the overall scale’s Cronbach
alpha was 0.772, similar to more developed countries [65]. The NEP facets (reality of limits to growth,
anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exemptionalism, and the possibility
of an eco-crisis) would have added more descriptive depth, but due to the low Cronbach alphas on
these facets, the NEP was used as a single measure in this study.
The factor analysis of the EIAQ produced 11 distinct variables. As is described in the analysis
section, this was too many clustering variables to consider for cluster analysis given the sample size.
Based on the correlation between the EIAQ variables, six variables were selected for clustering and
five variables were selected for confirmatory descriptive analysis. These variables were climate-centric,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
7 of 28
animal exploitation, animal extinction, the role of government, and the role of technology from
the EIAQ.
3.3. Analysis
Data analyses were carried out using STATISTICA version 12 [75]. The first step in the analysis
was a cluster analysis to determine the different types in the data. The clustering variables came
from the cognitive and affective constructs. Variables selected for cluster analysis needed to represent
these two constructs with a minimum theoretical sample size for cluster analysis being n = 5 × 2k,
where k is the number of clustering variables. Given the sample size of 753, approximately seven
clustering variables could be afforded. Because of the large number of possible clustering variables
for the cluster analysis (n = 13 variables), the variables were selected based on their correlation with
each other, as determined by Spearman’s rank correlation. For those moderately or highly correlated,
one variable was considered for the cluster analysis and the other for a confirmatory descriptive
analysis. The assignment of the clustering variables was explored in numerous iterations and halted
when the cluster solution showed stability, clarity, and uniqueness. Clustering variables had to be
cumulatively coherent to depict “nuanced” clusters. On this basis, the clustering variables selected
were connectedness to nature (CNS), shifting responsibility, role of individual, apathetic attitudes,
human-centric, resource-centric, and science-centric from the EIAQ. The intrinsic and behavioral
constructs were considered as profiling variables: values (SVS), personality (JTI), and behavior (BQ),.
The remaining variables (i.e., environmental worldviews (NEP), climate-centric, animal exploitation,
animal extinction, role of government, and role of technology from the EIAQ) were considered as
confirmatory descriptive variables either because of their high correlation with the clustering variables
and the demographic variables or because they were not strictly psychological variables.
K-means cluster analysis employed the selected clustering variables using the options for four,
five, or six clusters. Cluster stability was determined by cross-tabulating the results for the same
cluster using different starting points. Observations selected were based on their ability to maximize
initial between-cluster distances, and observations were taken at constant intervals from a list of
sorted distances. Cluster solutions where less than 5% of cases were misclassified were reserved for
consideration. After the clusters were identified using the clustering variables present in the data,
the remaining variables were used to profile the clusters. The variables were all on similarly constructed
scales and standardization was not required.
The second step in the analysis was to use the profiling variables to determine whether there
were any significant differences across the clusters. The association between clusters and the profiling
variables was determined using multiple independent one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Post-hoc tests were conducted using the Tukey–Kramer test, a conservative post-hoc test for unequal
group sizes where the p-value of the pairwise comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons.
The false discovery rate was controlled by the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. For the confirmatory
descriptive variables, analyses were conducted using multiple independent ANOVAs, or the X2 test was
used to assess the relationships between clusters and categorical demographic variables. Fisher’s exact
test was used where the requirements for the X2 test could not be met.
4. Results
4.1. Six Types Identified
Out of the total sample of 753 participants, 721 were used for the cluster analysis (due to missing
data) based on the qualifying clustering variables. Six types emerged: Disconnected (DIS; N = 75),
Uncommitted (UNC; N = 120), Alarmed (ALM; N = 176), Believer (BEL; N = 104), Concerned (CON;
N = 170), and Pleasure-seeker (PSS; N = 76). Types were named based on their distinguishing
characteristics that emerged from the analyses. Euclidean distances were calculated as the squared root
of the average of the square difference between the attributes of the observations. The Uncommitted
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
8 of 28
and the Believer types had the shortest distance between each other (0.413), and the Uncommitted
and the Concerned (0.456) and the Uncommitted and the Alarmed (0.503) also had a relatively short
distance between each other. The Concerned and the Pleasure-seeker were the furthest apart (2.511),
while the Disconnected and the Concerned (1.720), the Uncommitted and the Pleasure-seeker (1.470),
and the Believer and the Pleasure-seeker (1.770) were also respectively far apart. These distances,
combined with significant ANOVAs and meaningful profiling, suggested well-differentiated types.
Six types were confirmed using pseudo-F [76], where a pseudo-F of 178.1 was shown for six versus
173.8 for four, 177.0 for five, and 168.4 for seven clusters.
4.2. Type Orientation
For this paper, we only focused on the distinctive qualities of each type due to the vast number of
statistically significant results available. This section aims to provide the reader with an orientation
regarding the emerging qualities that makes each type unique in order to enable a contextual orientation
for type comparisons to follow.
4.2.1. The Disconnected
The Disconnected type had the lowest connectedness to nature; they lacked an environmental
worldview and showed little concern for matters related to animal extinction and exploitation.
They were unlikely to take responsibility for issues related to nature, as expressed in their apathy and
low pro-environmental behavior. They valued achievement and power showing a tendency towards
dominance. Their low scores on benevolence and universalism suggested that they were affectively
disconnected from the outside world. They were more extraverted than introverted and scored low on
feeling, orientating themselves towards the external rather than the inner world.
4.2.2. The Uncommitted
The Uncommitted type showed a lack of overall commitment as they scored moderately
on many aspects, such as affect, environmental worldviews, animal exploitation, and extinction.
They believed that environmental issues were pressing, but lacked a sense of personal accountability.
They behaved somewhat pro-environmentally in areas that had public and social value, such as
recycling, energy, and water reduction. They were followers that sought social approval. They did not
value self-direction, stimulation, or hedonism. The combination of values suggests that they did not
like independent thought, challenges in life, or self-indulgence and preferred to focus on areas that
gained social approval. They regulated their emotions as indicated by their scores on the feeling and
introversion personality dimensions.
4.2.3. The Alarmed
The Alarmed type had a moderate-high affective connection to nature and low-moderate
apathy. Their environmental worldviews were moderate, although they perceived urgency in both
environmental and animal issues. Their environmental behavior did not match their environmental
concerns, with scores similar to the Uncommitted, suggesting a poor locus of control. They did
not score high on any specific value but showed a disinterest in conformity, tradition, benevolence,
and security. Thus, they were likely to refuse to inhibit themselves according to the rules of society,
challenged customs that represented shared experiences, and lacked a need for affiliation with others.
They scored high on introversion and therefore focused more on their inner world rather than having
contact with people and events. This disconnect between inner and outer worlds might explain why
their inner world was connected emotionally to nature, but in the outer world their behavior did not
match what they felt in their inner world.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
9 of 28
4.2.4. The Believer
For the Believer type, their affective connection to nature contrasted with their dominant social
paradigm. This incongruence might be due to their highly religious views (scored the highest
on religiosity = 87%) and human-centric concerns. They believed that human ingenuity through
technology would solve environmental and animal issues but tended to shift responsibility for these
problems to future generations. They were highly focused on energy reduction, environmentally
friendly travel, and re-using. These pro-environmental behaviors might be related to the associated
financial benefits. They were somewhat conservative in their approach to life, and they used social
standards as a measure for their own progress. Their traditional values led to acceptance of customs
and ideas in culture or in religion, which supported the religiosity of this type. They had a judging
personality, which meant that they tended to evaluate information that they received and also regulated
their mental events.
4.2.5. The Concerned
The Concerned type scored the highest on connectedness to nature and had the strongest
environmental worldviews. They were the most concerned about individuals taking responsibility,
with a focus on human-centric, resource-centric, and science-centric issues. They were also the most
concerned about animal exploitation and extinction and scored the lowest on apathetic attitudes.
They claimed to behave the most pro-environmentally out of all the types, except on energy reduction
and environmentally friendly travel, where they scored lower than the Believer type. The Concerned
were worried because they were open to the world. They scored high on benevolence, which meant
that they were genuinely concerned about the welfare of others. They also scored high on universalism,
which meant they easily took different perspectives. They showed independence, curiosity and valued
self-direction. They did not value conformity, tradition, hedonism, achievement, or power. They scored
high on feeling and intuition.
4.2.6. The Pleasure-seeker
The Pleasure-seeker type showed a weak affective relationship with the biosphere and a low
environmental worldview which, suggested that they do not think, notice, or care about the biosphere.
They were not concerned about environmental issues and felt that individuals were not responsible for
them. They scored second highest on apathetic attitudes and lowest on concern about human-centric,
resource-centric, science-centric, and climate-centric issues. They scored the lowest on concern about
animal exploitation, extinction, and on all behavioral measures. They valued self-enhancement as
expressed in the highest score on hedonism and stimulation, which meant they were driven by a life
that was exciting, novel, and sought instant gratification. They scored the lowest on benevolence
and universalism, which showed that they had little care for others or nature while valuing personal
success, social status, prestige and dominance over people and resources. Their personality profile
suggested that they were indifferent to the outside world, since they failed to attach emotional value to
objects, people, or events and might be emotionally blunt.
4.3. Comparing Clustering Variables
The variables used for clustering were the CNS, EIAQ shifting responsibility, role of the individual,
apathy, human-centric, resource-centric, and science-centric. Table 1 shows the statistical analysis
differences across the clustering variables and Figure 1 is a line graph aimed at showing visually how
the types trended across these clustering variables.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
10 of 28
Table 1. Performance on clustering variables.
Clustering Variables
DIS
UNC ALM
BEL
CON
PSS
N = 75 N = 120 N = 176 N = 104 N = 170 N = 170
Df/F-stat
η2 Significant Differences between Types
Connectedness to nature
Shifting responsibility
Role of individual
Apathetic attitudes
Human-centric
Resource-centric
Science-centric
3.80
(0.68)
3.39
(0.60)
3.95
(0.57)
3.20
(0.72)
3.56
(0.60)
4.36
(0.54)
3.36
(0.60)
4.43
(0.66)
2.05
(0.47)
3.99
(0.50)
2.33
(0.60)
4.06
(0.65)
4.73
(0.34)
4.25
(0.52)
5.04
(0.59)
2.01
(0.56)
4.16
(0.56)
2.07
(0.58)
3.71
(0.60)
4.47
(0.46)
2.55
(0.63)
5.25
(0.50)
3.41
(0.63)
4.37
(0.57)
2.58
(0.74)
4.31
(0.48)
4.80
(0.28)
3.95
(0.60)
5.93
(0.52)
1.62
(0.46)
4.41
(0.53)
1.67
(0.49)
4.47
(0.45)
4.81
(0.32)
4.29
(0.58)
4.16
(0.77)
2.36
(0.60)
3.55
(0.69)
3.04
(0.67)
2.48
(0.67)
3.35
(0.89)
2.00
(0.75)
F(5721) = 190.5 * 0.57 CON > ALM, BEL > UNC, PSS > DIS
F(5721) = 212.57 * 0.60
F(5721) = 32.39 * 0.18
F(5721) = 98.78 * 0.41
DIS, BEL > PSS > UNC, ALM > CON
CON > ALM, UNC, DIS > PSS;
BEL > UNC, DIS > PSS
DIS, PSS > BEL > UNC > ALM > CON
F(5721) = 149.63 * 0.51 BEL, CON > UNC > DIS, ALM > PSS
F(5721) = 123.62 * 0.46 BEL, CON, UNC > ALM, DIS > PSS
F(5721) = 281.86 * 0.66 UNC, CON > BEL > DIS > ALM > PSS
Note: * p < 0.0001; type key: Disconnected (DIS), Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
DIS
ALM
CON
11 of 28
11 of 29
UNC
BEL
PSS
FigFuigreur1e. 1T.yTpyepseimsiimlairlaitryityanadnddidffifefreernencceessoonncclulusstteerriing vvariaabblleess.. TTyyppeekkeeyy: :DDisicsocnonnencteecdte(dD(IDS)I,S),
UnUconmcomimttiettded(U(UNNCC),),AAlalarrmmeedd ((ALM),, BBeelliieevveerr(B(BEELL),)C, oCnocnecrnerende(dCO(CNO),NP)l,eaPslueares-usree-kseere(kPeSrS().PSS).
FoFroarll aclul sctleursitnegrivnagrivaabrlieasb,ltehse, othveeroavlleAraNllOAVNAOwVaAs swigansifisciganitf,iacnandtt,haenedffethctes’esfifzeecstsw’ esirzeems owdeerreate
to lmarogdeereaxtceetpot lwarhgeerexicnedpitcawtehde.reFionrdciocantneedc.tFeodrnceosns ntoecnteadtunrees,sstiognniafitcuarne,tsdigiffneifriecnacnetsdwiffeerreenlacregseweexrceept
forlatrhgee Aexlcaerpmt efodr athnedAtlhaermBeedlieanvderth(semBeallile;vder=(s0m.3a9ll); dan=d0.t3h9e) aUndncthoemUmnictotemdmainttdedthanedPtlheeaspuleraes-suereek- er
(msoedeekrearte(m; dod=e0ra.5te1;).dT=he0.B51e)l.ieTvheer aBnedlietvheer CaonndctehreneCdonshceorwneedd sahsoewnseed oaf skeinnssehiopf wkiinthshtihpewbiiothspthheere,
whbeiroesapshtehree,DwihsceorenansetchteedDpisecrocneniveectdedhupmeracenisveads dhuommainnastaosrsdoofmninatautorers. of nature.
FoFrosrhsifhtiifntigngrersepsopnonsisbibiliiltiyty, ,ththee CCoonncceerrnneedd ffeelltt aa sseennssee ooff uurrggeenncycyanadndlialibaibliitlyityrelraetliantgintgo to
envenirvoinromnemnetanltaalnadndanainmimalailsissusuese,s,wwhheerreeaasstthheeBBeelliieevveerr ddiidd nnoott..AAltlhthoouugghhththe eBeBleieliveevretrytpyepiendinicdaitceadted
affeacfftetcotwtoawrdarsdnsantautruer,et,htehyeymmigighht tbbeeffeeeelliinnggppoowweerrlleessss ttooddooaannyyththininggsisnincecethtehierifrofcoucsuiss iosnohnuhmuamnsa.ns.
sugsuggFesgotFFerisnoortrrgoinrlategophloataehtftohattfethhttteeihhceiPenaliptdentlaiidetvsuaiuivsddirudeuersu-ae,s-alet,slhee,tehkethkeeeeerfCrfCdeodcionditndcscneinezorroentntsetetaoddakfkssesecciiooginnrrndeediddfiivivcttiiahdhdneeuuthaahdliligirgrfheefheseseprspestoontanncansesnidsibdbitwilhtliitheetyreypeflPofemorlaeroseauednsnrveuevrir-raiesorte-eonsenmetkomeeekrlneaettnrrhagtletaehillsoeesixwsulcsoeeeuwsspe.ttes, .st,
forFtohreaUpnacthoemtimc iatttetidtuadneds,ththeeAelffaremctedsizaensdobfestiwgeneifinctahnetUdniffcoemremncitetsedwaenred mthoedBeerlaietevetro, lwarhgeereetxhceept
foretffheectUsnizceosmwmeriettsemd aalnl.dThtheeDAislcaornmneedcteadndanbdettwheeepnletahseurUe-nsceoekmemr witeteredtahnedmtohset Bapelaitehveetric, wanhdertehethe
effeCcotnsciezrensewd tehree lsemasatlal.paTthheetDic.isAcpoantnheectitcedattaintuddethseexPplleaaisnuwreh-ysetheekeprlewaseurreet-hseeekmeor sint daipcaattehdetnico asenndsethe
Coonfcienrdnievdidtuhaellreeassptoanpsaitbhileittyic.toAwpaartdhsetthiceaetntivtiurdonesmeexnptlaanindwa hpyootrherePlaletiaosnusrhei-psewekitehrtihnedbicioastepdhenroe.sense
of indivFiodruahlurmesapno-cnesnibtriilcitycotonwcearrnds,s tthhee eCnovnircoenrnmedentanadndthaepoBoerlierevleartioscnosrheidp wthiethhtihgehebsitosapnhderteh.e
pleFaosrurhe-usmeeakner-ctehnetlroiwc ecsot.nScceorrness,suthgegeCstosnthcaetrntheedBealniedvetrhaendBethlieeCveorncsecronreeddhathdea bhriogahdeesrt daengdreethe
Pleoafsucoren-cseerenkefrorthheulmowane-srte.latSecdoriessuseusggcoemstps atrheadt thoethBeelipelveearsuarne-dsetehkeerC, ownhcoernoendlyhfaodcuasebdrooander
degthreeme soeflvceosn. cern for human-related issues compared to the Pleasure-seeker, who only focused
on themFsoerlvreso. urce-centric, all types were concerned about resource-centric issues except for the
pleFaosrurree-soeeukrecre.-cTehnistrcioc,uladllhtayvpeebseewnedreuecotoncaelrancekdofaabwouartenreessos,usricnec-eceenntvriirconismsuenestalexiscseupets wfoerrethe
Plenaostuarep-sreimekaerry. Tlehniss fcoorutlhdishatyvpeeb. eNeontdabuley,tothaeslaecikssoufeaswwaerreenaescso, nsicnecren efnorvitrhoenDmiesncotanlniescstueeds, wwehriechnot
a pmriimghatryhalvene sinfdoirctahteisdttyhpaet.thNeosetaibsslyu,etshiemsepaiscsteudesthwemerepearcsoonnaclelryn. for the Disconnected, which might
have inFdoicrastceidentchea-tcethnetrsiec,istshueeCs oimncpearncteeddatnhdemthpeeUrsnocnoamllmy.itted scored the highest. The Concerned
scoFroerdshciigehncdeu-ecetonttrhieci,rtchoencCeornnscearbnoeudt aalnl edntvhireoUnmnceonmtalmisisttueeds.sTchoereUdntchoemhmigithteedstc.ouTlhdehCavoenbceeernned
scocroendcehringehd dauboeutto tthheesier icsosnuecserfnosr adbioffuerteanltl reenavsoirnosn, manedntathl eispsuleeass.urTeh-seeeUkenrcotympme iwtteerde ctohueldleahsatve
beecnonccoernnceedr.ned about these issues for different reasons, and the Pleasure-seeker type were the
least concerned.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
12 of 28
4.4. Comparing Profiling Variables
4.4.1. Comparing Behavior
The profiling variables used from the BQ were recycle, energy reduction, conscious consumption,
environmentally friendly travel, charitable, environmentally conscious travel, individual water
reduction, re-use, and smart gardening, as shown in Table 2. Figure 2 is a line graph aimed at
showing visually how the types trended across recycle, energy reduction, conscious consumption,
environmentally friendly travel, charitable, environmentally conscious travel, water reduction,
reuse, and smart gardening.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
13 of 28
Table 2. Types and behavior.
Behavioral Variables
DIS
UNC ALM
BEL
CON
PSS
N = 75 N = 120 N = 176 N 104 N = 170 N = 170
Df/F-stat
η2
Significant Differences between Types
Recycle
Energy reduce
Conscious consumption
Environmentally friendly travel
Charitable
Environmentally conscious travel
Water reduction
Re-use
Smart gardening
2.59
(1.02)
4.03
(0.79)
3.01
(0.87)
2.96
(1.03)
1.91
(1.13)
3.14
(1.02)
3.98
(0.91)
3.44
(1.00)
3.00
(1.05)
2.64
(0.96)
4.18
(0.67)
3.11
(0.67)
2.62
(0.98)
1.86
(0.90)
3.37
(0.96)
4.31
(0.67)
3.70
(0.85)
2.69
(1.11)
2.66
(0.99)
4.18
(0.59)
3.12
(0.66)
2.62
(1.00)
1.92
(0.90)
3.35
(0.96)
4.25
(0.72)
3.62
(0.96)
2.71
(1.09)
3.08
(1.18)
4.50
(0.55)
3.51
(0.77)
3.27
(1.10)
2.27
(1.12)
3.68
(1.00)
4.29
(0.74)
3.97
(1.03)
3.19
(1.14)
3.28
(1.09)
4.47
(0.50)
3.67
(0.66)
2.73
(1.13)
2.53
(1.05)
3.90
(0.89)
4.49
(0.65)
3.97
(0.86)
3.20
(1.01)
2.11
(0.89)
3.72
(0.77)
2.56
(0.76)
2.27
(1.01)
1.75
(0.94)
2.98
(1.07)
3.80
(1.05)
3.21
(1.05)
2.31
(1.14)
F(5714) = 17.71 * 0.11 CON, BEL > ALM, UNC, DIS, PSS; ALM, UNC > PSS
F(5714) = 21.44 * 0.13
BEL, CON > DIS, UNC, ALM > PSS
F(5714) = 32.46 * 0.19
BEL, CON > DIS, UNC, ALM > PSS
F(5714) = 9.79 * 0.06
BEL > CON, UNC, ALM, PSS; DIS > PSS
F(5714) = 11.79 * 0.08 CON > ALM, DIS, UNC, PSS; BEL > UNC, PSS
F(5714) = 14.23 * 0.09
CON > UNC, ALM, DIS, PSS; BEL > DIS, PSS
F(5714) = 10.82 * 0.07 CON > ALM, DIS, PSS; UNC, BEL, ALM > PSS
F(5714) = 10.01 * 0.07 CON > ALM, DIS, PSS; BEL > DIS, PSS; UNC > PSS
F(5714) = 10.58 * 0.07
BEL, CON > ALM, UNC, PSS; DIS > PSS
Note:* p < 0.0001; type key: Disconnected (DIS), Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
14 of 28
14 of 29
DIS
ALM
CON
UNC
BEL
PSS
FigFuigruer2e. 2T.yTpyepseimsimilailrairtiytyananddddiffifefererenncceessoonnbbeehhaaviorr. TTyppee kkeeyy:: DDisisccoonnnnecetcetded(D(DISI)S, )U, nUcnocmommimtteitdted
(U(NUCN)C, A), lAarlamrmeded(A(ALMLM),)B, Beleileiveveerr(B(BEELL)),,CCoonncceerrnneedd ((CCOONN)),, PPlleeaassuurree--sseeeekkeerr(P(PSSS)S.).
FoFroarllabllehbeahvaiovriaolravlavriaarbialebsl,etsh, ethoevoevraelrlaAllNAONVOAVwAaws assigsniigfinciafincta,natn, dantdhetheeffeecfftes’ctssi’zesiszreasnrgaendgefrdom
mofrdoemramteotdoelraartgeetoexlcaergpet wexhceepret iwnhdeicraetiendd.icFaotredre. cFyocrlirnecgy, cthlienge,fftehcetesfifzeecst wsizeerse wsmeraellsmtoamll otodemraotdeeeraxtceept
forexthceepBtefloiervtheer,BCeolinecveerrn, Cedo,nacnerdnPedle,aasnudrep-lseeaeskuerre,-wsehekicehr,wwehriechlawrgeere(tlhaergCeo(tnhceeCrnoendcesrcnoerdedsctohreedhitghheest
anhdigthheesPt laenadsutrhee-speleekaseurrteh-seeleokwerestht)e. lFoowrersetd).uFcotriornediuncetinoenrginy,etnheergeyff,etchteseizffeesctwseizreesmwoedreermatoedteoralaterge
exctoeplatrfgoeretxhceeDptisfocor nthneecDteisdcoannndecthteedPalnedastuhreep-sleeeaskuerre(-ssmeeaklel)r.(TsmhealBl)e. lTiehveeBreslcieovreerdstchoerehdigthheeshtigahnedstthe
Pleaansdurteh-esepelkeaesruthree-sloewekeesrt tohneelnoewrgesyt roenduecnteirogny. TrehdeuCctoionnce. rTnheedChoandctehrenehdighhaedsttchoenhscigiohuesstcoconnsuscmioputsion
comcopnasruemdpttoiothnecPolmeapsaurreed-steoektheer. pFloeraseunrvei-rsoenemkeern. tFaollryefnriveinrodnlymternavtaelllybefhriaevnidolry, tthraevBeellibeevhearvsicoor,retdhethe
phiogBCcshoseoenilnbistecrltvyeaaersnbnrt deetosdctcahtosuherceseoPedprleelodeatfahsstteuhhureerehei-hir-sgsieohgeeeuhekksetetwesrrt,aa,thnrwpddeoh-slofostoihwfcboeulecyssupetbs.ldeeeFdacwosaouruonrscreehls-deasolevrffie-itpektahwelbeerl,aierswtubhohreeuehitc.walhWovawiiirostdehrsi,-ntfat.ohmcceFuoooCsnrretoedrncabhcwsieoatorr-tncirotleeadndtbvhtlriseeeiccwoPbwr,leeeohwdarashlvtduihicvoreheireh-,iwsisegt,heihinekteesrt,,
whmoafkoecsusseednsoen tshealft-ptlheeasCuroen.cWernitehda smcoorreedbitoh-ecenhtirgihcewstoralnddviethwe, itpmleaaskuerse-sseeneskeerthathtethleoCwoenstceornned
scoernevdirtohnemheingthaellsyt aconndscthioeuPslteraasvuelreb-esheaevkieorr,thaendlotwheesCtoonnceernnveidrosncomreednttahlelyhcigohnessctioaunsdttrhaevpellebaeshuarev-ior,
ansdetehkeerCtohnecleorwneedstsoconrwedattehrerheidguhcetsitoann. dFothr ereP-luesaes,utrhee-seefefekcetrstihzeeslowweerset monodweartaetrerteodluacrtgieone.xFceoprtrefo-ur se,
thetheeffAecltarsmizeeds wanedrethmeoCdoenracteerntoedla(rsgmeaelxl)c.eTphtefoBreltiheeveArlaanrmd ethdeaCnodntcheernCeodnscceorrneeddt(hsemhailgl)h.eTsthaenBdetlhieever
anpdlethaseuCreo-nseceekrenretdhescloorweedstthoenhrieg-uhsees.tWanhdenthitecPolmeaessutroes-smeaerktegratrhdeenloinwge,stthoenefrfee-cut sseiz. eWs wheenreitsmcoamll es
to tsommaordt egrartedeenxcinepgt, ftohretheeffeCcotnsciezrensedwaenred sthmeapllletaosumreo-sdeeerkaetre, feoxrcewphticfhorthteheffCecotnsciezrenwedasalnardgethe
Plewahsuerree-tsheeeCkeorn,cfeorrnwedhsicohrtehdetheffe ehcitghsiezset awnadstlhaergpelewashuerree-steheekeCrotnhceelronweedsts.cored the highest and the
Pleasure-seeker the lowest.
4.4.2. Comparing Values
4.4.2. Comparing Values
Table 3 shows the types’ performance on each of the values. Figure 3 is a line graph aimed at
shoTwabinleg 3visuhaolwlyshtohwe tthyepteysp’eps etrrefnodrmedaanccreososncoenafcohrmofityth, teravdailtuioens,.beFnigeuvorelen3cies, uanliivneersgarlaispmh, saeilmf-ed
at dshiroewctionng, vstiismuuallaytihono,whetdhoentiyspme,satcrheinedveemd eanctr,opsoswcoern,faonrdmsiteyc,utrriatyd.ition, benevolence, universalism,
self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, and security.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
15 of 28
Table 3. Types and values.
DIS
UNC ALM
BEL
CON
PSS
Value Variables N = 75 N = 120 N = 176 N = 104 N = 170 N = 170
Df/F-stat
η2
Significant Differences between Types
Conformity
Tradition
Benevolence
Universalism
Self-direction
Stimulation
Hedonism
Achievement
Power
Security
0.48
(0.86)
−0.66
(0.93)
0.41
(0.66)
0.05
(0.58)
0.45
(0.62)
−0.72
(1.18)
−0.57
(1.07)
0.45
(0.78)
−1.07
(0.92)
0.20
(0.67)
0.53
(0.78)
−0.90
(1.14)
0.62
(0.68)
0.52
(0.63)
0.45
(0.71)
−1.08
(1.04)
−0.93
(1.19)
0.31
(0.71)
−1.64
(0.77)
0.12
(0.77)
0.39
(0.91)
−1.14
(1.02)
0.56
(0.79)
0.59
(0.61)
0.48
(0.80)
−0.81
(1.10)
−0.68
(1.05)
0.27
(0.85)
−1.61
(0.87)
0.04
(0.82)
0.70
(0.80)
−0.44
(0.86)
0.60
(0.77)
0.37
(0.62)
0.31
(0.63)
−0.87
(1.14)
−0.86
(1.07)
0.37
(0.75)
−1.59
(0.98)
−0.02
(0.82)
0.34
(0.83)
−1.19
(1.13)
0.71
(0.64)
1.02
(0.63)
0.65
(0.82)
−0.80
(1.16)
−1.12
(1.19)
−0.12
(0.92)
−2.08
(0.85)
0.04
(0.81)
0.37
(0.85)
−0.83
(1.13)
0.39
(0.86)
0.02
(0.67)
0.51
(0.84)
−0.69
(1.11)
−0.20
(1.17)
0.32
(0.78)
−1.12
(0.90)
0.11
(0.79)
F(5648) = 2.46 0.02
NONE
F(5648) = 7.90 ** 0.06
BEL > UNC, ALM, CON; DIS > CON
F(5648) = 2.78 * 0.02
NONE
F(5648) = 37.97 ** 0.23 CON > ALM, UNC, BEL, DIS, PSS; ALM, UNC > DIS, PSS; BEL > PSS
F(5648) = 2.48 0.02
NONE
F(5648) = 1.50 0.01
NONE
F(5648) = 7.89 ** 0.06
PSS > BEL, UNC, CON; ALM > CON
F(5648) = 7.48 ** 0.05
DIS, UNC, ALM, BEL, PSS > CON
F(5648) = 18.47 ** 0.12
DIS, PSS > UNC, ALM, BEL > CON
F(5648) = 0.78 0.01
NONE
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.0001; type key: Disconnected (DIS), Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
SusStauisntaaibnilaibtyili2ty02200,2102, 1, 27,6x14FOR PEER REVIEW
16 o1f62o9f 28
DIS
UNC
1.0
ALM
BEL
0.6
CON
PSS
0.2
-0.2
-0.6
-1.0
-1.4
-1.8
-2.2
FigFuigreur3e. 3T. yTpyepesimsimilailrairtiytyananddddiffifefererenncceessoonnvvaalluueess.. TTyyppee kkeeyy:: DDisisccoonnnnecetcetded(D(DISI)S, )U, nUcnocmommimtteitdted
(U(NUCN)C, A),lAarlamrmeded(A(ALMLM),)B, Beleileiveveerr(B(BEELL)),,CCoonncceerrnneedd ((CCOONN)),, PPlleeaassuurree--sseeeekkeerr(P(PSSS)S.).
FoFrovralvuaelsu, etsh,e othveeraolvleAraNllOAVANOwVaAs sigwnaisficsaingtn,iefixccaenpt,t feoxrcceopntfofromr itcyo,nsfeolfr-mdiitrye,ctisoenlf,-dstiirmecutiloanti,on,
andstismecuularittiyo.nF, aonrdcosnecfourrmityit.yF,othr ecoBnefloiermveirtys,ctohreedBetlhieevheirgshceosrte,dwthhiechhicgohuelsdt, rwelhaitcehtcootuhledirrehluatme aton-tcheenirtric
anhdurmelaigni-oceunstraitctitaunddesre, lciogmioupsaraetdtittuodtehse, Ccoomnpcearrnededt,owthhoe sCcoonrecedrntheed,lowwheosts.cFoorerdtrtahdeitlioown,etsht.eFeoffrect
siztersadwiteiroens, mthaelleftfoecmt osidzeersawtee, raensdmtahlel Dtoismcoondnereacttee,danscdotrhede DthieschoingnheecsttedansdcotrheedCthoencheirgnheedsttahnedlotwheest,
whCicohncseurgngeedsttehde ltohwatecsut,lwtuhreicahnsdugtrgaedsitteidonthmatigcuhltthuareveanpdlatyraedditainonesmseignhtitahl arovleepilnayheodwatnheesDseinsctioanl nroelceted
vieiwn shaonwimthaelsDainscdonnanteucrteed. Avlitehwosuganhimthaelsovaenrdalnl aAtuNrOe.VAAlthwoausgshigtnhiefiocavnertaflolrAbNenOeVvoAlewnaces,stihgenipfiocsatn-ht oc
tfeosrfdtthoTsirefysfephhbreioeegnwn1heteeevgsdrotrr,loonewuronphcisneisic,githzhntehesisfiehpaconpoawdosntestc-dthod-hortihrffoceacetctretteitseohntssnect.syseHsfvsobhearerolTuetwwyetedphedeeecn1oCnneotosrynrtpsrociueergscrnitnndiifvetuihdeceaersntepcotlooatrdsthietio-edfhnfedotsrhhcieffeitnpeehcsrseeit,gssnw.htHbhegeesetrtrrwo,eeuwaetspehhnetsihcCitezhyoeppsnslheceasoeanrwsdnduueercddeeo-strsthcroeoeeacrkttehtetidehor neys
valsucoerdedcotnhsetrlouwcteivste. Freolratuinoinvsehrsipalsi,smw,htehreeaesfftehcet sPizleeasswureer-esemeokdeerrsactoerteodlathrgeel.oTwheesCt.oFnocerrunnedivsecrosraelidsm,
thetheeffheicgthseizstesanwdetrheempoledaesurartee-steoelkaerrgteh.eTlohwe Cesot,nscuegrngeesdtisncgotrheadttthhee hpilgeahseusrtea-snedektherefPolceuasseudreo-nseseeklfeisrhthe
lowinetsetr,essutsgrgaethsteirntghathnatthteheenPhlaenacseumree-nsteoekf oerthfeorcsu. sFeodr soenlf-sdeilrfieschtioinnt,etrheestCsornactehrenretdhsacnorthede tehnehhaingcheemste, nt
of iontdhiecarsti.ngFtohratsethlfe-ydihraedctaiosne,nstheeofCinodnecperenneddenscceoarnedd ftrheeedhoimghceosmt,pianrdedicatotitnhge Bthealitevthere,ywhhaodscaorseednse
of tihnedelopwenesdte. nFcoer asntidmfurleaetidoonm, thceomplpeaarseudret-osetehkeerBsecloierveder,thwehhoigshceosrte,dshthoewilnogwethsta.t Fthoerystriemquuilraetdion,
theexPcliteeamsuernet-csoemekpearresdcotoretdhetUhenchoimghmeisttte, ds,hwohwoinscgortehdatthtehleoywerestq.uFiorrehdedexocniitsemm, ethnet ecfofemctpsaizreesdwteorethe
Unscmomallmtiottemdo,dwehraotes,cowrehdertehethleowCeosnt.ceFronrehdesdcoonriesdmt,hteheloewffeecst sainzeds twherpe lsemasaullreto-smeeokderertahtee,hwighheerset,the
CoincdeicranteindgstchoartetdhethyehalodwaessttroanngddtehseirPe lfeoarspuorsei-tsiveekstearteths eofhairgohuessatl,. iFnodriaccahtinevgetmheant tt,htehye ehfafedctassiztreosng
deswireerefosrmpaollsittoivme ostdaetreasteo,fwarhoeurseatlh. eFoCroanccheirenveedmsehnotw, tehdemeffoerectfsoiczuess owneirnetsemrnaalllmtoomtivoadteiorantsea, nwdhseerlef-the
Cotnracnesrcneenddesnhtovwaeludesmroatrheefrotchuasn oanchinevteermneanl tmcoomtivpatrieodntsoatnhde Dseislcf-otnrannecstceedn,dwehnot vshaoluweesdrtahtehenreetdhan
achtoierveecmeiveentsoccoimalpaaprperdovtoaltahnedDriesccoognnniteioctne.dF,owr hpowshero,wtheedetfhfeectnseiezdestwo erreecemivoedesoractiealtoaplaprrgoev, alndand
rectohgenCiotinocne.rnFeodr pscoowreedr,tthheeloewffeecstt sainzdesthweeDreismcoondneercatetde ttohelahriggeh,easnt,dsuthggeeCstoinngcetrhnaetdthsecDoriescdotnhneeclotewdest
anwd etrheeinDsiescaorcnhnoefcsteeldf-ethsteeehmig.hTehset,DsiuscgognenseticntegdtshcaotrethdethDeihscigohnenset catneddtwheeBreeliinevseeratrhcehloowf essetlfo-nesttheeem.
ThveaDluiescoofnsneceucrteitdy,sschoorwedintghdeihffiegrhenecsetsainndththeier Bvaelluieevoefrstahfeetylofworessot coinetyth, eotvhaelrus,eaonfdsseecluf.rity, showing
differences in their value of safety for society, others, and self.
4.4.3. Comparing Personality
4.4.3. CTohmepparroinfiglinPgervsaorniaablilteys used from the JTI were: extraversion–introversion, sensing–intuiting,
thiTnhkiengp–rfoefielliinngg, vanadriajubdlegsinugs–epderfcreoimvintgh.eTyJTpIe wpeerrfeo:rmexatnrcaevsearrseiosnh–oiwnntrionvTerasbiloen4,. sFeignusrineg4–iisnatuliinteing,
thignrkaipnhg–aifmeeeldinagt, sahnodwjiundggviinsgu–aplleyrhceoiwvitnhge. tTyyppesetpreenrfdoerdmdainmceenssaiorenaslhlyowonneixntrTaavbelresi4o.nF–iignutrroev4erissioanl,ine
graspenhsianimg–eindtuatitsiohno,wthiningkvinisgu–afelleylinhgo,wantdhejutdypgiensgt–rpenerdceedivdinigm. ensionally on extraversion–introversion,
sensing–intuition, thinking–feeling, and judging–perceiving.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
17 of 28
Table 4. Types and personality.
Personality Variables
DIS
UNC ALM
BEL
CON
PSS
N = 75 N = 120 N = 176 N = 104 N = 170 N = 170
Df/F-stat
η2 Significant Differences between Types
Extraversion–Introversion
Sensing–Intuiting
Thinking–Feeling
Judging–Perceiving
5.17
(1.72)
6.08
(1.04)
6.42
(1.24)
4.49
(1.32)
5.96
(1.87)
6.32
(1.36)
6.79
(1.19)
4.34
(1.48)
6.34
(2.04)
6.35
(1.54)
6.59
(1.51)
4.37
(1.58)
5.05
(1.61)
6.23
(1.15)
6.48
(1.10)
3.75
(1.22)
6.02
(1.97)
6.95
(1.48)
7.26
(1.29)
4.26
(1.76)
5.95
(2.03)
5.88
(1.53)
6.39
(1.32)
4.84
(1.73)
F(5613) = 6.95 ** 0.05
F(5613) = 7.64 ** 0.06
F(5613) = 7.66 ** 0.06
F(5613) = 3.93 * 0.03
ALM > DIS, BEL; CON, UNC > BEL
CON > DIS, UNC, ALM, BEL, PSS
CON > DIS, ALM, BEL, PSS
PSS > BEL
Note: * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.0001; type key: Disconnected (DIS), Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
DIS
ALM
CON
18 of 29
18 of 28
UNC
BEL
PSS
Figure 4. TFyigpueres4i.mTyilpaeristimyialanridtydainffdedrieffnerceensceosnonppeerrssoonnaallitiytydidmiemnseinonssi.oTnysp.eTkyeyp:eDkisecoyn:nDecitsecdo(nDnISe),cted (DIS),
Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
For all personality dimensions, the overall ANOVA was significant, and the effects sizes ranged
For alflropmersmsoanllatolitmyoddeimrateen. Fsoior nexst,ratvheersoiovne–rinatlrloAveNrsiOonV, AthewAalasrmsiegdnwifaiscaclnots,esatntodinthtreoveefrfseiocnt,sasnidzes ranged
from smallthteo Bmeloiedverawtea.s Fcloorseesxt ttroavexetrsaivoenrs–ioin.trTohveeBrseilioenve,rthsheoAwleadrma setdrowngaesr colroiesnetsatioton itnowtraorvdesrtshieon, and the
Believer weaxstecrnloalswesotrltdo, aexmtortaivvaetriosniotno .inTflhueenBceetlhieevoeurtssidheowwoerldd,aa scotrlloenctgiveernoatruieren,taantdiosntrotnogwaaltrrduissmth. e external
world, a mBinoynticevoranrettriaaolsintty, t.thoeiinnftlruoveenrctsettehndeeodutotsbide emworeorfoldcu, saedcoolnlepcetrisvoenanl afatcutorers, aannddosriternotnedgtaolwtraurdissmth.eiBr y contrast,
the introverts tFeonrdseendsitnog–bientmuitoinreg,ftohceuCseodncoernnepderwseorne athl efamctoosrtsinatnuditivoer,ieinndtiecdatitnogwthaardt sthtehyeeirxpinlonreedr reality.
For sebnrosaindlgy–tihnetumietainign,gthanedCthoenocreyrtnheatdmwigehrteinthfleuemncoestthienirtuexitpievreie,nicneds,icinatcionngtrathstattotthheeypelexapsulorer-ed broadly
the meanisnegekearn, wdhtohsecoorreyd tthheahtigmheigsthotnisnenflsuinegn. ce their experiences, in contrast to the Pleasure-seeker,
who scoretdhatthmOenihgthihgtehndoeitsmtbeeonnsdirosinveeonnfstbihnyingrka.itniogn–afel etlhinogu,gthhteoCropnrcoecrensesdesw, ienrecmonotrreasotpteonthtoeapffleeactsiuvreer-seelaetkioern,swhihpos
On thsecodreidmheignhseisotnonotfhtinhkiinnkg,inshgo–wfeineglitnhagt,tthheye tCenodntcoebrenmedorewreatrieonmaloarnedoanpaelyntitcoal.affective relationships
that might notFboer djurdigvienng–bpyerrcaeitviionnga, lththe oBuelgiehvterorwpasroacejusdsgeisn,gintycpoenatnrdastthteoretfhoreePplreeafesrurerde-oserdeekrearn, dwho scored
highest onretghuilnaktioinngo,f smheonwtalinevgentthsa, wt thhereeyasttehnedplteoasbuerem-seoekreerrsactoiroednahligahnerdoannimalpyutliscivailt.y.
For ju4.d5.gCionmgp–aprinegrcDeeimvoignrgap,hitchVearBiaeblleisever was a judging type and therefore preferred order and
regulation of mTheenretawl aesvaensitgsn,ifwicahnetrreealastitohneshPiplebaestwuereen-saegeekgerrouscpos r(eXd2 =h9i3g.2h0e;rpo<n0.i0m00p1)u, lgseinvditeyr.(X2 =
14.89; p < 0.0001), ethnicity (X2 = 115.04; p < 0.0001), religion (X2 = 45.54; p < 0.0001), education (X2 =
4.5. Compa3r8i.n17g; Dp =em0.0o0g8r4a)p, ahnicd Vthaertiyapbeless. The Disconnected had the largest number of younger (18–25-year-
p
<
0.T0h0e0r1e)oTw,wlhhdeee)atrhApsenalaairitrtcsmiwciitigeapydnsain(rafXetnisvcd2eacrCo=nsmoetdn1prc.1eaeT5rlraeh.nd0teei4odtAo;nhlpatsahrhd<meimpCe0doo.b0nraeec0ntef0dwre1nmCe)e,aeodlnnr,eecwsaelcihrgogniemceihodgpnhrahaora(deudXdtp2mhtsoe=o(tmrhXe4eo25WsB.t=5ehol4iil9ted;e3vepa.er2nr<(0da4;n60fp+de.w0y<th0eeaer00r.1PB-0o)ll0ea,lda0cesk)1dup)pru,aeargc-rtotaeiicrcntiiiiepdponaaentnnertdts(s(.X,X22
=
=
14.89;
38.17;
p = 0.0084c)o,mapnadredthtoethtye pDeissc.onTnehcetedDainsdcothnenBeecliteevder,hwahdertehtehelpaartgteersntwnausmrevbeerrseod.fTyhoe uCnongceerrn(e1d8h–a2d5-year-old)
participanfteswceromChpriasrtieadn atnod tmhoereCnoonn-creelringieodus, pwarhtiicciphanhtsadcomthpearemd otostthoe lDdiesrcon(4n6ec+tedyaenadr-Boeldlie)vepra, rticipants.
The AlarmwpeohdsetrgearantdhdueatCtreeonnddecwgerraenseser,edvaehnrsdaeddt.hmTehoeBreAelileafvrememreadalneadnsdcPtohlemeasCpuoarner-ceoedrrineetnodtecdtohnehtaaBidneelfdieewmveoerrrepapanarrtditciciptiphaanentstPs lwweaiittshhure-seeker,
where it wpaosstgrreavdeurasteedd.egrTehese. Alarmed and Concerned had more White and fewer Black participants
compared to the Disconnected and the Believer, where the pattern was reversed. The Concerned had fewer
Christian a4.n6d. CmomopraerinngoCno-nrfeirlmigatiooruy sDepsacrriptitciviepVaanrtiasblceos mpared to the Disconnected and Believer, where the
trend was reversed. The Alarmed and the Concerned contained more participants with postgraduate
degrees, and the Believer and Pleasure-seeker had fewer participants with postgraduate degrees.
4.6. Comparing Confirmatory Descriptive Variables
The remaining variables (i.e., the NEP, EIAQ climate-centric, animal exploitation, animal extinction,
role of government, and the role of technology) were used as confirmatory descriptive variables.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. Figure 5 is a line graph aimed at showing visually
how the types trended across environmental worldviews, climate-centric, animal exploitation, animal
extinction, role of government, and role of technology.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
19 of 28
Table 5. Performance on remaining profiling variables that correlated with the clustering variables.
Profiling Variables
DIS
UNC ALM
BEL
CON
PSS
N = 75 N = 120 N = 176 N = 104 N = 170 N = 170
Df/F-stat
η2
Significant Differences between Types
Environmental worldviews
Climate-centric
Animal exploitation
Animal extinction
Role of government
Role of technology
3.21
(0.40)
3.73
(0.71)
3.21
(1.04)
3.42
(1.04)
3.73
(0.72)
3.39
(0.77)
3.70
(0.45)
3.92
(0.87)
3.66
(0.81)
4.25
(0.81)
3.36
(0.90)
2.48
(0.65)
3.74
(0.54)
3.49
(0.80)
3.40
(0.82)
4.01
(0.72)
3.35
(0.90)
2.72
(0.70)
3.54
(0.46)
4.25
(0.75)
3.81
(0.86)
4.19
(0.80)
3.83
(0.85)
3.25
(0.80)
4.11
(0.53)
4.15
(0.72)
4.26
(0.58)
4.65
(0.48)
3.22
(1.09)
2.36
(0.80)
3.39
(0.55)
2.50
(0.87)
2.75
(0.95)
3.18
(1.01)
3.41
(0.83)
2.86
(0.63)
F(5714) = 44.86 * 0.24
F(5721) = 60.74 * 0.30
F(5667) = 41.73 * 0.24
F(5667) = 46.94 * 0.26
F(5721) = 7.713 * 0.05
F(5721) = 34.478 * 0.19
CON > ALM, UNC, BEL, PSS, DIS; ALM > BEL, PSS, DIS;
UNC > PSS, DIS; BEL > DIS
BEL > UNC, DIS, ALM, PSS; CON > DIS, ALM, PSS;
UNC > ALM, PSS; DIS, UNC > PSS
CON > BEL, UNC, ALM, DIS, PSS; BEL > ALM, DIS > PSS;
UNC > DIS > PSS
CON > UNC, ALM, BEL > DIS, PSS
BEL > PSS, UNC, ALM, CON
DIS > CON
DIS, BEL > PSS, ALM, UNC, CON; PSS > UNC, CON;
ALM > CON
Note: * p < 0.0001; type key: Disconnected (DIS), Uncommitted (UNC), Alarmed (ALM), Believer (BEL), Concerned (CON), Pleasure-seeker (PSS).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
DIS
ALM
CON
20 of 28
21 of 29
UNC
BEL
PSS
Figure F5i.guTrye p5e. Tsyimpeilsairmitiylaraitnydanddiffdeifrfeenrecnecsesoonnpprroofifilliinngg vvaariraibalbesle. sT.ypTeykpeey:kDeyis:conDniescctoednn(DecISte),d (DIS),
UncommUnitctoemdm(UittNedC(U),NACla),rAmlaerdm(eAdL(AML)M, B), eBleileiveveerr((BBEELL)),,CCoonncecrenrende(dCO(CNO),NPl)e,aPsulerea-ssueerkee-rse(PeSkSe)r. (PSS).
ForantdhetFhcoeorentfhffieercctmosnsafitziroemrsyawtdoerreeysmdcreoispdcretiirpvatteievvteoavlraairraigabeblleeexssc,,ettphhteewoovhveereraerlalinlAldNAicOaNtVeOdA.VwFAoarswesniagvsnirisofiingcamnnietfinicntaaelnawctohirnilndesvtaiaecnwhcesi,,nstance,
and thetheeffeefcftesctssiizzeess wweerreemmodoedreatreattoe ltaorglearegxceeepxt cbeetpwtewenhtehreeUinncdoimcamteitdte.dFaonrdetnheviCroonncmerennedta(lsmwaollr)l.dviews,
the effecTthseizCeosnwcerenreedmhoaddearnateecotologlaicragleweoxrcldepvitewbe, twwheeerneatshteheUDnicsocomnmneicttteeddhaanddathdoemCionannctersonceiadl (small).
The Cowncoerlrdnveiedwhthaadt paenrceeicvoelsotghaictanlatwuroerilsdfvoriehwu,mwanheexrpelaoistathioen.DThisecBoenlineevcerteddidhnaodt shaowdoamstirnoanngt social
worldvieecwolotghicaatl pweorrcldevivieews,tbhuattanstartounrgeericsofnonrehctuedmneasns teoxnpaltouirteastcioorne.thTaht emBigehltiesuvgegredstitdhantoatbsiohpohwilica strong
ecologicaafflilwiaotirolnddvoieews n,obtuntecaessstraorinlygceorrrceosnpnonedctteodanneesnsvtioronnamteunrtealswcoorreldtvhiaewt m. ight suggest that a biophilic
affiliatioCnondcFoeorenrsecndliom(stmanteae-lccl)ee.nsTtshraiecr,Bilteyhleiecevoferfrerecwtsespriezoentshdewmteoroeasmtncooednnecvreairrtneoentdo,mwlaehrngeetraeealxswctehopetrplfdolervatisheuewreU.-sneceokmermwiteteredtahnedletahset
Forcocnlcimernaetde-. cTehnetrBiecl,iethveerepffoetecnttsiaizlleysawckenroewmledogdeedrathtee tiomplaarcgt ecleimxcaetep-ctefnotrricthisesuUens cwoimll mhaivteteodnand the
Concernhuemd a(ns-mwaellllb)e. inTgh. e Believer were the most concerned, whereas the Pleasure-seeker were the
least concerFnoerda.niTmhael eBxepllioeivtaetriopn,ottheenCtioanllcyerancedkneoxpwrelessdegdetdhetmheositmcopnaccetrnclciommaptaer-ecdentotrtihceipssleuaesusrwe-ill have
on humsaenek-wer.eTllhbiesifningd.ing suggests that there is some correlation between environmental worldviews and
Forceonanvnciiremornnaml feeonxrtpalalonciihtmaatlalileonnwg,eetshl.fearCe oanncderntheadt eaxnpimreasls-eredlattheed misossutescocnocuelrdn cboemspuabrjeecdtivtoelythelinPkleeadsutore-seeker.
This findingFsourgagneimstasl tehxatitntchtieorne, itshesoCmonececronrerdelwateiroenthbeetmwoeset nweonrrvieidroannmd ethnetapllewasourrled-vseieekwesr tahnedlecaostn,cern for
animal whelicfahrecaannbde tlhinakteadntiomtahle-irreldaitfefedreinscseueins cscoourleds obne suunbivjeercstaivl evlayluleins.kTeydpteoseconrveisrownemreegnetnaelrcahllyallenges.
Forhiagnheimr faolreexxtinnccttiioonnc,otmhepaCreodntcoerenxpedloiwtateiroen,thsheomwionsgt twhaotrtrhieedfoarmndertihseoPf lgeraesatuerec-osneceekrenrttohe least,
which cianndibveidluinaklse. d to their difference in scores on universal values. Type scores were generally higher
for extinctioAnscfoomr tphearreodle toof egxovpelronimtaetniot,nt,hsehBoewlieivnegr tfhelat tsttrhoengfolyr,minedriciastionfggdrieffautseironcoonf creesrpnotnosiibnilditiyviduals.
and
As for
ptThehreehraUopnlsecaoomwf megaoiktvtleoedcrunfesmltoefsntcroto,nnttghroleyl,BawbeholieuertvetaehsretfhreoelltCe sootnfrcoteenrcnghelnydo,lfioengltdytihcceoamotippnpagoresdditiefft.ousthioe nCoonf creersnpeod.nTsihbisility
and
perhapsdaiffwereenackelococuulsdobfecodnuterotol, wtheheyroeuansgtehrepCroofnileceorfnethdefeUlnt ctohmemopittpeods, iwteh. o tended to be more
ThteecUhnnocloogmicmalliyt-tceedntrfiec,ltorsittrmonigghltysuagbgoesuttditshinetereoslteinomf atkeicnhgnpoelrosognyal ccohamngpeasr.ed to the Concerned.
This difference could be due to the younger profile of the Uncommitted, who tended to be more
technolo4.g7i.cSaimllyila-rcietynatrnidcD, oifrfeirtenmceisgbhettwseuengTgyepsetsdisinterest in making personal changes.
Based on the results presented thus far, it is clear that there were some similarities between types,
4.7. SimainladritthyeraendweDreiffaelrseonicnesstabnectwesewenheTryeptehsey might overlap on certain variables. To show similarities
and differences per variable, a wheel with integrated mini Venn diagrams was developed and shown
BasinedFigounreth6e. Trheesuinlntserpcriercsleenotfetdhethchuasrtfraerp, rietsiesnctslethaer hthigahtetsht escroerweseorneesaochmoef sthime vilaariraibtileess,bmeotwvinegen types,
and there were also instances where they might overlap on certain variables. To show similarities
and differences per variable, a wheel with integrated mini Venn diagrams was developed and shown
in Figure 6. The inner circle of the chart represents the highest scores on each of the variables,
moving outward to the lowest scores. The mini Venns are not placed on data-points but rather
in relation to one another on a particular variable. Moving from the inner circle further outward,
the second circle represents the multiple theoretical frameworks used to construct the study and
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
22 of 29
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
21 of 28
outward to the lowest scores. The mini Venns are not placed on data-points but rather in relation to
one another on a particular variable. Moving from the inner circle further outward, the second circle
includersecporegsneinttisvteh,eaffmeucltivplee, btheehoarevtiocarlaflr,aamnedwinortkrisnussicedcotonsctornusctrtsu.ctWthitehsitnudthyeasned, minocvluidnegsfcuorgtnhietirvoe,utward,
are the adfifmecetinves,iobneshfarvoiomrawl, haincdh tihnterivnasirciacbolnesstsrupcrtos.utW(citlhuisntetrhiensge,vmaroiavbinlgesfaurrethienrdoicuattweadrdw, itahreatlhigeht blue
sotraor vinertdiolhnaviempethrpwelenaihnwpsiepgoheinenwles)gl.if)twr.ThoTyimtyophpnewoeesnsheeaeicaanahccnohhtothhhthehaeeavvrrva.e.reDDtihatiibehssitltereaaisnrrnecspcerpeerriepnoisudrneetindcs(taiceactlnteuaisvtstateesetiscmirviosnileilogmarcrvoiiatallnyaroidroarirbataylrdeneisofdpfarelraardecerieeniffndcpdeei.lrinaceacrnteeecldadet.iwionnitrhteolaaoltniigeohnatnbtooluthoeensrteoarranother
Figure F6i.gAureV6e.nAnVwenhneewlhseheol wshionwginthgethreerlealtaitoionnsshhiipp bbeettwweeeenntytpyepseosnovnarviaabrlieasb. lTeysp. eTkyepye: Dkiesyco:nDneisccteodnnected
(DIS), U(DncISo)m, Umnictotemdm(iUttNedC()U, NACla)r, mAeladrm(AedLM(A)L, MBe),liBeveleierv(eBrE(LBE),LC),oCnocnecrenrended(C(COONN),),PPleleaassuurree--sseeeekkeerr (PSS).
(PSS).
The FigTuhereFisghuorewsshothwasttthhaet tCheoCnocnercenrendedaannddtthhee PPlleeaassuurer-es-eseekeekretyrpteyspweserwe oefrteenotfhteenfutrhtheefsut frrtohmest from
each otheaecrh. TothheerU. TnhceoUmnmcoimttemdithteodvheorveedreind itnhethme mididddleleoonnmmaannyy oofftthheevvarairaibalbeslewsiwthicthloscelopsreoxpimroixtyimity to
the Alartomtehde oAnlacrmeretdainonvacerriatabinlesv.arTiahbeleCs.oTnhceerCnoendcearnndedthaendBethlieevBeerliweverewoefrteenofctleonseclosnecoenrtcaeirntavinariables,
just as tvhaeriaDbilsecs,ojnunsteacstethdeaDnisdcoPnlneeacstuedrea-nsdeepklearswureer-seeeokfteernwienrecoloftseen pinroclxoisme pitryoxtiomeitayctho oeathchero.ther.
5. Disc5u.sDsiioscnussion
In thisIsntuthdisys,twudeya, wimeeadimteodutondunedrsetrastnadndththeeddiiffffeerreennttrreelaltaitoinosnhsiphsiptyspteyspoefsinodfivinidduiavlsidhuavaelswhitahve with
the biostphpreohceebrsieosestsph.hrSoeirxuegwhtehlrelo-xdupigflfhoerreiennxgtpialdoteriidffnegtyrepdneisfcfeewsreeirnneceiinds etrinnitnifsiineicdtr,iaannffsdiecc,dteiavsfcfeer,icbtcieovdge,,nsuictogivggneesi,ttaiivnnegd, thbanaetdhtahbveeihhoaurvamiloaprnar–locesses.
Six welln-adtiuffreerennetxiuastedis tycopmesplwexereaniddetnhtaifit eddifafenrdendt eisncdriivbieddu,asl upgsgyecshtoilnoggitchaal tpthroecehsusems ainm–pnaactturtheins exus is
complerxelaantiodntshhaipt.dTihffeeprreinmtairnydoiuvticdomuaelopf sthyicshstouldoygiscaaldpereopceresasnedsmimorpe acocmt tphliesteruelnadteiorsntasnhdipin.gTohf ethpe rimary
outcomheuomfatnh–insastuturednyeixsuas dbyeeupsienrgaandmomreoreextceonmsivpeleratenguenodfevrasrtiaanbdleisn. gThoef rtehseulhtsurmepaonr–tendatsugregenstexus by
using apmatohrweaeyxstetonwsiavrdesrathnegetyopfevoafrinaabrrleasti.veTshdeirffeesruenltts tryeppeosrmteidghsturgegspeostndpattohwwhaeyns taottwemarpdtisngthteotype of
narratives different types might respond to when attempting to increase affective and/or behavioral
environmental engagement. To de-emphasize strict boundaries between types, this discussion describes
types with overarching aspects in tandem.
The Believer and Concerned types were connected to nature and showed different aspects of
congruence with the biosphere. Congruence was expressed as humanistic versus biospheric. They are
likely to respond to public social rewards (e.g., praise given for positive goals) [77] with access to salient,
digestible scientific information to disseminate this information [78]. Empowering them to participate
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
22 of 28
in grassroots activism that balances social justice, environmentalism, and civil rights [79], as well as
intersectional justice practices, such as coalition politics [80], is likely to appeal to them. Working with
them would also mean being aware that they might be at risk of experiencing environmental
melancholia [81]. The Believer type was similar to the Concerned [16], Community focused [18],
“Man must make use of nature” [82], and Caretaker [83] types in that they had a human-centric view of
the biosphere. The Concerned type was similar to many environmentally conscious types, such as the
Enthusiasts [18], Greenest Americans [83], and Nature-connected users [84], who all showed concern
for the biosphere.
The Uncommitted and Alarmed types showed antagonism, as the Uncommitted tried to remain
an observer, and the Alarmed tried to avoid collective approaches. A “feedback-signaling consequence”
could provide feedback about their impact on the environment [85]. Further strategies could
focus on deepening their relationship with the biosphere with green psychotherapy that educates
and counsels [86]. Promoting deep adaptation strategies [87] through the use of empathy and
distress [88] could encourage engagement. Community- or family-based interventions [89] or a
social norms approach (telling them what other people in their social groups do) [77] has potential,
focusing on the nuanced communities of the Alarmed (like activist, vegan, or LGBTI groups),
and Believer (religious) [89]. A focus on reducing guilt [78] through low-commitment and active
citizenship opportunities that include political activities that are less public or present less risk than
engaged activism, for example writing letters to government officials or contributing funds towards
environmentally related issues, would have appeal [90]. The Uncommitted type was similar to the
Pragmatists and the Community focused [18] in their need to conform. The Murky middles [83],
Sideline supporters, and Cautious participants [23] were all similarly uncommitted. The Alarmed
type was similar to the Alarmed [16], Humans as potential enemies of nature [91], and Concerned
consumer [23] types with their concerns about the biosphere. The Moralistic type [25] were also similar
to the Alarmed concerning guilt as a motivator. The Cruel worlders [83] and Activist greens [20] were
similar to the Alarmed, who had a negative outlook about the world.
The Disconnected and Pleasure-seeker types were disconnected from the biosphere, and therefore
practitioners could focus on ecopsychology activities [92], such as nature-based expressive arts
therapy [93] and sensorial activities [94]. Positive incentives [95] for eco-friendly behavior (getting
money back for recycling) could adjust behavior without having to address dominant worldviews.
Sanctions that disincentivize unsustainable behaviors could be considered [96] in the shape of
Pigouvian taxes [97]. Alternative hedonism [98] that positions sustainable behavior as a status symbol,
personally rewarding, or a process of individual distinction, rather than based on altruistic concern,
could resonate [78]. Any intervention strategies for these types would need to avoid triggering fears
of ontological insecurity [99]. The Disconnected type was similar to the Disengaged and Dismissive
types [16] with regards to the importance of traditional beliefs. Various types from the literature,
including “Man must make use of nature” and “Man must conquer nature” [82], Materialists and
UnGreens [83], Nature controllers [84], and Resource-use relationship and No direct relationship [100],
were all similar to the Disconnected type with regards to being domineering. The Pleasure-seeker type
was similar to Materialists [83], No direct relationship [100], and Apathetic [101] types, who tended to
value materialistic goals and were disconnected from the biosphere.
6. Conclusions and Limitations
The key finding of this study was the emergence of types of relationships with the biosphere that
are more complete in terms of variables included, such as affect, personality, and values, making the
types more descriptive and inclusive compared to previous attempts. The study showed how a
combination of emerging intrinsic, cognitive, affective, and behavioral constructs interact to describe
the psychological processes that impact the typology–nature nexus. The types identified are not yet
complete, but part of a process to set up variables underlying the human–nature nexus with narratives
still required for a more extensive and comprehensive understanding. These findings suggest that
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
23 of 28
intervention approaches that are not nuanced are likely to be ignored by those for whom there is no
resonance, reducing the efficacy of environmental messaging and engagement. Designing content with
types in mind, rather than using a generic approach for entire populations, allows for environmental
strategies to be more focused on individual pathways for attention. The environmental movement
would benefit from framing public engagement around aspects that are important to individuals to
generate motivation and interest. Of course this contention has not been empirically tested in this
study and follow-up research would need to assess whether the proposed interventions resonate with
the specific type as hypothesized.
A limitation is the exclusion of individuals who do not have Internet access or who might
be illiterate, and therefore the sample is not representative of the entire South African population.
The results are generalizable to those of middle and upper incomes, and who had access to the Internet.
Because the study was conducted in a particular context, it is not generalizable to other populations.
Furthermore, the results do not include the size of each type concerning the general South African
population. It is not feasible for others to administer all the scales of the study, as it took participants
an average of 64 min to complete the questionnaire battery. This study was used to provide a depth of
description, and further discriminant analysis will be conducted to determine whether a shortened
version of the questionnaire is feasible. Caution should also be exercised in the interpretations of the
comparisons between types based on the confirmatory descriptive variables. As was noted in the
methods section, these variables correlated significantly with the clustering variables. They are only
presented in this paper for descriptive purposes.
Given the length of the survey (150+ items; 36 variables), future research could measure the
size of the different types within the broader global context using a shortened survey. There is
also a need for a more in-depth qualitative study to build a richer understanding of the six types.
The types emerging from this analysis are based on scales that generalize rather than personalize the
experience of the individual. Game theory [102] using typologies might provide insight into how these
individuals behave in various situations [103]. Testing various interventions, policy strategies and
communication campaigns with types could guide nuanced messaging. The types could be useful for
pre-testing communication campaigns as in the case of “day zero” in cities [104]. A study that explores
wellbeing correlations with each type could provide valuable insight into wellbeing and human–nature
relationships and impetus for where to focus psychological interventions. Investigating how types
perceive risk would be useful for climate change strategies.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.-P. and A.T.; data curation, A.M.-P.; investigation, A.M.-P.;
methodology, A.M.-P. and A.T.; supervision, A.T.; validation, A.T.; writing—original draft, A.M.-P.; writing—review
and editing, A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by a Southern African Systems Analysis Centre (SASAC) scholarship and
the publication was supported by a University of Witwatersrand Humanities Faculty publication grant.
Acknowledgments: Psychtech for the free use of the JTI and Nudge Now for the use of their online survey platform.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees Celsius; IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-92-9169-151-7. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ (accessed on
29 October 2018).
2. Fisher, A. Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the Service of Life; Suny Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
ISBN 978-1438444765.
3. Wynes, S.; Nicholas, K.A. The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss
the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 074024. [CrossRef]
4. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
24 of 28
5. Baillie, R. Applied Ecopsychology in Australia: Approaches to Facilitating Human-Nature Connections.
Gaterings: Seeking Ecopsychology. 8 August 2003. Available online: http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/
gatherings8/html/spirit/applied_baillie.html (accessed on 24 September 2014).
6. Beery, T.H.; Wolf-Watz, D. Nature to place: Rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 198–205. [CrossRef]
7. Colding, J.; Giusti, M.; Haga, A.; Wallhager, M.; Barthel, S. Enabling relationships with nature in cities.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4394. [CrossRef]
8. Vining, J.; Merrick, M.S.; Price, E.A. The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of
connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Res. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 15, 1–11.
9. Doty, D.H.; Glick, W.H. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding
and modeling. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 230–251. [CrossRef]
10. Fiss, P.D. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research.
Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [CrossRef]
11. Mandara, J. The typological approach in child and family psychology: A review of theory, methods,
and research. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 6, 129–146. [CrossRef]
12. McKelvey, B. Guidelines for the empirical classification of organisations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1975, 20, 509–525.
[CrossRef]
13. Collier, D.; LaPorte, J.; Seawright, J. Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic
rigor. Political Res. Q. 2012, 65, 217–232. [CrossRef]
14. Bailey, K.D. Constructing monothetic and polythetic typologies by the heuristic method. Sociol. Q. 1973, 14,
291–308. [CrossRef]
15. Kluge, S. Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Qual.
Soc. Res. 2000, 1, 1–11. Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001145 (accessed on
10 April 2020).
16. Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C. Global Warmings’ Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation
Analysis; Yale Project on Climate Change; Yale University and George Mason University: New Haven,
CT, USA, 2009.
17. Barnes, A.P.; Toma, L. A typology of dairy farmer perceptions towards climate change. Clim. Chang. 2012,
112, 507–522. [CrossRef]
18. Poortinga, W.; Darnton, A. Segmenting for sustainability: The development of a sustainability segmentation
model from a Welsh sample. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 221–232. [CrossRef]
19. Hall, M.P.; Lewis, N.A., Jr.; Ellsworth, P.C. Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably:
Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 56, 55–62. [CrossRef]
20. Bernstein, J.; Szuster, B. Beyond unidimensionality: Segmenting contemporary pro-environmental
worldviews through surveys and repertory grid analysis. Environ. Commun. 2018, 12, 1062–1076. [CrossRef]
21. Hunka, A.D.; de Groot, W.T.; Biela, A. Visions of nature in Eastern Europe: A Polish example. Environ. Values
2009, 18, 429–452. [CrossRef]
22. Buijs, A.E.; Fischer, A.; Rink, D.; Young, J.C. Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding
public representations of biodiversity. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2008, 4, 65–80. [CrossRef]
23. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). A Framework for Pro-Environmental
Behaviours. 2008. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/69277/pb13574-behaviours-report-080110.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2015).
24. MacDonald, E.; Harbrow, M.; Jack, S.; Kidd, J.; Wright, A.; Tuinder, P.; Poutasi, M. Segmenting urban populations
for greater conservation gains: A new approach targeting cobenefits is required. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019, 1, e101.
[CrossRef]
25. Kellert, S.R. American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. Int. J. Study Anim. Probl. 1980, 1,
87–119. Available online: https://animalstudiesrepository.org/ijsap/vol1/iss2/9 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
26. Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol.
2010, 24, 128–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Cini, F.; Leone, L.; Passafaro, P. Promoting ecotourism among young people: A segmentation strategy.
Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 87–106. [CrossRef]
28. Osherenko, G. Human/nature relations in the Arctic: Changing perspectives. Polar Rec. 1992, 28, 277–284.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
25 of 28
29. Balderjahn, I.; Peyer, M.; Seegebarth, B.; Wiedmann, K.; Weber, A. The many faces of sustainability-conscious
consumers: A category-independent typology. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 83–93. [CrossRef]
30. Douglas, M.; Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; Los Angeles,
CA, USA, 1982; ISBN 9780520050631.
31. Kahn, P.H.; Lourenço, O. Water, air, fire, and earth: A development study in Portugal of environmental
moral reasoning. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 405–430. [CrossRef]
32. Lenzen, M.; Sun, Y.; Faturay, F.; Ting, Y.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A. The carbon footprint of global tourism.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 522–528. [CrossRef]
33. Ndletyana, M. Middle-Class in South Africa: Significance, Role and Impact; BRICS Academic Forum: Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 2014.
34. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour:
A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [CrossRef]
35. Corner, A.; Markowitz, E.; Pidgeon, N. Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values.
WIREs Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 411–422. [CrossRef]
36. Sabini, M.A. CG Jung on Nature, Technology and Modern Life; North Atlantic Books: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008;
ISBN 1556433794.
37. Schwartz, S.H. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012, 2.
[CrossRef]
38. Dunlap, R.E. The New Environmental Paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ.
2008, 40, 3–17. [CrossRef]
39. Lewis, B.R. Influence of the Dominant Social Paradigm on Consumer Environmental Attitudes, Values and
Behaviors. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, 2009.
40. Schultz, P.W.; Shriver, C.; Tabanico, J.J.; Khazian, A.M. Implicit connections with nature. J. Environ. Psychol.
2004, 24, 31–42. [CrossRef]
41. Swim, J.; Clayton, S.; Doherty, T.; Gifford, R.; Howard, G.; Reser, J.; Weber, E. Psychol. and Global Climate
Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. A Report by the American
Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Interface between Psychology and Global Climate Change.
2009. Available online: http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx (accessed on
10 April 2020).
42. Tauber, P.G. An Exploration of the Relationships among Connectedness to Nature, Quality of Life, and Mental Health
(Unpublished Masters Dissertation); Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2012.
43. World Economic Forum. Global Risks 2014, 9th ed.; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014;
Available online: www.weforum.org/risks (accessed on 17 February 2015).
44. Ojala, A. What Makes Us Environmentally Friendly? Soc. Psychological Studies on Environmental Concern, Components
of Morality and Emotional Connectedness to Nature (Unpublished Academic Dissertation); University of Helsinki:
Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
45. Roszak, T. The Voice of the Earth: An Exploration of Ecopsychology; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA,
1992; ISBN 10 1890482803.
46. Semenya, D.K. The making and prevention of rain amongst the Pedi tribe of South Africa: A pastoral
response. HTS Theol. Stud. 2013, 69, 1–5. [CrossRef]
47. Berndt, A.; Gikonyo, L. Environmental concern behaviours in Africa: An exploratory study. J. Manag. Sustain.
2012, 2, 1. [CrossRef]
48. Herzog, T.; Pershing, J.; Baumert, K.A. Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International
Climate Policy. World Resources Institute, 2005. Available online: http://www.wri.org/publication/navigating-
numbers (accessed on 10 April 2020).
49. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). Greening Household Behaviour: The Role
of Public Policy; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2011.
50. Zarepour, Z. Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behaviour: An Application of a Choice Experiment in
the Netherlands; International Institute of Social Studies: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2012.
51. LeBaron, M. Cultural and Worldview Frames. Beyond Intractability; University of Colorado: Boulder,
CO, USA, 2003; Available online: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cultural-frames (accessed on
16 September 2015).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
26 of 28
52. Markowitz, E.M.; Goldberg, L.R.; Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”:
A personality perspective. J. Personal. 2012, 80, 81–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a
role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003,
56, 465–480. [CrossRef]
54. Milfont, T.L.; Sibley, C.G. The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the
individual and societal level. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 187–195. [CrossRef]
55. Hurst, M.; Dittmar, H.; Bond, R.; Kasser, T. Relationship between materialistic values and environmental
attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 257–269. [CrossRef]
56. Psytech. Jung Type Indicator: The Technical Manual. 1998. Available online: http://www.psytech.co.za/
images/PsytechSA/JTI/JTIMAN.PDF (accessed on 27 January 2015).
57. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [CrossRef]
58. Becker, J.; Engelbrecht, A.; Boonzaaier, M.; Finch, J.D.; Meiring, D.; Louw, G. The measurement of values:
A psychometric evaluation of the Schwartz Value Survey in the South African context. Manag. Dyn. 2017, 26,
21–41. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-a726d5659 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
59. Brandimonte, M.A.; Bruno, N.; Collina, S. Cognition. In Psychological Concepts: An International Historical
Perspective; Pawlik, P., d’Ydewalle, G., Eds.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2006; pp. 1–22. ISBN 13 978-1841695334.
60. Nilsson, A. The Psychology of Worldviews: Toward a Non-Reductive Science of Personality; Media-Tryck:
Sölvegatan, Sweden, 2013; ISBN 978-91-7473-553-6.
61. Hergenhahn, B.R. An Introduction to the History of Psychol, 3rd ed.; Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1997;
ISBN 9780534060725.
62. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological
paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [CrossRef]
63. Hawcroft, L.J.; Milfont, T.L. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30
years: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 143–158. [CrossRef]
64. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community
with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [CrossRef]
65. Rideout, B.E. The liberal arts and environmental awareness: Exploring endorsement of an environmental
worldview in college students. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2014, 9, 59–76. [CrossRef]
66. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993,
25, 322–348. [CrossRef]
67. Midgley, G. Ecology and the poverty of humanism: A critical systems perspective. Syst. Res. 1994, 11, 67–76.
[CrossRef]
68. Bandura, A. Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev.
2007, 2, 8–35. [CrossRef]
69. Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac and Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation; Oxford University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1948; ISBN 10 0195007778.
70. Shuey, H. The fundamental principles of typology. Psychol. Rev. 1937, 1, 170–182. [CrossRef]
71. Fransson, N.; Gärling, T. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research
findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 369–382. [CrossRef]
72. Williams, S.P.; Thondhlana, G.; Kua, H.W. Electricity use behaviour in a high-income neighbourhood in
Johannesburg, South Africa. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4571. [CrossRef]
73. McDonald, J.D. Measuring personality constructs: The advantages and disadvantages of self-reports,
informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire 2008, 1, 1–19.
74. Hine, C. Internet research and unobtrusive methods. Soc. Res. Update 2011, 61, 1–4.
75. StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System), Version 12. 2013. Available online: www.statsoft.com
(accessed on 10 April 2020).
76. Calinski, T.; Harabasz, J. A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Commun. Stat. 1974, 3, 1–27. [CrossRef]
77. Handgraaf, M.J.J.; Van Lidth de Jeude, M.A.; Appelt, K.C. Public praise vs. private pay: Effects of rewards
on energy conservation in the workplace. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 86–92. [CrossRef]
78. Kwan, V.S.Y.; Naidu, E.S.; Bixter, M.T. Controlling environmental crisis appraisal through knowledge,
vividness and timing. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 61, 93–100. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
27 of 28
79. Bullard, R.D.; Johnson, G.S. Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy
decision making. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 555–578. [CrossRef]
80. Chiro, G.D. Living environmentalism: Coalition politics, social reproduction, and environmental justice.
Environ. Politics 2008, 17, 276–298. [CrossRef]
81. Lertzman, R. Environmental Melancholia: Psychoanalytic Dimensions of Engagement; Routledge: London, UK,
2015; ISBN 10 9780415727990.
82. Zheng, Y.; Yoshino, R. Diversity patterns of attitudes toward nature and environment in Japan, USA,
and European nations. Behaviormetrika 2003, 30, 21–37. [CrossRef]
83. Pike, C.; Herr, M.; Minkow, D.; Weiner, H. The Ecological Roadmap: A Guide to American Social Values and
Environmental Engagement; Earthjustice: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–25. Available online: https:
//climateaccess.org/system/files/ReGreen%20The%20Ecological%20Roadmap.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2020).
84. Bauer, N.; Wallner, A.; Hunziker, M. The change of European landscapes: Human-nature relationships,
public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland.
J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2910–2920. [CrossRef]
85. Dwyer, W.O.; Leeming, F.C. Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment.
Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 275–321. [CrossRef]
86. Cohen, M.J. Reconnecting with Nature: Finding Wellness through Restoring Your Bond with the Earth; Ecopress:
Minnesota, MN, USA, 2007; ISBN 13 978-0963970527.
87. Bendell, J. Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy (IFLAS Occasional Paper). 2018.
Available online: https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
88. Lee, J.A.; Holden, S.S. Understanding determinants of environ-mentally conscious behavior. Psychol. Mark.
1999, 16, 373–392. [CrossRef]
89. Kahn, M.E.; Morris, E.A. Walking the walk: The association between community environmentalism and
green travel behavior. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 389–405. [CrossRef]
90. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.D.; Guagnano, G.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social
Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Huxley College on the Peninsulas. 1999. Available online:
https://cedar.wwu.edu/hcop_facpubs/1 (accessed on 15 February 2020).
91. Fischer, A.; Young, J.C. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity
management and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 271–282. [CrossRef]
92. Jordan, M. Nature and Therapy: Understanding Counseling and Psychotherapy in Outdoor Spaces; Routledge:
London, UK, 2015; ISBN 9780415854610.
93. Atkins, S.; Snyder, M. Nature-Based Expressive Arts Therapy: Integrating the Expressive Arts and Ecotherapy;
Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 13 978-1785927263.
94. Macy, J.; Brown, M. Coming Back to Life; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2014;
ISBN 10 0865717753.
95. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouring pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
96. Axon, S. “Keeping the ball rolling”: Addressing the enablers of, and barriers to, sustainable lifestyles.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 11–25. [CrossRef]
97. Glaeser, E.L. The supply of environmentalism: Psychological interventions and economics. Rev. Environ.
Econ. Policy 2014, 8, 208–229. [CrossRef]
98. Soper, K. Re-thinking the ‘good life’: The citizenship dimension of consumer disaffection with consumerism.
J. Consum. Cult. 2007, 7, 205–229. [CrossRef]
99. Andrews, N.; Hoggett, P. Facing up to Ecological Crisis: A Psycho Social Perspective from Climate Psychology.
In Facing Up to Climate Reality: Honesty, Disaster and Hope (Chapter 8); Foster, J., Ed.; Publishing Partnership:
London, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781907994944.
100. Berghöfer, U.; Rozzi, R.; Jax, K. Local versus global knowledge: Diverse perspectives on nature in the Cape
Horn biosphere reserve. Environ. Ethics 2008, 30, 273–294. [CrossRef]
101. Elgaaied, L. Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior: A suggested typology of
residents in France based on their recycling patterns. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 369–377. [CrossRef]
102. Sigmund, K. John Maynard Smith and Evolutionary Game Theory; IIASA Interim Report; IIASA: Laxenburg,
Austria, 2005; IR 05-076 2005.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7614
28 of 28
103. Neicu, D. Psychological game theory: A review of current literature. Rev. Bus. Econ. Lit. 2012, 57, 37–60.
104. Booysen, M.J.; Visser, M.; Burger, R. Temporal case study of household behavioural response to Cape Town’s
“Day Zero” using smart meter data. Water Res. 2019, 149, 414–420. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).