I need someone to write a research paper!
Ftaen
source1.pdf
Original Article
Need for Cognitive Closure and Political Ideology Predicting Pro-Environmental Preferences and Behavior
Angelo Panno,1 Giuseppe Carrus,1 Ambra Brizi,2 Fridanna Maricchiolo,1
Mauro Giacomantonio,2 and Lucia Mannetti2
1Department of Education, Experimental Psychology Laboratory, Roma Tre University, Roma, Italy 2Department of Social & Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Abstract: Little is known about epistemic motivations affecting political ideology when people make environmental decisions. In two studies, we examined the key role that political ideology played in the relationship between need for cognitive closure (NCC) and self-reported eco- friendly behavior. Study 1: 279 participants completed the NCC, pro-environmental, and political ideology measures. Mediation analyses showed that NCC was related to less pro-environmental behavior through more right-wing political ideology. Study 2: We replicated these results with a nonstudent sample (n = 240) and both social and economic conservatism as mediators. The results of Study 2 showed that social conservatism mediated the relationship between NCC and pro-environmental behavior. Finally, NCC was associated with pro- environmental attitude through both social and economic conservatism.
Keywords: need for cognitive closure, political ideology, pro-environmental behavior, environmental attitude, conservatism, cognition
Ecosystems are under pressure worldwide due to global phenomena and environmental changes such as global warming, biodiversity loss, depletion of fresh water, and population growth. Understanding how individuals react to the environmental crisis and take a position regarding environmental conservation policies is, therefore, a crucial challenge for the current political, scientific, and environ- mental agenda. To tackle the urgency of current environ- mental global issues adequately, there is widespread scientific and political consensus that individuals, groups, and communities must reduce their environmental foot- print in the very near term (e.g., Brewer & Stern, 2005; Schultz & Kaiser, 2012). What is needed at the individ- ual and societal level is, therefore, an increase in ecologi- cally responsible behavior (e.g., Clayton & Myers, 2015; Turaga, Howarth, & Borsuk, 2010). Empirical studies on the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior and climate change perception have outlined the role of several predic- tors, including political ideology as well as some proxy of conservative ideology such as social dominance (e.g., Carrus, Panno, & Leone, in press; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Milfont, Richter, Sibley, Wilson, & Fischer, 2013; Panno et al., 2018). To better understand the relation between political ideology and environmentalism individ- ual differences related to epistemic motivation should be
considered. The main aim of the present study is to exam- ine the relationship between people’s need for cognitive closure (NCC; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) and eco- friendly behavior, as well as the key role that political ideology may play in this relationship. In the following sections, we briefly discuss recent literature findings con- necting political ideology to pro-environmental behavior on the one hand, and connecting NCC to political ideology, on the other hand.
Political Ideology and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Many findings converge to show that a left-wing or liberal political ideology is positively linked to pro-environmental behavior, while a right-wing or conservative orientation is negatively linked to it (e.g., Carrus et al., in press; Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Neumayer, 2004; Zia, & Todd, 2010, Panno, Carrus, Maricchiolo, & Mannetti, 2015). More specifically, a number of studies have shown that liberals have a stronger environmental concern than conserva- tives. For example, liberals show stronger support for pro- environmental legislation and regulation (Allen, Castano, & Allen, 2007; Cottrell, 2003; Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano,
� 2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000333
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
1998; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984), and show greater con- cern for global climate change (e.g., Carrus et al., in press; Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Neumayer, 2004; Zia & Todd, 2010; Panno et al., 2015).
Earlier studies hypothesized some reasons for this (e.g., Dunlap, 1975). Conservatives support business and industry that do not usually support environmental reform. In addition, conservatives might often oppose environ- mental reform because they entail an extension of govern- ment activities and regulations over individual will and actions (Dunlap, 1975; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; Howell & Laska, 1992; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994). On the other hand, environmentalism usually entails the promotion of environmental justice, rejection of discrimination against vulnerable groups, and holds concern for the welfare of future generations and nonhuman species, along with the preservation of the natural landscape (Forgas & Jolliffe, 1994; Sabbagh, 2005). These values are more characteristic of a liberal, rather than a conservative, ideology, which supports an industrial and capitalist social order, and shows resistance to massive societal changes that alter the status quo (McCright & Dunlap, 2010). Despite the consistency of these findings, not enough attention has been paid to the psychological ante- cedents of political ideology, to explain their role as key predictors of pro-environmental behavior through people’s ideologies.
Need for Cognitive Closure and Political Ideology
The need for cognitive closure (NCC) represents a person- ality disposition that encompasses individual differences in information processing (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994; see Roets, Kruglanski, Kossowska, Pierro, & Hong, 2015, for a recent review). It has been defined as people’s desire for a firm answer to a question, any firm answer, as opposed to confusion and/or ambiguity (Kruglanski, 2004, p. 6). Thus, it can be considered a psychological need to limit ambiguity and to intrinsically find ambiguous situa- tions unpleasant (Roets & Van Hiel, 2011b; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). In fact, people showing a stronger ten- dency for chronic use of NCC prefer order, predictability, avoid uncertainty, and they are close-minded, as well as intolerant of ambiguity (e.g., Dhont, Roets, & Van Hiel, 2011; Kruglanski, 1989; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011a, 2011b). The NCC represents a motivational disposition making people reluctant to accept information inconsistent with their beliefs and opinions. Accordingly, individuals feel stressed when this inconsistency occurs (e.g., Roets & Van Hiel, 2008).
For the reasons discussed above, NCC is generally consid- ered a factor that heavily affects individuals’ epistemic motivation, that is, the willingness to hold a rich and accu- rate view of the world (Kruglanski, 1989).
Since the mid-1990s, the NCC has been studied exten- sively, examining its impact on individual, interpersonal, and group processes (Roets et al., 2015). One of the most interesting theoretical developments, among the many derived from NCC theory, is the motivated social cognition model proposed by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway (2003), that focuses on the relationship between cognitive functioning and conservative beliefs. According to this model, people who avoid uncertain situations and are risk averse find conservative ideologies appealing because they preserve the status quo (Jost et al., 2003, 2007). Jost and colleagues (2003) proposed the need for closure as a motivated cognitive factor that provides a conceptual link to conservative ideology. Many studies have indeed found a relation between NCC and a right-wing political ideology (e.g., Chirumbolo, Areni, & Sensales, 2004; Kemmelmeier, 1997; Ksiazkiewicz, Ludeke, & Krueger, 2016; Onraet, Van Hiel, Roets, & Cornelis, 2011). The pioneering genetic study by Ksiazkiewicz et al. (2016) also demonstrated that individuals’ NCC can be heritable. Their work supports previous research positing that personality dispositions emerge very early in life, while political atti- tudes are not particularly coherent at early ages, then begin to emerge in adolescence and grow in stability up through early adulthood (e.g., Hatemi et al., 2009; Jennings & Markus, 1984; Jennings, Stoker, & Bowers, 2009; McCrae et al., 2000; Sears & Funk, 1999). In sum, this suggests that NCC is a precursor of right-wing political ideology rather than the other way round. With regard to the present studies, Chirumbolo and colleagues (2004) found that high NCC individuals (vs. low NCC) showed a right-wing political affiliation in the Italian context. Moreover, closed-minded people exhibited a preference for autocratic leadership and centralized forms of political power, as well as stronger antiimmigrant attitudes and nationalism. In sum, several authors have claimed that various motives drive people’s worldviews, including epistemic motives to manage complexity, reduce uncertainty, and address ambiguity, which are captured, in large part, by cognitive style such as the NCC (e.g., Jost et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Ksiazkiewicz et al., 2016; Roets et al., 2015). We build upon this approach to investigate the relationships between NCC, political ideology, and pro- environmental behavior. In the following section, we discuss recent studies that suggest a connection between epistemic motivation and eco-friendly behavior (i.e., Barbaro, Pickett, & Parkhill, 2015; Nisbet, Hart, Myers, & Ellithorpe, 2013).
Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 � 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
104 A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Epistemic Motivation and Eco-Friendly Attitude
To the best of our knowledge, there are only two studies relating other variables that are typically associated with epistemic motivation to an eco-friendly attitude. In the first (Nisbet et al., 2013), people’s open-/closed-mindedness has been shown to moderate the effects of competitive (i.e., including arguments in favor and against a climate change mitigation policy) versus noncompetitive (i.e., including only arguments in favor of such a policy) messages on the perceived costs and benefits of government climate policies.
Results of this study showed that especially for open- rather than closed-minded individuals, viewing the compet- itive message resulted in a favorable cost-benefit calculus, leading to increased support for climate change mitigation policy. These results are interesting for communication campaigns dealing with climate change phenomena, but say little about the relationship between NCC and pro- environmental behavior itself, as well as the role that people’s political ideology plays in this relationship.
Other work (Barbaro et al., 2015) examined the impact of need for cognition, which reflects the extent to which one actively seeks information and enjoys critical thinking, on pro-environmental goal choice. Barbaro and colleagues’ results showed that need for cognition has a positive impact on pro-environmental goal choice through environmental attitude. Need for cognition is theoretically distinct from NCC, as it represents an individual orientation toward a certain type of mental process (i.e., systematic, effortful cog- nition) aimed at forming beliefs regardless of their content, whereas the need for cognitive closure is considered an ori- entation toward reaching a stable conclusion with minimal ambiguity, which may require heuristic processing in some situations and systematic processing in others (Jost et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Roets et al., 2015). For researchers, these differences give rise to different mecha- nisms underlying people’s behavior and deserve to be exam- ined separately (e.g., Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Roets et al., 2015). Taken together, the results of these studies (i.e., Barbaro et al., 2015; Nisbet et al., 2013) represent a first attempt to shed light on the relationship between epistemic motivations and the pro-environmental domain. Nonethe- less, Nisbet et al. (2013) focused on the relationship between a facet of NCC and climate change policies but they did not use a measure of pro-environmental behavior. On the other hand, Barbaro et al. (2015) used a pro-environmental attitude measure but focusing on the construct of need for cognition. Thus, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies investigating these relationships using either a measure of NCC or measures of pro-environmental prefer- ences and behavior. The current research sought to fill such a gap (see below for more details).
The Present Study
Social and political psychology have provided theoretical arguments and coherent empirical results suggesting that an epistemic motivation, such as the NCC, can be a relevant psychological antecedent of conservative ideology and right- wing political orientation (see Ksiazkiewicz et al., 2016, for more details). As shown through environmental psychology, these political beliefs have been frequently identified as proximal factors of an antienvironmental stance, linked to individual and group reactions such as denial of climate change, opposition to environmental conservation policies, and reluctance to undertake behavioral and lifestyle changes that go in the direction of a reduced environmental footprint (e.g., Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Taken together these lines of research suggest that a potential link between NCC and pro-environmental preferences and behavior could be explained through political ideology. The theoretical account behind the hypotheses of the present research is that high NCC individuals encompass a conservative political stance, which does not pay attention to environmental policies, and in turn, such a stance reflects the way they behave. In other words, these individuals are averse to change, and accord- ingly, they might envisage certain behavioral changes (e.g., pro-environmental preferences and behavior) as a deviation from the status quo. Moreover, such behavioral changes might also be seen as possible factors in the undermin- ing of conservative policies supporting the status quo. Thus, drawing on social and environmental psychological research, in the current work, we present two studies testing the following hypotheses: first, we expected that disposi- tional NCC is related to pro-environmental preferences and behavior through people’s political ideology (Study 1). Specifically, we hypothesized that individuals showing a higher NCC would also report a conservative political ideol- ogy, which in turn, is negatively related to pro-environmental preferences and behavior. Second, we expected that the social dimension of political ideology, and not the economic dimension, would mediate the relationship between NCC and pro-environmental preferences and behavior (Study 2).
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure Two hundred and seventy-nine undergraduate students at two university campuses participated in the study (Mage = 22.95; SD = 2.48; range = 19–31 years; 60% women). The aim of collecting data across two university campuses including different faculties (i.e., Psychology, Engineering, Educational Studies, Economics and Business, Law) was
� 2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112
A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior 105
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
twofold. First, this procedure allowed us to recruit partici- pants with political ideologies ranging between liberal and conservative. Second, recruiting participants across differ- ent faculties of these two university campuses helped to better balance gender. The questionnaires were adminis- tered in public areas of the campuses and took about 15 min to complete. Data were collected through an online questionnaire administered by trained assistants. Partici- pants individually completed the questionnaire on a laptop. They were assured the anonymity of their responses. The online survey included demographic information, the need for cognitive closure scale, political ideology, and pro- environmental measures, and other scales unrelated to the goals of the current study (i.e., regulatory focus, trait emotional intelligence, and empathy).
Measures The Need for Closure was measured using the Italian NCC version developed by Pierro and Kruglanski (2005). The scale is composed of 14 items that loaded on singular factor score. Responses to the items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 5 (= strongly agree), with higher scores indicating a greater need to attain cogni- tive closure. In this sample, the internal consistency was .76. To measure pro-environmental preferences and behav- ior, we used 17 items measuring people’s tendency to endorse pro-environmental preferences and behavior (e.g., recycle paper, plastic, and metal, see the Electronic Supple- mentary Material ESM 1 for an overview of these items). Some items were borrowed and adapted from the Student Environmental Behavior Scale (Markowitz, Goldberg, Ashton, & Lee, 2012). This measure assesses eco-friendly activities that people adopt in order to reduce their ecolog- ical footprint. A composite score of these 17 items indicated participants’ pro-environmental preferences and behavior. The internal consistency of this measure in this sample was α = .72. Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert type scale, with the response anchored at the ends with 1 (= strongly disagree) and 5 (= strongly agree). Self-placement on the left-right (liberal-conservative) dimension was measured by the following item: “Considering the current political context in Italy, how would you describe your political orientation?” A 5-point scale was used (1 = left, 2 = center-left, 3 = center, 4 = center-right, and 5 = right).
Results
The zero-order correlations between need for cog- nitive closure, political ideology, and pro-environmental
preferences and behavior are presented in Table S1 of ESM 1.
To investigate our hypotheses of the relationships between need for cognitive closure, political ideology, and pro-environmental preferences and behavior, we used regression analyses in which we control for gender and university campus. Gender is known to be related to pro- environmental behavior (e.g., Panno et al., 2015; Unanue, Vignoles, Dittmar, & Vansteenkiste, 2016). Students at dif- ferent campuses could differ in relevant variables, thus it is important to control for these variables as well. The results of these analyses are presented in Figure 1. In a regression model controlling for gender and university campus, the relationship between NCC and political ideology was posi- tive, β = .15, p < .05; Bunstandardized = .03, 95% CI [.006, .046], meaning that people high in NCC had a more right-wing political ideology. In this regression model hav- ing political ideology as the outcome variable, gender and university campus were found to have nonsignificant effects, p = .244 and p = .626, respectively. In a similar regression model with pro-environmental preferences and behavior as the outcome variable, the relationship between NCC and pro-environmental preferences and behavior was negative and marginally significant, β = �.11, p = .061; Bunstandardized = �.13, 95% CI [�.267, .007]. When we added political ideology as a predictor to this model, polit- ical ideology had a negative relationship with pro-environ- mental preferences and behavior (β = �.18, p < .01; Bunstandardized = �1.27, 95% CI [�2.077, �0.468]) and the Bunstandardized coefficient for NCC dropped from �.13 to �.10 (see Figure 1 for more details). In line with previous studies (e.g., Panno et al., 2015; Unanue et al., 2016), we found a significant effect of gender on pro-environmental preferences and behavior (β = �.19, p < .01; Bunstandardized = �3.53, 95% CI [�5.67, �1.39]), with men being less envi- ronmentally oriented than women. The university campus was found to have a nonsignificant effect (p = .414). To understand the mechanisms underlying the relation- ships between need for closure, political ideology, and pro-environmental preferences and behavior, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), which tested our mediation hypothesis. The mediation model was esti- mated to derive the total, direct, and indirect associations of need for closure with pro-environmental preferences and behavior through political ideology. Since participants’ gender and/or university campus could influence the rela- tionships investigated, we therefore tested a mediation model that included gender (women coded as 1 and men coded as 2) and university campus as covariates
1 Hayes and other authors (e.g., MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000) recommend that “researchers not require a significant total effect before proceeding with tests of indirect effects. A failure to test for indirect effects in the absence of a total effect can lead to you miss some potentially interesting, important, or useful mechanisms by which X exerts some kind of effect on Y” (Hayes, 2009, p. 414).
Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 � 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
106 A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
(see Hayes, 2013, for this procedure). We estimated the indirect effect of need for closure on pro-environmental preferences and behavior, quantified as the product of the OLS regression coefficient estimating political ideology from need for closure controlling for covariates (path a in Figure 1, and the OLS regression coefficient estimating pro-environmental preferences and behavior from political ideology, controlling for need for closure, as well as covari- ates (path b in Figure 1). Using the PROCESS macro with 5,000 bootstrap samples, our results revealed a signifi- cant negative indirect effect of need for closure on pro- environmental preferences and behavior through political ideology (point estimate = �0.033; 95% CI [�0.076, �0.008]). As gender was related to pro-environmental preferences and behavior, we tested a further model includ- ing participants’ gender and need for cognitive closure as the independent variables of the mediation model (political ideology = mediator; pro-environmental preferences and behavior = dependent variable; university campus = covari- ate) in order to understand whether gender was also related to pro-environmental preferences and behavior through political ideology. We did not find a significant association of gender with pro-environmental preferences and behavior through political ideology (point estimate = �0.242; 95% CI [�0.864, 0.127]). These results will be discussed together with the results from Study 2.
Study 2
Study 1 showed that NCC is related to pro-environmental preferences and behavior through a general measure of political ideology. Study 2 included two dimensions of polit- ical ideology (i.e., social and economic dimensions) to rule out the possibility that a general measure of the political ideology might mask a specific indirect effect of one of these dimensions. Moreover, in Study 2, we measured
pro-environmental attitude as well as pro-environmental behavior through two reliable and standardized measures (i.e., The environmental attitude inventory, Milfont & Duckitt, 2010; General ecological behavior, Kaiser, 1998) in order to test our hypothesized model for both of these outcomes separately. More specifically, in continuity with the previous study, we used a measure to assess rather con- crete, daily pro-environmental preferences and behavior, but we also added a new scale tapping more into the gen- eral attitude toward the environment and the importance of its preservation. This adds a new perspective and new information, since concrete behavioral tendencies tend to be affected to a great extent by contextual constraints (e.g., rules, habits, influence of peers) which could be very influential (especially) for high need for closure individuals. General attitude, in contrast, is more likely to reflect a stance toward environmental issues that will be less likely affected by contextual factors. Finally, to rule out possible alternative explanations based on sampling artifacts, the second study was conducted using a nonstudent sample.
Method
Participants and Procedure Two hundred and forty participants from the United States were recruited through Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for this purpose (Mage = 36.80; SD = 11.20; range = 19–74 years; 50% women).
Participants completed a brief questionnaire on Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk online survey program. According to Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gosling (2011), MTurk partici- pants are significantly more diverse than typical college samples; realistic compensation rates do not affect data quality; the data obtained are at least as reliable as those obtained via traditional methods. The online survey included demographic information as well as the following questionnaires.
a = .03*; SE = .01
Political Ideology
Pro-Environme ntal Preferences/Behavior
c' = -.10; SE = .07
Need for Cognitive Closure
c = -.13†; SE = .07
b = -1.27**; SE = .41
Figure 1. Path coefficients for mediation analysis in Study 1. Dotted line denotes the effect of need for cognitive closure on pro- environmental behavior, when polit- ical ideology is not included as a mediator. a, b, c, and c0 are unstan- dardized OLS regression coeffi- cients. †p = .06; *p < .05; **p < .01.
� 2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112
A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior 107
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Measures Need for Closure The Need for Closure was measured with the short version scale developed by Roets and Van Hiel (2011b). The scale constitutes a 15-item measure in which these items load in a singular factor score (e.g., “I don’t like situations that are uncertain”; “I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways”). Responses to items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (= strongly dis- agree) to 5 (= strongly agree), with higher scores indicating a greater need to attain cognitive closure (α = .91; M = 3.49, SD = 0.76).
Pro-Environmental Attitude We measured pro-environmental attitude through the Environmental Attitudes Inventory (EAI – 24 items form; Milfont & Duckitt, 2010; see ESM 1, for an overview of these items). Sample items include: “Humans are severely abusing the environment.” A composite score of these 24 items indicated participants’ pro-environmental attitude. Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert type scale, with the response anchored at the ends with 1 (= strongly disagree) and 5 (= strongly agree) (α = .88; M = 3.46, SD = 0.64).
Pro-Environmental Preferences and Behavior We measured pro-environmental preferences and behavior through General Ecological Behavior scale (GEB; Kaiser, 1998). It is a 38-item scale that is able to measure ecological behavior across cultures (Kaiser, 1998). As this measure contains eight items referring to general prosocial behavior (e.g., Sometimes I give change to panhandlers) then, to rule out potential confounding factors, we excluded such items from analyses (see ESM 1, for an overview of the items used). We computed a composite score of these 30 items indicating participants’ pro-environmental preferences and behavior (e.g., “I bring empty bottles to a recycling bin,” “I prefer to shower rather than to take a bath,” “Usually I do not drive my automobile in the city,” “In the winter, I keep the heat on so that I do not have to wear a sweater”; see ESM 1). Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert type scale, with the response anchored at the ends with 1 (= strongly disagree) and 5 (= strongly agree) (α = .79; M = 3.05, SD = 0.51).
Economic and Social Political Ideology These were assessed using economic and social items (Federico, Ergun, & Hunt, 2014). Participants responded to the following items: “How would you describe your political outlook with regard to economic issues?” and “How would you describe your political outlook with regard to social issues?” (M = 2.91, SD = 1.20, and M = 2.51, SD = 1.18, respectively; see Federico et al., 2014, for a similar procedure). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (= strongly liberal) to 5 (= strongly conservative), so higher responses to both indicated greater conservatism.
Results
To investigate the relationships between need for cognitive closure, social and economic dimensions of political ideol- ogy, as well as pro-environmental outcomes, we computed zero-order correlations among these variables (see Table S2 in ESM 1). A strong need for closure was significantly and positively related to both dimensions of conservative polit- ical ideology. By contrast, a strong need for closure was significantly and negatively associated with pro-environ- mental behavior, only. No significant association between need for closure and pro-environmental attitude emerged. Our results also showed that pro-environmental attitude and behavior were significantly and negatively related to both dimensions of conservative political ideology. Finally, these results showed that pro-environmental attitude and behavior were significantly and positively correlated with each other (see Table S2 in ESM 1 for descriptive statistics).
To test our hypotheses concerning the relationships between NCC, political ideology and pro-environmental outcomes, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), which simultaneously tested the role of both social and economic dimensions of political ideology as media- tors. Such models included as outcomes the measures of pro-environmental preferences and behavior (i.e., Model 1) and pro-environmental attitude (i.e., Model 2), respec- tively. Moreover, these models included gender (coded as in Study 1, see above) as a covariate. Mediating analyses of Model 1 revealed significant indirect effects of the NCC on pro-environmental preferences and behavior through social conservatism (point estimate = �0.082, BC 95% CI [�0.164, �0.027]). By contrast, the economic dimension of the political ideology did not show a mediat- ing effect between NCC and pro-environmental prefer- ences and behavior (point estimate = �0.029, BC 95% CI [�0.092, 0.005]; see Table 1). These results replicate Study 1’s results.
Mediating analyses of the Model 2 revealed significant indirect effects of the NCC on pro-environmental attitude through both social (point estimate = �0.118, BC 95% CI [�0.206, �0.057]) and economic (point estimate = �0.053, BC 95% CI [�0.124, �0.014]) dimensions of the political ideology. The effect of NCC on pro-environmental attitude moves from a negative direction to a positive direc- tion when controlling for both social and economic dimen- sions of the political ideology (see Table 1). This finding is consistent with a suppression pattern. More specifically, contrary to a typical mediation pattern in which controlling
Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 � 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
108 A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
for the mediator reduces the magnitude of the association between the independent and the dependent variables (IV and DV), a suppression is present when the magnitude of the association between the IV and DV is stronger after controlling for the suppressor (MacKinnon et al., 2000). In other words, the positive direct association between need for closure and pro-environmental attitude (i.e., c0 coeffi- cient in Table 1) was apparently suppressed by political ideology. Gender was nonsignificant in both models (p > .1).
General Discussion
These studies investigate the relationships between need for closure, political ideology (in its social and economic dimensions), and pro-environmental outcomes. Taken together, these results suggest that dispositional NCC is associated with a conservative political ideology, which in turn, is related to pro-environmental outcomes. In compar- ison to earlier studies (e.g., Barbaro et al., 2015; Nisbet et al., 2013), this study is the first to show a relationship between need for closure and pro-environmental outcomes through specific facets of conservative political ideology. Moreover, these results extend previous research in the following ways: First, previous research investigating the relationship between epistemic motivation and pro- environmental outcomes focused on the need for cognition (Barbaro et al., 2015) or climate change policies (Nisbet et al., 2013). To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies investigating these relationships using either a mea- sure of NCC or measures of pro-environmental preferences and behavior. Thus, the current research sought to fill this gap indicating a relationship between dispositional NCC and pro-environmental preferences and behavior. Second, the present studies shed light on a mechanism underlying this relationship as they identify people’s social conser- vatism as a key factor playing a mediation role in this connection. More precisely, Study 1 shows that political ideology in general mediates the relationship between NCC and pro-environmental behavior. In Study 2, the rela- tionship between NCC and pro-environmental behavior
was mediated by social conservatism and not by economic conservatism. The stronger role of one type of conservatism over the other should come as no surprise considering that previous work clearly indicates that NCC is more strongly associated with social rather than economic conservatism (Federico et al. 2014).
The fact that the overall mediational model holds through two reliable and standardized measures of pro- environmental behavior increases confidence in the belief that our findings substantiate a broad-spectrum model that could be highly generalizable to several types of environ- mental-related outcomes.
It should also be noted that in Study 2 the correlation of NCC with pro-environmental attitude is nonsignificant and much weaker than the correlation of NCC with pro- environmental preferences and behavior. In addition, whereas the indirect effects of NCC through social and economic conservatism on pro-environmental attitude are consistent with the indirect effects for pro-environmental behavior, the pattern for pro-environmental attitude sug- gests the presence of a suppression rather than a mediation. More specifically, when conservatism was controlled for, the tendency toward a negative association between NCC and pro-environmental attitude changed direction (but remained nonsignificant). This suggests, that when social and economic concerns are ruled out, a positive attitude toward nature tends to emerge. Speculating on these find- ings, we suspect that the pro-environmental attitude mea- sure incorporates both elements that are consistent and inconsistent with the view endorsed by need for closure individuals, thus leading to a weak overall effect and to the aforementioned suppression. For example, high NCC individuals could be favorable to altering the environ- ment to support humans’ interests and yet, at the same time, acknowledge that this constitutes a loss of a heritage that, in many cases, might be considered a source of identification. Likewise, closed-minded people might support the preserva- tion of some natural sites because this would prevent more chaotic human activities (e.g., water sports on a lake) which might even increase their concern for order and reduce the ease of processing that typically characterizes the naturalis- tic domain (Kaplan & Berman, 2010). These speculations
Table 1. Path coefficients for mediation analyses in Study 2
Political ideology Path coefficients
Dimension – mediator a (SE) b (SE) c (SE) c0 (SE)
Model 1 – Outcome variable Social .03 (.01)*** �2.60 (1.01)* �.19 (.09)* �.08 (.09) Pro-environmental preferences and behavior Economic .02 (.01)** �1.52 (1.07) �.19 (.09)* �.08 (.09)
Model 2 – Outcome variable Social .03 (.01)*** �3.76 (0.94)*** �.04 (.08) .12 (.08) Pro-environmental attitude Economic .02 (.01)** �2.83 (1.00)** �.04 (.08) .12 (.08)
Notes. a = the effect of NCC on respective mediator; b = the effect of mediators on respective outcome; c = the effect of NCC on respective outcome, when mediators are not included; c0 = the effect of NCC on respective outcome, when mediators are included. a, b, c, and c0 are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
� 2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112
A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior 109
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
are based on weak trends and future studies need to inves- tigate more directly whether, among high NCC individuals, some ambivalence actually exists.
Our results are consistent with social psychology research, that recognizes NCC as a driver of conservative political ideology because such a factor represents a process rooted in more basic psychological needs (e.g., Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009). Broadly speaking, the results of the present research increase our knowledge, shedding light on antecedents and consequences of political ideology about a relevant phenomenon that is garnering the attention of a number of scholars across different fields of psychological science (i.e., the reduction of ecological footprint). Up until now, little attention has been paid to epistemic motivation as a precursor of pro-environmental behavior, which could potentially have a broad societal impact (see Bamberg & Möser, 2007, for a review). The present study offers fruitful insights into the connections between epistemic motivation and political ideology in predicting environmentally friendly activities.
The present research focuses on a dispositional associa- tion of NCC with pro-environmental behavior through social conservatism but these associations need to be supported by further empirical evidence. For example, future research should use experimental manipulations inducing a situa- tional effect of NCC on pro-environmental outcomes to shed light on a possible situational effect of such a factor on these outcomes. Even so, although the cross-sectional nature of the studies does not allow causal inferences, our results provide relevant insights into the relationships between NCC, social and economic dimensions of political ideology, as well as pro-environmental outcomes. Further studies are needed to also explore more extensively whether and how the impact of the NCC on pro-environmental behavior itself could be influenced by other personal and/ or situational variables. Although it was beyond the scope of the present research to investigate all of these aspects, we could consider some possible additional factors of inter- est. Some authors (e.g., Onraet et al., 2011; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011a) have shown that NCC is positively related to people’s social dominance orientation. From a different line of research, other authors have shown that the social dominance orientation is negatively related to pro- environmental behavior and belief in global climate change (Carrus et al., in press; Milfont et al., 2013; Panno et al., 2018). Thus, from a theoretical perspective it could be interesting to investigate whether social dominance could represent a further mediator in these relationships.
Our findings also have practical implications for policy makers who seek to stimulate pro-environmental behavior. Our research has revealed that there is a relationship between a dispositional need for closure and
pro-environmental behavior, with social conservatism as a mediator. One implication of these findings would be that need for closure can act as a lever for policy makers to stim- ulate pro-environmental behavior. In fact, policy makers, taking into account that a significant proportion of people have a chronically high need for closure, might design communication campaigns presenting pro-environmental behavior as the default option, the habitual choice of the majority of citizens in order to persuade high NCC citizens to also adopt them. On the other hand, since need for closure can also be induced by situational factors such as feelings of uncertainty (e.g., Brizi, Mannetti, & Kruglanski, 2016), time pressure (e.g., De Grada, Kruglanski, Mannetti, & Pierro, 1999), and cognitive load (e.g., Chirumbolo, Brizi, Mastandrea, & Mannetti, 2014; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002), policy makers could take into account these aspects in designing social policies and daily life settings that help to prevent the occurrence of high need for closure.
To conclude, our results increase the knowledge about the need for cognitive closure theory (e.g., Kruglanski, 2004; Roets et al., 2015; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) and are also relevant for research that relies on political ide- ology in predicting pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Dun- lap, Xiao, & McCright, 2001; Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Mercado-Doménech, Carrus, Terán-Álvarez-Del-Rey, & Pirchio, 2017). More broadly speaking, investigations using paradigms that include the NCC promise novel insight into the connections between epistemic motivation and pro-environmental behavior across various fields including social psychology, as well as environmental research.
Electronic Supplementary Material The electronic supplementary material is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1864-9335/a000333
ESM 1. Texts and Tables (.pdf) Items used to measure pro-environmental preferences and behavior and attitude in Studies 1 and 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among variables investi- gated in Studies 1 and 2.
References
Allen, R. S., Castano, E., & Allen, P. D. (2007). Conservatism and concern for the environment. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 30, 1–25.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Envi- ronmental Psychology, 27, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 � 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
110 A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Barbaro, N., Pickett, S. M., & Parkhill, M. R. (2015). Environmental attitudes mediate the link between need for cognition and pro-environmental goal choice. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 75, 220–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.032
Brewer, G. D., & Stern, P. C. (2005). Decision making for the environment: Social and behavioral science research priorities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brizi, A., Mannetti, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2016). The closing of open minds: Need for closure moderates the impact of uncertainty salience on outgroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12131
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221. 2008.00668.x
Carrus, G., Panno, A., & Leone, L. (in press). The moderating role of interest in politics on the relations between conservative political orientation and denial of climate change. Society & Natural Resources.
Chirumbolo, A., Areni, A., & Sensales, G. (2004). Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes and attributional style. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 245–253. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00207590444000005
Chirumbolo, A., Brizi, A., Mastandrea, S., & Mannetti, L. (2014). “Beauty is no quality in things themselves”: Epistemic moti- vation affects implicit preferences for art. PLoS one, 9, e110323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110323
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Under- standing and promoting human care for nature (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior, 35, 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003003
De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1376
Dhont, K., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Opening closed minds: The combined effects of intergroup contact and need for closure on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 37, 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211399101
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–471. https://doi. org/10.1177/001391659803000402
Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions. Environment and Behav- ior, 7, 428–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657500700402
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Repub- lican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013–1028.
Dunlap, R. E., Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000580
Federico, C. M., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2014). Opposition to equality and support for tradition as mediators of the relationship between epistemic motivation and system-justifying identifi- cations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213517273
Forgas, J. P., & Jolliffe, C. D. (1994). How conservative are greenies? Environmental attitudes, conservatism, and traditional morality among university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049539408259486
Gamba, R. J., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior, 26, 587–612. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013916594265001
Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2009). Genetic and environ- mental transmission of political attitudes over a life time. Journal of Politics, 71, 1141–1156. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022381609090938
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvp.2015.11.002
Howell, S. E., & Laska, S. B. (1992). The changing face of the envi- ronmental coalition: A research note. Environment and Behavior, 24, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592241006
Jennings, M. K., & Markus, G. B. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study. American Political Science Review, 78, 1000–1018. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955804
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. Journal of Poli- tics, 71, 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090719
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.60.110707.163600
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.129.3.339
Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 989– 1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301028
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavioral. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395–422. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x
Kaplan, S., & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 43–57. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691609356784
Kemmelmeier, M. (1997). Need for closure and political orientation among German university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 787–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595501
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.106.3.395
� 2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112
A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior 111
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of the closed mindedness. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and” freezing”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
Ksiazkiewicz, A., Ludeke, S., & Krueger, R. (2016). The Role of cognitive style in the link between genes and political ideology. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1111/pops.12318
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equiva- lence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1026595011371
Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80, 81–111. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D., . . . Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture & Society, 27, 100–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001
Mercado-Doménech, S. J., Carrus, G., Terán-Álvarez-Del-Rey, A., & Pirchio, S. (2017). Valuation theory: An environmental, developmental and evolutionary psychological approach. Implications for the field of environmental education. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 16, 77–97. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2017-016-merc
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the struc- ture of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009. 09.001
Milfont, T. L., Richter, I., Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Fischer, R. (2013). Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1127–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490805
Neumayer, E. (2004). The environment, left-wing political orienta- tion and ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 51, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.006
Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/ closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63, 766–785. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jcom.12040
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). The closed mind: “Experience” and “cognition” aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 25, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.775
Panno, A., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., & Mannetti, L. (2015). Cognitive reappraisal and pro-environmental behavior: The role of global climate change perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 858–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2162
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S., & Mannetti, L. (2018). Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: The mediating role of social dominance. Environment and Behavior. Advance on line publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887
Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Revised need for cognitive closure scale. Unpublished manuscript, Universita` di Roma, “La Sapienza”, Italy, Rome.
Roets, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Kossowska, M., Pierro, A., & Hong, Y. Y. (2015). Chapter four-the motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.01.2015.01.001
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2008). Why some hate to dilly-dally and others do not: The arousal-invoking capacity of decision- making for low-and high-scoring need for closure individuals. Social Cognition, 26, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco. 2008.26.3.333
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011a). Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411424894
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011b). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2010.09.004
Sabbagh, C. (2005). Environmentalism, right-wing extremism, and social justice beliefs among East German adolescents. Inter- national Journal of Psychology, 40, 118–131. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00207590544000095
Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environ- mental behavior. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647773
Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro- environmental behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.05163.x
Unanue, W., Vignoles, V. L., Dittmar, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016). Life goals predict environmental behavior: Cross-cultural and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp. 2016.02.001
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). The effects of ambiguity and need for closure on the acquisition of information. Social Cogni- tion, 20, 380–408. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.20.5.380.21124
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it's measured? Environment and Behav- ior, 13, 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581136001
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.67.6.1049
Zia, A., & Todd, A. M. (2010). Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: How to improve communication across ideological divides? Public Understanding of Science, 19, 743–761. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662509357871
Received April 17, 2016 Revision received November 4, 2017 Accepted November 6, 2017 Published online March 15, 2018
Angelo Panno Department of Education Roma Tre University Via Milazzo 11/b 00185 Rome Italy [email protected]
Social Psychology (2018), 49(2), 103–112 � 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
112 A. Panno et al., Need for Closure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
