The effects of climate change lead to increasing social injustice and hence justice is intrinsically linked to a socio-ecological transformation. In this study, we investigate whether justice sensitivity motivates pro-environmental intention (PEI) and behavior (PEB) and, if so, to what extent emotions and moral disengagement determine this process. For this purpose, we conducted two quota-sampling surveys (Study 1: N = 174, Study 2: N = 880). Multiple regression analyses in both studies suggest that a higher perception of injustice from a perpetrator’s, beneficiary’s, and observer’s perspective is associated with an increased PEI. However, moral disengagement best predicted PEB and PEI. Guilt and authentic pride were found to be emotional predictors of PEI. Additionally, mediation analyses demonstrated that guilt mediates the connection between both perpetrator and beneficiary sensitivity and PEI. These results suggest that when the predominant originators of climate change (i.e., individuals from industrialized countries) perceive global climate injustice from the perspective of a beneficiary or a perpetrator, they experience guilt and have a higher PEI. Based on this mechanism, it seems promising to render global injustice more salient to those responsible for activities that lead to climate change to motivate them to adapt their behavior. The role of moral disengagement and victim sensitivity as barriers to pro-environmental behavior is discussed in this context.

Pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) such as climate-friendly mobility and eating habits hold great promise in terms of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, thus, are important goals for addressing climate change from a population perspective. Yet, sociodemographic correlates and differences in PEB intentions have to be considered in designing messages and behavior change interventions. This study implemented a quota-sampling survey (N = 979, 511 women, 468 men, age M = 50.4, SD = 17.2) of the German population and found that, overall, participants exhibit strong intentions to engage in various PEBs, with the exception of cycling and adopting a vegetarian diet. Moreover, women displayed higher intentions to engage in PEBs compared to men, particularly in adopting a vegetarian diet. The relationships between socioeconomic status (SES) and PEB intentions, as well as the combined effects of gender and SES, were inconsistent for different PEB intentions. We conclude that on a population level, intention-building interventions are necessary for vegetarianism and cycling, while for the other PEBs, interventions may focus on closing the intention–behavior gap. There is a need to further research the interplay of different PEBs in diverse groups and for interventional studies targeting the discrepancy in eating habits across genders.

In this article, we address the climate crisis as a moral issue and discuss the relevant moral and emotional processes and the role of the media underlying the motivations of individuals to behave in a less carbon-emitting manner. We provide theoretical insights from social psychology and emotion research and empirical data based on an online survey from Germany (N = 979). In the theoretical part, we outline the role of emotions in influencing carbon-related behavior, with a particular focus on self-condemning (e.g., guilt or shame), self-praising (e.g., pride), or other-suffering emotions (e.g., empathy). We further summarize the reasons for the low influence of the media on carbon-related behavior compared to the COVID-19 pandemic. The empirical results confirm that participants reported other- suffering and self-condemning emotions in response to news content and rated their likelihood of personal behavior change as high when confronted with news about the climate crisis on a daily basis, as has been widely the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the media is responsible for regularly reporting on the victims of the climate crisis in order to generalize self-condemning and other-suffering emotions into affective attitudes. Opinion leaders can function as role models for low-carbon behavior.

To reach sustainability goals, researchers and policymakers must focus on addressing changes toward more pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Therefore, this study shows evidence-based perceptions of low- and high-cost behaviors and deduces recommendations for PEB interventions. We applied a multi-step mixed-method approach: First, a representative online survey was conducted to collect a general quantitative overview and classify low- and high-cost behavior based on past behavior and behavioral intentions. Second, a gamification intervention that aimed to gain quantitative data about certain behaviors and perceived low- and high-costs was conducted with university students. The results of the two studies showed that PEB can easily be categorized into high-, rather-high-, rather-low-, and low-cost behavior. However, this classification is not based on emission sectors, e.g., mobility, but on the specific behavior. Interventions can be recommended according to subjective costs: For example, low-cost behavior does not need additional interventions in most cases but must be maintained as is. According to the empirical findings, high-cost behavior needs top-down interventions, while rather-high- and rather-low-cost behavior requires bottom-up interventions to achieve behavior changes. In summary, managing interventions using this classification and focusing on high-impact behavior can lead to successful behavior changes and emission reductions.

The reduction of individual carbon consumption could make an important contribution to the worldwide effort to limit global warming. Based on Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement, we hypothesized that the propensity to morally disengage concerning high-carbon behaviors (e.g., eating meat or traveling by plane) is one important factor that prevents individuals from reducing their carbon footprint. To measure the propensity to morally disengage in high-carbon-related behavior contexts, a questionnaire (MD-HCB) was developed and psychometrically validated in an online study with a German sample (N = 220). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the final nine-item scale had a one-dimensional structure, as intended. The internal consistency of the scale was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and the scale interpretation had predictive validity for both past low-carbon consumption behavior and the intention to engage in such behavior in the future. Correlational analyses with relevant existing instruments confirmed the construct validity of the interpretations that can be drawn from the MD-HCB, as its resulting score is related to, yet separable from, the general tendency to morally disengage and is meaningfully connected to related constructs. A pre-study with a student sample (N = 89) not only helped to identify limitations in the study design but also showed a weak predictive ability of moral competence concerning high-carbon consumption behavior and intention to change. Based on our findings, future media campaigns designed to increase people’s intention to reduce high-carbon behavior could focus on the modification of common cognitive disengagement strategies.

This book highlights the obstacles to and potential for a just transformation as a way out of the current climate crisis. This volume examines the barriers, opportunities and incentives around the pursuit of climate-just behavior, based on a comprehensive interdisciplinary and integrative analysis. It investigates how the gap between expressing concern about the climate crisis and giving it a high priority within the context of everyday behavior can be overcome. At the same time, it looks at the challenging politico-economic framework conditions such as the strong economic growth and profit orientation of capitalism. Although justice is a fundamental human motive, which should induce climate-just behavior, system justification is common and makes people rather justify their unjust behavior. In this book, a general and systemic framework on human behavior is provided, including internal factors, such as knowledge and psychological needs, external factors, such as socio-cultural and politico-economic factors, feedback loops and interactions. The authors draw on multiple theories to examine how denial and moral disengagement affect individual responsibility, despite real-world evidence of the climate crisis. The book highlights the role of emotions in encouraging a pro-environmental response and discusses solutions on both the individual and the collective level, such as transparency laws. Moreover, making climate-friendly options more accessible, affordable and convenient facilitates behavior change more effectively. Overall, this book presents knowledge-based, realistic approaches to surmounting these obstacles in order to achieve a more climate-just world. Climate-Just Behavior will be of great interest to students and scholars of climate change, climate justice, environmental geography and environmental psychology. <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->