TYPE Editorial

PUBLISHED 20 July 2023

DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219471

Editorial: Environmental attitudes

OPEN ACCESS in context: conceptualisations,
measurements and related factors
EDITED AND REVIEWED BY
Myriam Ertz,
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada

*CORRESPONDENCE
Inga Wittenberg
of environmental attitudes
inga.wittenberg@uni-vechta.de

RECEIVED 09 May 2023

ACCEPTED 26 June 2023
Inga Wittenberg1*, Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi2 and Oscar Navarro3
PUBLISHED 20 July 2023 1
Center of Sustainability Transformation in Areas of Intensive Agriculture, University of Vechta, Vechta,
CITATION Lower Saxony, Germany, 2 Department of Psychology, Nantes Université, Nantes, Pays de la Loire,
Wittenberg I, Fleury-Bahi G and Navarro O France, 3 University of Nîmes, Nîmes, France
(2023) Editorial: Environmental attitudes in
context: conceptualisations, measurements
and related factors of environmental attitudes. KEYWORDS
Front. Psychol. 14:1219471.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219471 environmental attitudes, environmental behavior, measurements, context, factors

COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Wittenberg, Fleury-Bahi and Navarro.
This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or Editorial on the Research Topic
reproduction in other forums is permitted, Environmental attitudes in context: conceptualisations, measurements
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
and related factors of environmental attitudes
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these
Climate change remains an important issue nowadays, and the anthropocentric
terms. dimension of climate change, that is, the role of human activities, is widely recognized. In this
context, pro-environmental behavior and environmental attitudes have been investigated
in a large number of studies (e.g., Fujii, 2006; Berenguer, 2007; Patri et al., 2015). Many
of these studies aim to understand how to encourage the adoption of environmentally
friendly behavior and to analyze the explanatory power of the attitudes developed toward
the environment on these behaviors.
Among these studies, different measures and conceptualizations of pro-environmental
behavior and environmental attitudes can be found. This implies that numerous attitude
scales have been developed to measure such environmental attitudes, which differ in several
respects. For example, some measure attitudes toward particular environmental objects
such as water consumption (Lam, 1999; Russell and Knoeri, 2019), use of public transport
(Heath and Gifford, 2006), or waste separation (Tucker and Speirs, 2010). Other tools aim
to measure broader psychological constructs by using an aggregated psychological construct
to capture the attitude developed toward a set of environmental behaviors or the general
attitude toward the environment.
Social psychology has long been concerned with the link between behavior and attitude.
Research results have not shown a clear link between these two dimensions but rather an
attitude–behavior gap. The same issue arises when we target pro-environmental behavior
more precisely (Claudy et al., 2013; Wyss et al., 2022). It is therefore important to examine
this question by considering the different conceptual and methodological approaches in
order to identify the reasons for this gap and to figure out which factors need to be considered
in order to adopt a more comprehensive approach.
This Research Topic looks specifically at this issue by focusing on different approaches,
highlighting the conceptual and methodological diversity related to environmental attitudes.
In line with the aim of this Research Topic, the contributions reflect on
different perspectives—theoretical and methodological—and bring together
different approaches in the study of environmental attitudes and/or their
interplay with different factors in the context of pro-environmental behaviors.

Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org

Wittenberg et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219471

Concerning the theoretical approaches, Urban and Kaiser These contributions deal with very different cultural contexts,
studied environmental attitudes from the Campbell paradigm covering China (Sun et al.; Jiang et al.), Iran (Bazrafkan et al.), Cuba
perspective, Bazrafkan et al. applied the protection motivation (Bogner and Suarez), Colombia (Sierra Barón and Meneses Baez),
theory, and Zaikauskaite et al. used Hunt–Vitell’s moral the United States (Zaikauskaite et al.), Martinique in the French
philosophy-based framework of ethical decision-making to Antilles (Fointiat and Pelt), and a comparison between the 28 EU
investigate the environmental attitude–behavior gap. Fointiat and countries (Urban and Kaiser).
Pelt chose the psychosocial engineering model and studied a large Urban and Kaiser found evidence that the Campbell paradigm
number of possible determinants, including the variables of the represents a sound psychological measurement theory for cross-
theory of planned behavior, place identity, sense of community, and cultural comparisons. Applying the same scale for the measurement
a temporal dimension. Jiang et al. studied environmental attitudes of environmental attitudes among adolescents in Cuba, a low-food-
and their three components (affective, cognitive, and behavioral), print country, Bogner and Suarez’s results also showed good validity
and Bogner and Suarez’s study combined environmental attitudes of the scale in this context. Sierra Barón and Meneses Baez included
with values and connectedness to nature. The importance of social work as a context of pro-environmental behavior.
factors for environmental attitudes and behaviors was studied and Taken together, the contributions to this Research Topic
highlighted in several articles (Fointiat and Pelt; Jiang et al.; Sun give insights into attitude–behavior research from different
et al.). perspectives, illustrating the diversity of factors to take into account
There is also a diversity in the methodological approaches and the importance of contextual aspects.
chosen to investigate environmental attitudes. More precisely, in
three articles (Bogner and Suarez; Sierra Barón and Meneses Baez;
Urban and Kaiser), the Rasch model has been applied. Author contributions
Moreover, some contributions to this topic deal with
environmental attitudes in general (Bogner and Suarez; Urban All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and
and Kaiser, Zaikauskaite et al.), while others consider them in intellectual contribution to the work and approved it
specific behavioral domains, such as the workplace (Sierra Barón for publication.
and Meneses Baez), nature preservation (Bogner and Suarez;
Bazrafkan et al.), animals’ welfare (Jiang et al.), or recycling
(Fointiat and Pelt). Interestingly, three contributions deal with Conflict of interest
pro-environmental behaviors at the farm level, thus considering
these behaviors and related attitudes in the context of agriculture. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
While Bazrafkan et al. applied the protection motivation theory to absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
the use of conservation agriculture by farmers, Sun et al. studied construed as a potential conflict of interest.
farmers’ willingness to participate in this type of agriculture and
also their domestic waste classification behavior, thus showing the
importance of social factors such as exemplary behavior of relatives Publisher’s note
and neighbors. Furthermore, in the context of agriculture but from
the perspective of public attitudes, Jiang et al. investigated attitudes All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
toward farm animal welfare by assessing the affective, cognitive, authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
and behavioral components. These studies highlight the rising organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
importance of sustainable food production and consumption as reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
part of environmental attitudes and behaviors for both farmers and claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
general society. endorsed by the publisher.

References
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and Patri, G., Albanesi, C., and Pietrantoni, L. (2015). The interplay among
behaviors. Environ. Behav. 39, 269–283. doi: 10.1177/0013916506292937 environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and pro-
environmental institutional climate. A longitudinal study. Environ. Educ. Res. 23,
Claudy, M. C., Peterson, M., and O’Driscoll, A. (2013). Understanding the attitude-
176–191. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1118752
behavior gap for renewable energy systems using behavioral reasoning theory. J.
Macromark. 33, 273. doi: 10.1177/0276146713481605 Russell, S. V., and Knoeri, C. (2019). Exploring the psychosocial and behavioural
determinants of household water conservation and intention. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.
Fujii, S. (2006). Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of
36, 940–955. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2019.1638230
behavior zas determinantes of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J. Environ.
Psychol. 26, 262–268. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.003 Tucker, P., and Speirs, D. (2010). Attitudes and behavioural change in
Heath, Y., and Gifford, R. (2006). Extending the theory of planned behavior: household waste management behaviours. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 46, 289–307.
predicting the use of public transportation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 2154–2189. doi: 10.1080/0964056032000070927
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x
Wyss, A. M., Knoch, D., and Berger, S. (2022). When and how pro-
Lam, S. P. (1999). Predicting intentions to conserve watrer from the theory of environmental attitudes turn into behavior: the role of costs, benefits,
planned behavior, perceived moral obligatyion, and perceived water right. J. Appl. Soc. and self control. J. Environ. Psychol. 79, 101748. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.
Psychol. 29, 1058–1071. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00140.x 101748

Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org