Sustainability is crucial for addressing environmental and societal issues caused by the climate crisis, particularly in Mexico, one of the most affected countries. Antiscientific beliefs fuelled by misinformation are a major barrier to achieving sustainability. To explore the link between these beliefs and sustainable behaviour, we conducted a pre-registered, cross-sectional study with 415 Mexican participants recruited via social media. We found that conspiracy beliefs were negatively related to pro-ecological behaviour and frugality, paranormal beliefs were negatively related to frugality and equity, and climate change denial was negatively associated with all three behaviours. A latent profile analysis revealed a three-profile model, with 7% of participants displaying high levels of antiscientific beliefs and low levels of sustainable behaviour. These findings are discussed in the context of Mexico’s socio-political environment, emphasizing the need to understand the complex relationship between politics, antiscience, and sustainability in developing countries.
AlperS. (2023). There are higher levels of conspiracy beliefs in more corrupt countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2919
4.
AlperS.ElcilT.KaracaN.BayrakF.YilmazO. (2023). Fictitious conspiracy, paranormal, and pseudoscience beliefs are closely related to their regular counterparts. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7sfk8
5.
AlperS.KonukogluK.AtalayE. D.DuzgunA.YilmazO. (2024). How do beliefs in free will and determinism correlate with beliefs in conspiracy, paranormal, and pseudoscience beliefs?Personality and Individual Differences, 229, 112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112765
6.
BaildonM. (2024). Confronting climate denial in higher education to promote sustainable futures. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714241242713
7.
Balderas TorresA.Lazaro VargasP.PaavolaJ. (2020). The systemic and governmental agendas in presidential attention to climate change in Mexico 1994–2018. Nature Communications, 11(1), 455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14048-7
8.
BennettM. R.EinolfC. J. (2017). Religion, altruism, and helping strangers: A multilevel analysis of 126 countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12328
9.
BerlinK.WilliamsN.ParraG. (2014). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part 1): Overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/JPEPSY/JST084
10.
BiddlestoneM.AzevedoF.van der LindenS. (2022). Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101390
11.
BiddlestoneM.GreenR.CichockaA.DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rxjqc
12.
BowesS. M.TasimiA. (2022). Clarifying the relations between intellectual humility and pseudoscience beliefs, conspiratorial ideation, and susceptibility to fake news. Journal of Research in Personality, 98, 104220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104220
13.
Brañas-GarzaP.CapraroV.Rascon-RamirezE. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022
14.
BrewerM. B.BuchanN. R.OzturkO. D.GrimaldaG. (2022). Parochial altruism and political ideology. Political Psychology, 44(2), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12852
15.
BrewerT. (2023). Climate change. An interdisciplinary introduction. Springer.
BrothertonR.FrenchC. C.PickeringA. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, e00279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
18.
CarrusG.PannoA.LeoneL. (2018). The moderating role of interest in politics on the relations between conservative political orientation and denial of climate change. Society & Natural Resources, 31(10), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1463422
19.
ChanH. W.TamK. P.HongY. Y. (2023). Does belief in climate change conspiracy theories predict everyday life pro-environmental behaviors? Testing the longitudinal relationship in China and the US. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 101980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101980
ChinnS.HartP. S.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290
22.
ChirumboloA.LeoneL.DesimoniM. (2016). The interpersonal roots of politics: Social value orientation, socio-political attitudes and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.001
23.
ChopikW. J.O’BrienE.KonrathS. H. (2016). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910
24.
ClarkeE. J.LingM.KotheE. J.KlasA.RichardsonB. (2019). Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right-wing ideologies on climate change beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(6), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12585
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One, 12(5), 175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
27.
Corral-VerdugoV. (2010). Psicología de la sustentabilidad: Un análisis de lo que nos hace proecológicos y pro-sociales. Trillas.
28.
Corral-VerdugoV. (2012). Sustentabilidad y Psicología positiva. Manual moderno.
29.
Corral-VerdugoV.Fraijo-SingB.PinheiroJ. Q. (2006). Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Revista Interamericana de Psicología [Interamerican Journal of Psychology], 40(2), 139–147. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28440201.pdf
30.
Corral-VerdugoV.FríasM.GarcíaC. (2010). Introduction to the psychological dimensions of sustainability. In Corral-VerdugoV.GarcíaC.FríasM. (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability (pp. 3–18). Nova Science.
31.
Corral-VerdugoV.GarcíaC.CastroL.ViramontesI.LimonesR. (2010). Equity and sustainable lifestyles. In Corral-VerdugoV.GarcíaC.FríasM. (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability (pp. 185–203). Nova Science.
32.
Corral-VerdugoV.PatoC.Torres-SotoN. (2021). Testing a tridimensional model of sustainable behavior: Self-care, caring for others, and caring for the planet. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 12867–12882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01189-9
CzarnekG.SzwedP.KossowskaM. (2019). Right-and left-wing prejudice toward dissimilar groups in cultural and economic domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2548
36.
DagnallN.DenovanA.DrinkwaterK. G. (2023). Longitudinal assessment of the temporal stability and predictive validity of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1094701. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1094701
De la Torre CastellanosR. (2020). Genealogía de los movimientos religiosos conservadores y la política en México. Ciencias Sociales y Religión, 22, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.20396/csr.v22i00.13753
39.
DoellK. C.PärnametsP.HarrisE. A.HackelL. M.Van BavelJ. J. (2021). Understanding the effects of partisan identity on climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.013
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
42.
DyrendalA.KennairL. E. O.BendixenM. (2021). Predictors of belief in conspiracy theory: The role of individual differences in schizotypal traits, paranormal beliefs, social dominance orientation, right wing authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality. Personality and Individual Differences, 173, 110645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110645
43.
DziubanC.GrahamC. R.MoskalP. D.NorbergA.SiciliaN. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
FarisR.RobertsH.EtlingB.BourassaN.ZuckermanE.BenklerY. (2017). Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251
47.
FarmerG. T.CookJ. (2013). Climate change science: A modern synthesis. Springer.
48.
FasceA. (2017). What do we mean when we speak of pseudoscience? The development of a demarcation criterion based on the analysis of twenty–one previous attempts. Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin, 6(7), 459–488. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1433737
49.
FasceA.Adrián-VenturaJ.AvendañoD. (2020). Do as the Romans do: On the authoritarian roots of pseudoscience. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935078
50.
FasceA.Adrián-VenturaJ.LewandowskyS.van der LindenS. (2021). Science through a tribal lens: A group-based account of polarization over scientific facts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211050323
51.
FasceA.AvendañoD.Adrián-VenturaJ. (2021). Revised and short versions of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 828–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3811
52.
FasceA.AvendañoD.DagnallN.DenovanA.Escolà-GascónÁ. (2022). Validation of the Spanish version of the generic conspiracist beliefs scale. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 25, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2022.21
53.
FasceA.PicóA. (2019). Conceptual foundations and validation of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3501
54.
FasceA.SchmidP.HolfordD. L.BatesL.GurevychI.LewandowskyS. (2023). A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1462–1480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01644-3
55.
FischerD. R.HankeK.SibleyC. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x
56.
FisherD. R.WaggleJ.LeifeldP. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463360
57.
GarneauC. R.SchwadelP. (2022). Examining the influence of political affiliation and orientation on political tolerance. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 8, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023122113236
GibbonE.DouglasH. E. (2021). Personality and the pro-environmental individual: Unpacking the interplay between attitudes, behaviour and climate change denial. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, 111031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111031
60.
Golec de ZavalaA.BierwiaczonekK.CiesielskiP. (2022). An interpretation of meta-analytical evidence for the link between collective narcissism and conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101360
61.
GomezC.TaylorK. A. (2018). Cultural differences in conflict resolution strategies: A US–Mexico comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 18(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595817747638
62.
GounaridisD.NewellJ. P. (2024). The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50591-6
HallM. P.Lewis JrN. A.EllsworthP. C. (2018). Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.001
65.
HaltinnerK.SarathchandraD. (2021). Predictors of pro-environmental beliefs, behaviors, and policy support among climate change skeptics. Social Currents, 9(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211001403
66.
HanssonS. O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590903196007
HargittaiE. (2020). Potential biases in big data: Omitted voices on social media. Social Science Computer Review, 38(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318788322
69.
HassonY.TamirM.BrahmsK. S.CohrsJ. C.HalperinE. (2018). Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(10), 1449–1459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218769867
70.
HeB.-J.SharifiA.FengC.YangJ.PrasadD.JupestaJ.PignattaG. (2022). Climate emergency, actions and environmental sustainability. In HeB.-J.PrasadD.PignattaG.JupuestaJ. (Eds.) Climate change and environmental sustainability (pp. 1–6). Springer.
HermesB. (2018). An inside look at naturopathic medicine: A whistleblower’s deconstruction of its core principles. In KaufmanA.KaufmanJ. (Eds.), Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science (pp. 137–169). The MIT Press.
73.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
74.
HornseyM. J.LewandowskyS. (2022). A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(11), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y
75.
HornseyM. J.PearsonS. (2022). Cross-national differences in willingness to believe conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101391
76.
Huete-PérezD.Morales-VivesF.GavilánJ. M.BoadaR.HaroJ. (2022). Popular Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Inventory (PEUBI): A psychometric instrument for assessing paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1260–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4010
JolleyD.DouglasK. M. (2013). The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018
JolleyD.MeleadyR.DouglasK. M. (2019). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12385
81.
JolleyD.PatersonJ. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12394
Juárez-NájeraM.Rivera-MartínezJ. G.HafkampW. A. (2010). An explorative socio-psychological model for determining sustainable behavior: Pilot study in German and Mexican Universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.018
84.
JylhäK. M.HellmerK. (2020). Right-wing populism and climate change denial: The roles of exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences, conservative ideology, and antiestablishment attitudes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20(1), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12203
KennedyE. H.KmecJ. (2018). Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Sociology, 4(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1436891
87.
KogerS.ScottB. (2016). Teaching psychology for sustainability: The why and how. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716648238
88.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
LeeM. S.PittlerM. H.ErnstE. (2008). Effects of reiki in clinical practice: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 62(6), 947–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x
91.
LekaJ.FurnhamA. (2023). Climate change denial: Causes, consequences, and cure. In Di FabioA.CooperC. L. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (current issues in work and organizational psychology) (pp. 42–56). Routledge.
92.
LevyS. R.MonahanC.AraizaA.RamırezL.Palacios-EspinosaX. (2025). Reducing climate change denial and increasing support for climate-friendly policies: The role of climate change education. Journal of Social Issues, 81(1), 12664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12664
93.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
94.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2015). The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science. Psychological Science, 26(5), 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614568432
LindemanM.AarnioK. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.608
97.
LindemanM.AarnioK. (2007). Superstitious, magical, and paranormal beliefs: An integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.009
98.
LizotteM. K.EichenbergR. C.StollR. J. (2020). Citizen support for the pursuit of gender equality in US foreign policy. Journal of Human Rights, 19(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1746177
99.
LobatoE.MendozaJ.SimsV.ChinM. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042
LoxtonD.ProtheroD. R. (2013). Abominable science! Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other famous cryptids. Columbia University Press.
102.
MangV.EpstudeK.FennisB. M. (2024). When do conspiracy theories shape behavioural intentions? The moderating role of the need to evaluate. Personality and Individual Differences, 218, 112481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112481
103.
MaraldiE.FariasM. (2020). Assessing implicit spirituality in a non-WEIRD population: Development and validation of an implicit measure of new age and paranormal beliefs. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 30(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2019.1661198
104.
MargolisM. F.SancesM. W. (2017). Partisan differences in nonpartisan activity: The case of charitable giving. Political Behavior, 39, 839–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9382-4
105.
MathieR. T.RamparsadN.LeggL. A.ClausenJ.MossS.DavidsonJ. R. T.MessowC.McConnachieA. (2017). Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3
106.
Medrano deLuna. (2015). Creencias populares, supersticiones y fraseología en México. In Sevilla MuñozJ.SardelliM. A. (Eds.), Creencias populares, supersticiones y fraseología (pp. 975–1017). Instituto Cervantes.
107.
MoganadasS. R.Corral-VerdugoV.RamanathanS. (2013). Toward systemic campus sustainability: Gauging dimensions of sustainable development via a motivational and perception-based approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 1443–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9451-3
Muñoz-GarcíaA.Villena-MartínezM. D. (2020). Sustainable behavior among Spanish university students in terms of dimensions of religion and spirituality. Sustainability, 12(2), 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020470
111.
NeamanA.Díaz-SieferP.BurnhamE.CastroM.ZabelS.DovletyarovaE. A.Navarro-VillarroelC.OttoS. (2021). Catholic religious identity, prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors, and connectedness to nature in Chile. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 30(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.1.9
112.
NieF.OlsonD. (2016). Demonic influence: The negative mental health effects of belief in demons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 55(3), 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12287
Nylund-GibsonK.ChoiA. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4, 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176
Ortega DíazA.Casamadrid GutiérrezE. (2018). Competing actors in the climate change arena in Mexico: A network analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 215, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.056
117.
PellegriniV. (2023). Populist ideology, ideological attitudes, and anti-immigration attitudes as an integrated system of beliefs. PLoS One, 18(1), e0280285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280285
118.
PérezJ.MartínezX. (2019). Personality, cognition, and morbidity in the understanding of paranormal belief. PsyCh Journal, 9(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.295
119.
PontiusJ.McIntoshA. (2024). Environmental problem solving in an age of climate change, volume one: Basic tools and techniques. Springer.
120.
PummererL.DitrichL.WinterK.SassenbergK. (2022). Think about it! Deliberation reduces the negative relation between conspiracy belief and adherence to prosocial norms. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(8), 952–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221144150
121.
RebeyronT.WattC. (2010). Paranormal experiences, mental health and mental boundaries, and psi. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 487–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.029
122.
RizeqJ.FloraD. B.ToplakM. E. (2020). An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: Paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1759688
123.
Rodríguez-MorenoV. M.Medina-GarcíaG.Díaz PadillaG.Ruiz CorralJ. A.Estrada-AvalosJ.Mauricio RuvalcabaJ. E. (2021). ¿Por qué México es un país altamente vulnerable al cambio climático?Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, (25), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v12i25.2819
124.
RutjensB. T.SenguptaN.Der LeeR. V.van KoningsbruggenG. M.MartensJ. P.RabeloA.SuttonR. M. (2022). Science skepticism across 24 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211001329
125.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
126.
SchmuckP.SchultzP. W. (2002). Sustainable development as a challenge for psychology. In SchmuckP.SchultzP. W. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 3–17). Kluwer.
127.
SevincerA. T.GalinskyC.MartensenL.OettingenG. (2023). Political ideology outdoes personal experience in predicting support for gender equality. Political Psychology, 44(4), 829–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12887
128.
SeymourK.SterzerP.SotoN. (2022). Believing is seeing: The link between paranormal beliefs and perceiving signal in noise. Consciousness and Cognition, 106, 103418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103418
129.
ShahM. (2008). Sustainable development. In JorgensenS. E.FathB. D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ecology (pp. 3443–3446). Elsevier Science.
SiH.ShiJ.-G.TangD.WuG.LanJ. (2020). Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104513
132.
SinnJ. S.HayesM. W. (2018). Is political conservatism adaptive? Reinterpreting right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as evolved, sociofunctional strategies. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1123–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12475
133.
SohrabiS.SohrabiS. (2020). Paranormal belief and attitudes toward human rights. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2), 1477–1485. https://doi.org/%2010.25215/0802.168
134.
SpampattiT.HahnelU. J.TrutnevyteE.BroschT. (2024). Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01736-0
135.
SparksG.MillerW. (2001). Investigating the relationship between exposure to television programs that depict paranormal phenomena and beliefs in the paranormal. Communication Monographs, 68(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128053
136.
SpurkD.HirschiA.WangM.ValeroD.KauffeldS. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
137.
StåhlT.Van ProoijenJ. (2018). Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 155–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026
138.
StrydomW. F.FunkeN.NienaberS.NortjeK.SteynM. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: A review. South African Journal of Science, 106(5), 1–8. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC97042
139.
SubbotskyE.QuinterosG. (2002). Do cultural factors affect causal beliefs? Rational and magical thinking in Britain and Mexico. British Journal of Psychology, 93(4), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602761381385
140.
SwamiV. (2012). Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, e00280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280
141.
TamK. P.LeungA. K. Y.ClaytonS. (2021). Research on climate change in social psychology publications: A systematic review. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12477
142.
TapiaC.Corral-VerdugoV.FraijoB. (2017). Sustainable behavior and quality of life. In Fleury-BahiG.PolE.NavarroO. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research (pp. 173–184). Springer.
143.
TapiaC.Corral-VerdugoV.FraijoB.DurónM. (2013). Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: A measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability, 5(2), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020711
144.
ThalbourneM. A.HaraldssonE. (1980). Personality characteristics of sheep and goats. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90040-9
145.
TobacykJ. J. (2004). A revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94
146.
Torres RamírezB. (2019). La participación de México en la convención marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el cambio climático. Foro Internacional, 59(3–4), 1179–1219. https://doi.org/10.24201/fi.v59i3-4.2656
147.
TorresM. N.BarberiaI.RodríguezJ. (2020). Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 840–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12441
148.
TrahanL.StuebingK.FletcherJ.HiscockM. (2014). The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1332–1360. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037173
TsantopoulosG.PapageorgiouA. C.KarasmanakiE. (2021). COVID-19: An outcome of biodiversity loss or a conspiracy?Investigating the Attitudes of Environmental Students. Sustainability, 13(9), 5307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095307
UiterkampA.VlekC. (2007). Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00502.x
Van ElkM. (2013). Paranormal believers are more prone to illusory agency detection than skeptics. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.07.004
155.
Van ProoijenJ.-W. (2018). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge.
156.
Van ProoijenJ.-W.SpadaroG.WangH. (2022). Suspicion of institutions: How distrust and conspiracy theories deteriorate social relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.013
157.
VlasceanuM.DoellK. C.Bak-ColemanJ. B.TodorovaB.Berkebile-WeinbergM. M.GraysonS. J.PatelY.GoldwertD.PeiY.ChakroffA.ProniziusE.Van BavelJ. J. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10(6), 5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
WaytzA.IyerR.YoungL.HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications, 10(1), 4389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0
160.
WoodM. J. (2016). Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: Implications for theory and measurement. British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12231
161.
WullenkordM. C.ReeseG. (2021). Avoidance, rationalization, and denial: Defensive self-protection in the face of climate change negatively predicts pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101683
162.
XiJ.LeeM. T.CarterJ. R.DelgadoD. (2018). Gender differences in purpose in life: The mediation effect of altruism. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 62(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818777658
163.
XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2014). A test of the biographical availability argument for gender differences in environmental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512453991
164.
XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2015). Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513491571
165.
YenS. T.ZampelliE. M. (2014). What drives charitable donations of time and money? The roles of political ideology, religiosity, and involvement. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 50, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.01.002
166.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2010). Attitudes of the selfless: Explaining political orientation with altruism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(3), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.002
167.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E.HaubrichJ. (2011). Altruism at the ballots: Predicting political attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 130–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.010
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
