Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx

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
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).
Publishing
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.
103–112
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
Publishing
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.
103–112

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
Publishing
Behavior
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

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
103–112
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]
Publishing
Behavior
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te

nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Running head: INTERSESSION 4 FINAL PROJECT
PROJECTION 1
INTERSESSION 4 FINAL PROJECT PROJECTION
9INTERSESSION 4 FINAL PROJECT PROJECTION
Shalini Kantamneni
Ottawa University

Intersession4 Final Project Projection
Introduction:
In this week we are discussing about which cloud service model
we are going to use for the organization. Assuming that the
users of the software include both the home users and business
users, we are considering the SaaS service model as our cloud
service.
Software as a Service (SaaS) Model:
Before deciding the type of service model, company should
consider the usage of the software by different users. Assuming
that the users use the software once in year and business users
may use four times in a year, we are considering SaaS model.
Some of the core benefits to consider SaaS are:
· Compatibility where all the users have same version of
software
· Global Accessibility
· Patch management and automatic updates
· Ready to use
In this model the users can use the cloud service based on their
usage. This will help the organization to reduce the cost in
developing and maintaining its servers, operating systems,
storage or data storage.
In this service model users can use the application using
different web services. Users can use the both application and
configure the application based on their usage. For business
users SaaS platforms like salesforce.com can be considered as it
helps to avoid development of additional programming for the
business users. This helps the users to use the application
without installing any additional software. Even if the devices
are not working the data will be secured.
While using this service the user should mention if there are
multiple users or the user alone use the service. By providing
the number of users details the components like data storage,
business components etc., can be shared with mentioned
multiple users. The users need not to worry about the

installation of software as the SaaS providers will take care of
it.
The SaaS applications having salesforce.com include Google
Docs for document sharing, Web e-mail systems like Gmail,
Yahoo and Hot mail. This model is useful for the small scale
industries who have very less budget and during collaborating
with multiple projects can use SaaS platform.
References
· Kale, Vivek. Guide to Cloud Computing for Business and
Technology Managers: From Distributed Computing to
Cloudwa.. [VitalSource Bookshelf].
· https://www.fingent.com/blog/cloud-service-models-saas-iaas-
paas-choose-the-right-one-for-your-business
· https://doublehorn.com/saas-paas-and-iaas-understanding/
· https://www.paranet.com/blog/bid/128267/the-three-types-of-
cloud-computing-service-models
· https://www.bluepiit.com/blog/different-types-of-cloud-
computing-service-models/
· https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/iaas-paas-saas
Reardon / PSYC 291
Writing up Results – Multiple Regression
1. Indicate what model you tested by saying what the criterion
variable was and what the predictor variables were.
2. Say whether the overall regression was significant. How do
you know this? Look at the p-value associated with the F
statistic in the ANOVA table. Be sure to indicate the F value
(with degrees of freedom), R2, and the associated p-value. You
should also interpret what the value for R2 means (this is not
usually done in results sections but I want you to do it for this
class).

3. Indicate which predictor variables are significant. Be sure to
include the slope (b or Beta but Beta is usually used), the
standard error, and the p-value. Then, interpret the slope. (*This
is not always done in actual results sections but I want you to
do it.) You do not need to mention or interpret predictors that
were not significant.
Example:
A multiple regression tested whether depression score was
predicted by alcohol use, negative life events, and gender. The
overall regression was significant, F(3,112) = 3.24, p < .001, R2
= .23. Together, alcohol use, negative life events and gender
account for about 23% of the variability in depression scores.
Alcohol use significantly predicted depression score, β = .34,
SE = 1.12, p = .023. As alcohol use increased one standard
deviation, depression score increased by .34 standard
deviations, holding negative life events and gender constant.
Gender also significantly predicted depression score, β = -.18,
SE = 0.98, p = .032. Being male was associated with a decrease
in depression score of .18 standard deviations, holding alcohol
use and negative life events constant.
* Notice that the statistics were included in such a way that
even if they are taken out, it is still a complete sentence. Also
notice that the letters are in italics for the reported statistics.
Paper Format

OverviewAbstractIntroductionLiterature
reviewMethodResultsDiscussion
Purpose of PaperPresent & describe new research
findingsFindings should be put in context of current knowledge
Class project
AbstractConcise summary not to exceed 120 wordsShould
includeInformation on the problem under studyThe nature of the
sampleA description of methods, equipment, and proceduresA
statement of the results (broadly, no stats)A statement of the
conclusions drawn
*
IntroductionNeed to review and describe the research that has
already been done on the topic
Should include at least 5 sources
Purposes of Literature ReviewTo fully describe the results from
prior researchWhat is the “state of the knowledge”?

To clearly state the purposes of the studyPurpose is to address
some need
To clearly state the hypotheses, which should follow logically
from the literature review
Literature ReviewBegin with broad introductionState & describe
the problemWhy is this topic theoretically or practically
important?
Introduce the problem or theory
Literature ReviewNext discuss the research - organize by
variable or topic (not by study)Begin by summarizing the entire
literature on that variable/topicPrior research either (1) supports
a clear effect; (2) is mixed; or (3) is non-existent.If there is a
clear effect, what is it?
Current StudyWhat variable(s) are you looking atWhy is this
research needed (not why it is important)Your hypothesis –
what you expect your results to showShould be a separate
hypothesis for each IV in your studyImportant to indicate
(explicitly) why you think that is what will happen – is it based
on what prior research has found?

Research NeedResearch is “needed” if:Variable has never been
investigated beforeVariable has been investigated before,
but…Something was done wrongInconsistent resultsNot in all
contexts (new context, new sample)Not investigated at same
time as another variable
Good HypothesesContain two variablesSpecify values of
measured variable or levels of manipulated variablePredict
whether relationship existsIndicate direction of the
effectPredictive - which value or range of the measured variable
has more or less of the dependent variableCausal - which level
of the independent variable has more or less of the dependent
variable
Organization of Intro
1.unknown
Method SectionPurposeTo explain to the reader exactly how you
conducted your studyOther researchers should be able to
replicate your study based solely on the info provided in this
section

*
Method SectionParticipantsDesignProcedureMaterials and
Measures
* Should include each of these as separate sections
- Use subheadings in italics
*
What to IncludeDescription of participantsHow
manyDemographicsRace, Age, Gender breakdownCompensation
if applicable
ExampleParticipants were 250 undergraduate psychology
students who participated as jurors in return for class credit.
Mock jurors were predominantly Hispanic (54%), followed by
African American (20%), Caucasian (15.2%), Asian (4.8%), and
Other (6%). The mean age of participants was 20.4 years. A
majority of participants (81.2%) were female, with no prior jury
experience (98.4%).

What to IncludeDesignType of designCorrelational /
ExperimentalCorrelational designSpecify variablesExperimental
designBetween/within subjects design# of Independent
variablesLevels of manipulated variablesMention what the DV
is
*
DesignCorrelational designThe design was a correlational
design, examining the relationship between Variable 1 and
Variable 2.
Experimental designThe design was a single factor (IV: level 1
vs. level 2) between-subjects [within-subjects] design.The
design was a single factor (treatment type: new vs. old)
between-subjects design.
DesignFactorial designThe design was a 2 (IV: level 1 vs. level
2) X 3 (IV: level 1 vs. level 2 vs. level 3) between/within
subjects design…
The design was a 2 (testimony: examination only vs.
examination plus videotape) X 2 (ID accuracy: accurate vs.
inaccurate) mixed design with testimony as a between-subjects
factor, and identification accuracy as a within-subjects factor.

What to IncludeProcedureDescription of the experimentWhat
happens?What do your participants do?Be as detailed as
possible – other researchers should be able to replicate your
experiment
* Don’t include details specific to IUP (e.g., experimenter
evaluation sheets), or to you as the experimenter (e.g., tested 5
participants)
What to IncludeMaterials and MeasuresDescription of any
materials usedQuestionnaire – should describe it in this section
ContentNumber of questionsContent of questions (give
examples)Types of questions (open-ended, restricted)Scale, end
points
Results SectionPurpose of this sectionReport your
findingsDescriptive statistics (e.g., Normality) only included if
there were problems with normalityIf that is the case note that
there was a problem and what you did to correct it
Transformations used
*
Results SectionFirst paragraphExplain what you did for data
analysisWhat statistical tests you applied and in what orderNote
that you used SPSS 17 to conduct the analysesMake sure to note
the alpha level you used for inferential tests“All statistical tests

employed an alpha level of .05.”
Results SectionThe dependent variable was analyzed with an
analysis of variance (ANOVA). For all comparisons p < .05 was
adopted as the criterion for establishing statistical significance.
Necessary follow up comparisons were done using Bonferroni.
All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Version 16.
Results SectionNext, report what you foundUse complete
sentencesIncludedThe effect being evaluated Whether or not
difference between treatment levels was statistically
significantCritical statistic used, Degrees of freedomValue of
obtained statisticLevel of significance achieved
Statistical Notation
Statistical Test Format
Analysis of variance F (1,85) = 5.96, p < .01
Chi-square χ2(3,N = 100) = 11.34, p < .01
t test t (56) = 4.78, p < .01
z test z = 2.04, p < .05
Pearson correlation r = .87 or r = -.87
coefficient

*
Statistical NotationRound means & beta values to 2 decimal
placesGive p values like this:If .000 write p < .001If between
.001 and .009 write p < .01If between .010 and .044 write exact
p value to 2 decimal places (so = .01 to .04)If between .045 and
.050, write p < .05If between .051 and .080, give exact p value
to 3 decimal placesMeans can be given in text or in Table (your
choice)In text easier if few results and they are simple
*
Discussion SectionIn Discussion section, results are interpreted,
conclusions drawn, and findings are related to previous research
Section begins with a brief restatement of hypotheses
Next, indicate if hypotheses were confirmed
Discussion SectionConsider your results & hypotheses in light
of previous research Because your hypotheses come from prior
researchIf your results support your hypothesis, is more
research needed? May some other variable moderate the effect?
Are there different samples or methods to use to study the
effect? Can a firm conclusion be reached?

Discussion SectionIf results are not the same as hypothesized,
suggest a reason why not - reason “can be investigated in future
research”
It is fine to speculate, but make sure speculations are supported
by the data
Discussion SectionPoint out any methodological problems you
may have encountered during the study that could restrain some
of your conclusions
Should discuss real-world implications of the resultsWhat
would be the effect in the real world?Would you suggest that
lawyers, clinicians, employers, parents do something different?
Discussion SectionNeed a part on “Directions for Future
Research”Based on your results what is the next step?Other
relevant variables?, replication in other contexts?
Need a part on “Limitations”Any challenges to internal or
external validity?
Organization of Discussion
2.unknown
Discussion Section
Restatement of hypotheses
(2) Integration of results with prior research

(3) Discussion of real-world implications
(4) Limitations
(5) Directions for future research
Present a general
introduction to your topic
Review relevant
literature
Link literature review to
your hypotheses
State your
hypotheses
Restate your hypotheses
or major finding
Tie your results with
previous research and
theory
State broad implications of
your results, methodological
implications, directions for
future research
Reardon / Spring 2012
Final Paper Grading Sheet
Name:
APA Style
Title page (2)
Headers/ pg # (2)
Font/spacing/ headings (2)

Citations (2)
References (2)
/ 10 points
Abstract
Inclusion of necessary info (3)
Clarity
(2)
/ 5 points
Literature Review
Organization & clarity (5)
Ability to summarize research –
(including appropriate number of sources) (5)

Presentation of research need (1)
Justification of hypothesis (2)
Statement of hypothesis (2)
/ 15 points
Method
Inclusion of necessary sections in correct order (4)
Clarity (3)
Level of detail (5)
Quality of design (3)
/ 15 points
Results
Miscellaneous (alpha level, program used, etc.) (2)
Explanation of test used (4)

Description of result (6)
Complete sentences (3)
Discussion
Short summary of hypothesis (2)
Integration with prior research (5)
Real world implications (3)
Future research (2)
Limitations (3)
/ 15 points
Writing & Grammar

/ 15 points
Total:
/ 90 points
GET
FILE='C:UsersqhtwAppDataLocalPackagesMicrosoft.Micro
softEdge_8wekyb3d8bbweTempStateDownloadsPSYC 291
Environmental Survey - Fall 2019_November 12, 2019_14.18
(1).sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
GET
FILE='C:UsersqhtwAppDataLocalPackagesMicrosoft.Micro
softEdge_8wekyb3d8bbweTempStateDownloadsPSYC 291
(3).sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
SET TLook=None Small=0.0001 SUMMARY=None
THREADS=AUTO TFit=Both DIGITGROUPING=No
LEADZERO=No TABLERENDER=light.
SET Small=0.0001 THREADS=AUTO DIGITGROUPING=No
LEADZERO=No.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender Race Polit_Party
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies
Notes
Output Created
14-NOV-2019 09:47:36
Comments
Input
Data
C:UsersqhtwAppDataLocalPackagesMicrosoft.MicrosoftEd
ge_8wekyb3d8bbweTempStateDownloadsPSYC 291
(1).sav
Active Dataset
DataSet1
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
N of Rows in Working Data File
96
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing
User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used
Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.
Syntax
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender Race Polit_Party
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources
Processor Time
00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time
00:00:00.00
[DataSet1]
(1).sav
Statistics
Preferred Gender
Race
When it comes to
voting, with which party do you consider yourself to be
affiliated?
N
Valid
94
95
96
Missing

2
1
0
Frequency Table
Preferred Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male
26
27.1
27.7
27.7
Female
68
70.8
72.3
100.0
Total
94
97.9
100.0
Missing
System

2
2.1
Total
96
100.0
Race
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
White
79
82.3
83.2
83.2
Black/African American
9
9.4
9.5
92.6
Asian
4
4.2
4.2
96.8

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
3
3.1
3.2
100.0
Total
95
99.0
100.0
Missing
System
1
1.0
Total
96
100.0
When it comes to
voting, with which party do you consider yourself to be
affiliated?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strong Democrat
19
19.8

19.8
19.8
Not a very strong Democrat
25
26.0
26.0
45.8
Strong Republican
6
6.3
6.3
52.1
Not a very strong Republican
9
9.4
9.4
61.5
Independent/Unaffiliated
37
38.5
38.5
100.0
Total
96
100.0
100.0
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Age Political_Leaning
Knowledge_proportion
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

Descriptives
Notes
Output Created
14-NOV-2019 09:52:15
Comments
Input
Data
(1).sav
Active Dataset
DataSet1
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
96

User defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used
All non-missing data are used.
Syntax
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Age Political_Leaning
Knowledge_proportion
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
Resources
Processor Time
00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time
00:00:00.00
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Age
94
18
53
19.43
3.823
When it comes to most
political issues, do you think of yourself as a...?
95
1
7
3.45
1.420

Environmental knowledge proportion
96
.00
91.67
46.7014
17.99444
Valid N (listwise)
93
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Eviron_attitude1
/METHOD=ENTER Eviron_attitude2 Political_att_general
Environ_Knowl.
Regression
Notes
Output Created
14-NOV-2019 09:59:25
Comments
Input
Data

(1).sav
Active Dataset
DataSet1
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
96
Cases Used
Statistics are based on cases with no missing values for any
variable used.
Syntax
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Eviron_attitude1
Environ_Knowl.
Resources

Processor Time
00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time
00:00:00.02
Memory Required
19184 bytes
Additional Memory Required for Residual Plots
0 bytes
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
Environmental knowledge, Political attitudes, Environ Attitude
2: Nature is for Humansb
.
Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Environ Attitude 1: Environment is
threatened
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1

.659a
.434
.413
2.996
a. Predictors: (Constant), Environmental knowledge, Political
attitudes, Environ Attitude 2: Nature is for Humans
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
577.463
3
192.488
21.445
.000b
Residual
753.991
84
8.976
Total
1331.455
87

threatened
b. Predictors: (Constant), Environmental knowledge, Political
attitudes, Environ Attitude 2: Nature is for Humans
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
28.100
2.409
11.663
.000
Environ Attitude 2: Nature is for Humans
-.397
.081
-.487
-4.919
.000
Political attitudes

-.084
.037
-.211
-2.263
.026
Environmental knowledge
-.227
.158
-.126
-1.432
.156
threatened
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Environ_Behavior
Environ_Knowl Eviron_attitude1.
Regression
Notes
Output Created
14-NOV-2019 10:15:06
Comments

Input
Data
(1).sav
Active Dataset
DataSet1
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
96
Cases Used
Statistics are based on cases with no missing values for any
variable used.
Syntax
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Environ_Behavior

Environ_Knowl Eviron_attitude1.
Resources
Processor Time
00:00:00.03
Elapsed Time
00:00:00.03
Memory Required
19760 bytes
Additional Memory Required for Residual Plots
0 bytes
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
Environ Attitude 1: Environment is threatened, Environmental
knowledge, Political attitudes, Environ Attitude 2: Nature is for
Humansb
.
Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Environmental behavior
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square

Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.401a
.160
.119
18.301
a. Predictors: (Constant), Environ Attitude 1: Environment is
threatened, Environmental knowledge, Political attitudes,
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
5184.017
4
1296.004
3.869
.006b
Residual
27129.471
81
334.932
Total

32313.488
85
b. Predictors: (Constant), Environ Attitude 1: Environment is
threatened, Environmental knowledge, Political attitudes,
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
98.000
23.970
4.088
.000
1.441
.561
.358

2.570
.012
Political attitudes
.040
.236
.020
.168
.867
Environmental knowledge
-.227
.994
-.025
-.229
.820
Environ Attitude 1: Environment is threatened
-.301
.672
-.061
-.449
.655
PSYC 291 Environmental Survey
Fall 2019
Environmental Attitudes
Source:
Milfont, T., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes
inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure
of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(1), 80-94.

Please rate your agreement with these statements.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A1. If things continue on their present course, we will soon
experience a major ecological catastrophe.
A2. When humans interfere with nature it often produces
disastrous consequences.
A3. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
A4. The idea that we will experience a major ecological
catastrophe if things continue on their present course is
misguided nonsense. (R)
A5. It is all right for humans to use nature as a resource for
economic purposes.
A6. Protecting peoples’ jobs is more important than protecting
the environment.
A7. People have been giving far too little attention to how
human progress has been damaging the environment. (R)
A8. Protecting the environment is more important than
protecting economic growth. (R)
A9. We should no longer use nature as a resource for economic
purposes. (R)

A10. The beneﬁts of modern consumer products are more
important than the pollution that results from their production
and use.
Political Attitudes
Source:
Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics (2019). Survey of
young Americans’ attitudes toward politics and public service.
Retrieved from Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics
Website:
https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/190419_Harva
rd%20IOP%20Spring%202019_Topline.pdf.
P1. When it comes to voting, with which party do you consider
yourself to be affiliated?
Strong Democrat
Not a very strong Democrat
Strong Republican
Not a very strong Republican
Independent/Unaffiliated
P2. When it comes to most political issues, do you think of
yourself as a...?
Liberal
Conservative
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
P3. Do you consider yourself to be a proud member of your
party, or not?
Yes, I am proud
No, I am not
P4. How likely is it that you will vote in the general election for
President in November 2020?
Definitely will be voting
Probably will be voting
Probably won't be voting
Definitely won't be voting
P5. How likely is it that you will vote in your state’s primary or
caucus for President in 2020?
Definitely will be voting
Probably will be voting
Probably won't be voting
Definitely won't be voting
P6. Thinking about national issues for a moment, which issue
concerns you most?
Immigration
Economy
National Debt/budget deficit
Taxes
Financial Stability
Unemployment/Jobs
Environment/Global Warming
President Trump/Ineffective leadership
Health Care
Racial Issues
Gun Control/Second Amendment Issues
Abortion
Safety/Security

Education
Government/Political Corruption
Political Partisanship/Divide
Housing
Moral Issues
Equality/Equal Rights
Women’s Rights
Foreign Policy
Other
None
P7. Approximately how many times a day do you check your
phone (including social media)
for news and current events related content?
0 times
1-5 times
6-10 times
11-20 times
21+ times
P8. On which of the following platforms, if any, do regularly
access for news and current events related content? (multiple
responses allowed)
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
Snapchat
None of them
Below is a list of statements about politics. Do you agree or
disagree with these statements?
Strongly
Disagree

Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
P9. Donald Trump cares about people like me.
P10. The Republican party cares about people like me.
P11. The Democratic party cares about people like me.
P12. Voters who are part of the Baby Boomer generation (age
55 to 73) care about people like me.
P13. Elected officials who are part of the Baby Boomer
generation (age 55 to 73) care about people like me.
P14. Community service is an honorable thing to do.
P15. I want to do what I can to help unite, not further divide,
America.
P16. Elected officials seem to be motivated by selfish reasons.
P17. I am confident that I will be allowed to cast a ballot and
have it counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
P18. Despite our challenges, I would rather live in America than
any other place.
P19. Elected officials don’t seem to have the same priorities I
have.
P20. I feel like the government does not represent the America I
love.
P21. Politics has become too partisan.
P22. I feel like I need more practical information about politics
before I get involved.
P23. Politics today are no longer able to meet the challenges our
country is facing.
P24. People like me don’t have any say about what the

government does.
P25. Running for office is an honorable thing to do.
P26. I don’t believe my vote will make a real difference.
P27. The idea of working in some form of public service is
appealing to me.
P28. Political involvement rarely has any tangible results.
P29. The results of my previous involvement in politics have
left me disappointed.
P30. Politics is not relevant to my life right now.
P31. It really doesn’t matter to me who the President is.
P32. Based on the current state of the economy, how easy or
difficult do you think it will be for students in your class to find
a permanent job upon graduation?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Environmental Behaviors
Sources:
Oreg, S., Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental
behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned
behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and
Behavior, 38(4), 462-483.
Lynn, P. (2014). Distinguishing dimensions of pro-
environmental behavior. ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2014-
19, University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic
Research (ISER), Colchester.
Please rate the extent to which you do the following:
Never
Always

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B1. Leave your TV on at night. (R)
B2. Switch off lights in rooms that aren’t being used.
B3. Keep the tap running while you brush your teeth. (R)
B4. Put more clothes on when you feel cold rather than putting
the heating on or turning it up.
B5. Decide not to buy something because you feel it has too
much packaging.
B6. Buy recycled paper products such as toilet paper or tissues.
B7. Take your own shopping bag when shopping.
B8. Use public transportation rather than travel by car.
B9. Walk or bike for trips less than two or three miles.
B10. Car share with others who need to make a similar trip.
B11. Take fewer flights
B12. In the winter, I keep the heat at such a temperature that I
can wear light clothing inside my house. (R)
B13. In winter, I leave the windows of my house open for long
periods of time to air the house. (R)
B14. In winter, I turn off the heat in my house at night.
B15. In winter, when I leave my house for more than 30
minutes, I turn off the heat.
B16. I make the most use out of natural light.
B17. I turn off any lights I am not using.
B18. I unplug any electrical appliances I am not using.
B19. I buy biodegradable detergents to wash laundry.
B20. I buy organic products.
B21. I buy rechargeable batteries.
B22. I buy energy-efficient light bulbs.
B23. I buy products in reusable or returnable containers.

B24. After spending a day outside, I leave the site as clean as it
was when I got there.
B25. I visit national parks and/or nature reserves.
B26. I try to repair leaky faucets quickly.
B27. I leave the water running in the shower until it reaches the
proper temperature. (R)
B28. I try to turn off the faucet when I brush my teeth.
B29. I wait until I have a full load of laundry before putting it
in the washing machine.
B30. I drive in such a way to minimize the amount of gas I
consume.
B31. I sort papers and cardboard for recycling.
Environmental Knowledge
Sources:
Murphy, T. P. (2004). The Second Minnesota Report Card on
Environmental Literacy. The Second Minnesota Report Card on
Environmental Literacy. Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance. Retrieved from
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-ee5-06.pdf
O’Brien, S. R. (2007). Indications of environmental literacy:
Using a new survey instrument to measure awareness,
knowledge, and attitudes of university-aged students. Retrieved
from
http://www.academia.edu/34876091/Indications_of_environmen
tal_literacy_using_a_new_survey_instrum_2
K1. Compared to other students in your college and/or
department, how
much do you feel you know about environmental issues and
problems in general?
1. A lot

2. A reasonable amount
3. A little
4. Almost nothing
5. Nothing
6. Don't know
K2. What are your primary sources for environmental
information? Check as many as applicable:
1. TV
2. Radio
3. Internet
4. Magazines
5. Newspaper
6. Classes/courses
7. Books
8. Library
9. Friends/ relatives
10. Other
11. None
K3. During the past 10 years, do you think that the overall
quality of the planet's environment has
1. Improved a lot
2. Somewhat improved
3. Stayed the same
4. Somewhat declined
5. Declined a lot
6. Don't know
K4. What is the most common cause of pollution of streams,
rivers and oceans?
Dumping of garbage by cities,
Surface water running off yards, city streets, paved lots, and
farm fields,**

Trash washed into the ocean from beaches
Waste from factories
Other
K5. Thinking about the country as a whole, how is most of the
electricity in the U.S. generated?
By burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil,**
With nuclear power
Through solar energy
At hydroelectric power plants
Other
K6. Carbon monoxide is a major contributor to air pollution in
the U.S. Which of the following is the biggest source of carbon
monoxide?
Factories and businesses
People breathing
Motor vehicles**
Trees
Other
K7. What is one of the main benefits of wetlands?
Help to control global climate change
Help filter and store water before it enters lakes, streams, rivers
or oceans**
Prevent the spread of undesirable plants and animals
Provide good sites for landfills
Other
K8. What do you think is the main cause of global climate
change, that is, the warming of the planet Earth?
A recent increase in oxygen in the atmosphere

Sunlight radiating more strongly through a hole in the upper
ozone layer
More carbon emissions from autos, homes and industry**
Increased activity from volcanoes worldwide
You don’t believe there is global climate change
K9. Many communities are concerned about running out of
space in their community trash dumps and landfills. The
greatest source of landfill material is
Disposable diapers
Lawn and garden clippings, trimmings and leaves
Paper products including newspapers, cardboard and packing**
Glass and plastic bottles and aluminum and steel cans
Other
K10. Where does most of the energy that people use worldwide
come from?
1. Fossil fuels***
2. Wind power
3. Hydro power
4. Nuclear power
5. Don't know
K11. Which of the following is a non-renewable resource?
1. White-tailed deer
2. Fresh water
3. Oil ***
4. Trees
5. Don't know
K12. To maintain healthy woodlands and forests, we must:
1. Leave them alone

2. Check them every 40-50 years
3. Carefully manage them, including some trimming and cutting
***
4. Maintain abundant wildlife populations
5. None of the above
K13. Sustainable agriculture aims to...
1. Produce enough food to sustain human society
2. Meet the demand for food at any costs
3. Produce enough food while maintaining stable economic
costs
4. Produce enough food while maintaining a stable environment
5. Meet the requirement for food while maintaining a healthy
social, economic, and
ecological environment ***
6. Don't know
K14. What is the most common cause for plant and animal
species to become extinct?
1. Predation by other species
2. Habitat loss and fragmentation ***
3. Temperature change
4. Competition between species
5. Don't know
K15. If one is to say a species exceeded the carrying capacity of
its habitat, it means that:
1. It no longer has enough food, water, and cover available to
sustain the species in its current condition for an indefinite
future ***
sustain the species at all anymore
share with other species
4. None of the above
5. Don't know

Demographic Questions
Source:
Written by researchers
Please answer the following demographic questions.
Preferred Gender
Male
Female
Other
Race
White
Black/African American
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Age __________
Name (for credit granting purposes only, your name will be
deleted once credit is given)
________________________________________________
___________
APA Style

OverviewLanguageParts of research paperAPA styleIn-text
citationsReferences
Avoiding Biased LanguageAPA committed to fair treatment of
individuals and groups“APA publications [have] to avoid
perpetuating demeaning attitudes and biased assumptions about
people in their writing” (pg. 61)
Describe at appropriate level of specificity“Gay” vs. “gay men
and lesbians”Only mention differences (e.g., marital status,
sexual orientation) when they are relevant
APA = American Psychological Association
GuidelinesBe sensitive to labelsCall people what they prefer to
be called (this may change over time)Avoid labels that cause
people to lose their individualityE.g., “the elderly” vs. “elderly
participants” or “people that are elderly”
Acknowledge participationUse active voice“Our study included
60 people” vs. “Sixty people participated”Use the term
“participants” instead of “subjects”
Best to be more specific (e.g., instead of asian american note
their region of origin – chinese american)
Don’t use offensive labels (oriental vs. asian)
Revise the FollowingThe participants were asked to think of
their favorite teacher from elementary school and to rate her on
the 20 evaluative dimensions.

Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx

Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx

Similar to Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx (20)

More from vannagoforth

More from vannagoforth (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Original ArticleNeed for Cognitive Closure andPolitical .docx