CAN CONSUMER WISDOM FOSTER INTENTION TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE? AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-IDENTITY, BIOSPHERIC VALUES, AND CLIMATE CHANGE ENGAGEMENT

Öz

Climate change remains a consumer behaviour issue and can be examined through the emerging concept of consumer wisdom. This study develops and tests a model positioning consumer wisdom as a key mechanism through which environmental self-identity and biospheric values translate into climate change mitigation intention. Data from 307 consumers in Türkiye were analysed using structural equation modelling. The findings show that environmental self-identity and biospheric values positively influence consumer wisdom, which strengthens moral obligation. Moral obligation increases climate change concern and engagement, and both responses positively predict mitigation intentions. The results reveal serial indirect effects of environmental self-identity and biospheric values on mitigation intentions through consumer wisdom and moral obligation, followed by either concern or engagement. Perceived meaninglessness did not significantly moderate the relationships between climate-related responses and mitigation intentions. In contrast, perceived powerlessness weakened the concern–intention relationship but, contrary to expectations, strengthened the engagement–intention relationship. This study extends consumer wisdom research by identifying its environmental foundations and explaining how it is transformed into climate action through moral and psychological mechanisms. Practically, the findings indicate that policymakers and marketing practitioners can strengthen mitigation intentions by fostering wise consumption, moral responsibility, and climate change concern and engagement.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Consumer Wisdom
• Environmental Self-Identity
• Biospheric Values
• Moral Obligation
• Climate Change Engagement
• Climate Change Mitigation Intention

Etik Beyan

The ethical compliance of this study was approved by the Social Sciences University of Ankara Ethics Committee with Decision No. 214254, dated 9 June 2026.

TÜKETİCİ BİLGELİĞİ İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİNİN ETKİLERİNİ AZALTMA NİYETİNİ GÜÇLENDİREBİLİR Mİ? ÇEVRESEL ÖZ-KİMLİK, BİYOSFERİK DEĞERLER VE İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİ KATILIMINI BÜTÜNLEŞTİREN BİR MODEL

Öz

İklim değişikliği, tüketici davranışı alanında önemli bir sorun olmaya devam etmekte ve yükselen bir kavram olan tüketici bilgelik çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışma, çevresel benlik kimliği ve biyosferik değerlerin iklim değişikliğinin etkilerini azaltma niyetine nasıl dönüştüğünü açıklamak amacıyla tüketici bilgeliğini temel bir mekanizma olarak konumlandıran bir model geliştirmekte ve test etmektedir. Türkiye’deki 307 tüketiciden elde edilen araştırma verisi yapısal eşitlik modellemesiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, çevresel benlik kimliği ve biyosferik değerlerin tüketici bilgeliğini olumlu yönde etkilediğini; tüketici bilgeliğinin ise ahlaki yükümlülüğü güçlendirdiğini göstermektedir. Ahlaki yükümlülük, iklim değişikliğine yönelik kaygı ve katılımı artırmakta; bu iki tepki de azaltma niyetlerini olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Ayrıca çevresel benlik kimliği ve biyosferik değerlerin, tüketici bilgeliği ve ahlaki yükümlülük üzerinden; ardından iklim değişikliği kaygısı veya katılımı aracılığıyla azaltma niyetleri üzerindeki sıralı dolaylı etkileri anlamlı bulunmuştur. Algılanan anlamsızlık, iklimle ilişkili tepkiler ile azaltma niyetleri arasındaki ilişkiler üzerinde düzenleyici bir etkisi bulunmamıştır. Buna karşılık algılanan güçsüzlük, kaygı–niyet ilişkisini zayıflatırken, beklentilerin aksine katılım–niyet ilişkisini güçlendirmiştir. Çalışma, tüketici bilgeliğinin çevresel temellerini ortaya koyarak ve ahlaki-psikolojik mekanizmalar yoluyla iklim eylemine nasıl dönüştüğünü açıklayarak literatüre katkı sunmaktadır. Uygulama açısından bulgular, politika yapıcıların ve pazarlama uygulayıcılarının bilgece tüketimi, ahlaki sorumluluğu, iklim değişikliğine yönelik kaygı ve katılımı teşvik ederek azaltma niyetlerini güçlendirebileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tüketici Bilgeliği
• Çevresel Öz-Kimlik
• Biyosferik Değerler
• Ahlaki Yükümlülük
• İklim Değişikliğine Katılım
• İklim Değişikliğinin Etkilerini Azaltma Niyeti

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın etik kurallara uygunluğu, Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 09.06.2026 tarihli ve 214254 sayılı kararıyla onaylanmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Aldwin, C. M., Igarashi, H., & Levenson, M. R. (2019). Wisdom as self-transcendence. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568272.007
2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
3. Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Rincón, V., & Paredes, M. R. (2025). Climate Action Through a Feminist Lens: The Role of Gender Inequality Awareness, Nature Empathy, and Climate Change Concern. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06171-x
4. Bahl, S., Milne, G. R., Ross, S. M., Mick, D. G., Grier, S. A., Chugani, S. K., ... & Boesen-Mariani, S. (2016). Mindfulness: Its transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.139
5. 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 Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
6. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(91)90021-H
7. Biel, A., Dahlstrand, U., & Grankvist, G. (2005). Habitual and value-guided purchase behavior. Ambio: a Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4), 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.360
8. Biswas, A. (2017). A consumption value-gap analysis for sustainable consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(8), 7714-7725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8355-9

9. Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., ... & Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061
10. Brody, S., Grover, H., & Vedlitz, A. (2012). Examining the willingness of Americans to alter behaviour to mitigate climate change. Climate Policy, 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579261
11. Broome, J. (2008). The ethics of climate change. Scientific American, 298(6), 96-102.
12. Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
13. Chen, M. F. (2016). Extending the theory of planned behavior model to explain people's energy savings and carbon reduction behavioral intentions to mitigate climate change in Taiwan–moral obligation matters. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1746-1753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.043
14. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature, 45-65.
15. Cruz, S. M., & Manata, B. (2020). Measurement of environmental concern: A review and analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363
16. De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
17. De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449
18. Demirbaş, M., & Aydın, R. (2020). 21. yüzyılın en büyük tehdidi: küresel iklim değişikliği. Ecological Life Sciences, 15(4), 163-179.
19. Dinçer, Ö. (2024). Çevresel sürdürülebilirlik kapsamında tüketici bilinci ve markadan kaçınma: İklim değişikliği katılımı ve öncüllerinin etkisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi (Türkiye)).
20. Do Paco, A., Shiel, C., & Alves, H. (2019). A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 998-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.105
21. Fletcher, J., Higham, J., & Longnecker, N. (2021). Climate change risk perception in the USA and alignment with sustainable travel behaviours. PLoS One, 16(2), e0244545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244545
22. Ganassali, S., & Matysiewicz, J. (2021). “What a lot of things I don’t need!”: consumption satiation, self-transcendence and consumer wisdom. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(5), 540-551. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2020-3637
23. Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values, 15(3), 397-413. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327106778226293
24. Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2012). Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 374-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.682086
25. Ge, W., Sheng, G., & Zhang, H. (2020). How to solve the social norm conflict dilemma of green consumption: The moderating effect of self-affirmation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566571
26. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
27. Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N. M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., ... & Vervaeke, J. (2020). The science of wisdom in a polarized world: Knowns and unknowns. Psychological Inquiry, 31(2), 103-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750917
28. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 730.
29. He, A. Z., Cai, T., Deng, T. X., & Li, X. (2016). Factors affecting non‐green consumer behaviour: an exploratory study among Chinese consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12261
30. Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. In Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 713-735). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
31. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
32. Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.002
33. Hollebeek, L. D., Filieri, R., Calder, B. J., & Sprott, D. E. (2023). Fostering consumers’ climate (change) engagement [Special issue call for papers]. Journal of Business Research.
34. Hussain, K., Junaid, M., Javed, M., Ali, M., & Iqbal, A. (2022). Consumer wisdom: a mindful connection between healthy food advertising and obesity prevention. European Journal of Marketing, 56(11), 3032-3053. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2021-0645
35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H. Lee & J. Romero, Eds.). IPCC.
36. Iqbal, Z., Youjin, L., Imtiaz, H., & Ahmad, N. (2026). Do pro-environmental factors influence sustainable behavior? The moderating role of climate change concern in China and Pakistan. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1704513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1704513
37. Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., & Creutzig, F. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
38. Jamieson, D. (2010). Climate change, responsibility, and justice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(3), 431-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9174-x
39. Jiang, H., Kim, J. N., Liu, B., & Luo, Y. (2019). The impact of perceptual and situational factors on environmental communication: a study of citizen engagement in China. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 582-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1346517
40. Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., Micevski, M., Dlacic, J., & Zabkar, V. (2019). Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults. Journal of Business Research, 104, 644-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.040
41. Kaur, T., & Luchs, M. G. (2022). Mindfulness enhances the values that promote sustainable consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 990-1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21636
42. Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.016
43. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
44. Kline, R.B. (2011). Methodology in the Social Sciences: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
45. Köcher, S., Alkire, L., Köcher, S., Myrden, S., & O’Connor, G. E. (2025). Consumers’ climate change engagement: conceptualization, scale development, and assessment. Journal of Business Research, 199, 115568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115568
46. Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y
47. Leonard, L. N., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What influences IT ethical behavior intentions—planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual characteristics?. Information & Management, 42(1), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.008
48. Lubell, M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Collective action and citizen responses to global warming. Political Behavior, 29(3), 391-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9025-2
49. Luchs, M. G., & Mick, D. G. (2018). Consumer wisdom: a theoretical framework of five integrated facets. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1037
50. Luchs, M. G., Mick, D. G., & Haws, K. L. (2021). Consumer wisdom for personal well‐being and the greater good: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 587-611. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1224
51. Markowitz, E. M. (2012). Is climate change an ethical issue? Examining young adults’ beliefs about climate and morality. Climatic Change, 114(3), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0422-8
52. Milfont, T. L. (2012). The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: a one‐year longitudinal study. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 1003-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x
53. Mottaz, C. J. (1981). Some determinants of work alienation. Sociological Quarterly, 22(4), 515-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb00678.x
54. Newton, J. D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., & Sands, S. (2015). Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1974-1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.007
55. Nguyen, Q. N., Thai, N. T., Heffernan, T. W., Reynolds, N., & Zainuddin, N. (2025). A consumer wisdom-informed conceptualization for understanding prosocial behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 192, 115293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115293
56. Nicolosi, E., & Corbett, J. B. (2018). Engagement with climate change and the environment: a review of the role of relationships to place. Local Environment, 23(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1385002
57. Özer, M., Özer, A., & Koçak, A. (2022). Comparing the antecedents of boycotts and buycotts: mediating role of self-esteem on subjective well-being and the moderating effects of materialism. Journal of Marketing Management, 38(17-18), 1873-1906. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2065334
58. Öztürk, K. (2002). Küresel iklim değişikliği ve Türkiye’ye olası etkileri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1).
59. Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2023). Confronting the deep problem of consumption: why individual responsibility for mindful consumption matters. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 57(2), 785-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12534
60. Piligrimienė, Ž., Žukauskaitė, A., Korzilius, H., Banytė, J., & Dovalienė, A. (2020). Internal and external determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 12(4), 1349. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041349
61. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
62. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
63. Reitz, A. R. (2012). Online consumer engagement: Understanding the antecedents and outcomes. Colorado State University.
64. Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., ... & Moza, D. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.004
65. Schill, M., & Fosse-Gomez, M. H. (2025). Consumer climate change engagement in fostering well-being and mitigation behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 198, 115490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115490
66. Schultz, P. W. (2000). New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of Perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00174
67. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
68. Sharma, N., Saha, R., Sreedharan, V. R., & Paul, J. (2020). Relating the role of green self‐concepts and identity on green purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3203-3219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2567
69. Singer, P. (2006). Ethics and climate change: A commentary on MacCracken, Toman and Gardiner. Environmental Values, 15(3), 415-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/096327190601500314
70. Steg, L. (2016). Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085947
71. Steg, L. (2022). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 391-421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905
72. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
73. Şen, Z. (2022). İklim değişikliği ve Türkiye. Çevre Şehir ve İklim Dergisi, 1(1), 1-19.
74. Thøgersen, J. (2021). Consumer behavior and climate change: Consumers need considerable assistance. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.008
75. Trujillo, C. A., & Luchs, M. (2025). The role of consumer wisdom in the interplay of motivations affecting pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 488, 144618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144618
76. United Nations Environment Programme. (2025). Emissions gap report 2025: Off target—Continued collective inaction puts global temperature goal at risk. United Nations Environment Programme.
77. United Nations Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2026). The Road to Antalya. https://unfccc.int/cop31/the-road-to-antalya
78. Van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
79. Van der Werff, E., & Steg, L. (2016). The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: Comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy Research & Social Science, 22, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.022
80. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013a). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
81. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013b). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.018
82. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512475209
83. Wannow, S., & Haupt, M. (2026). Explaining consumer climate engagement: a conceptual model and a typology based on social exchange and construal level theory. Journal of Business Research, 207, 115970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.115970
84. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
85. Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
86. Wong-Parodi, G., & Rubin, N. B. (2022). Exploring how climate change subjective attribution, personal experience with extremes, concern, and subjective knowledge relate to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions in the United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101728
87. Zhang, L., Ruiz-Menjivar, J., Luo, B., Liang, Z., & Swisher, M. E. (2020). Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101408
88. Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257