Stern, P. C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424 (2000).
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).
Farrow, K., Grolleau, G. & Ibanez, L. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140, 1–13 (2017).
Helferich, M., Thøgersen, J. & Bergquist, M. Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro-environmental behavior. Glob. Environ. Change 80, 102680 (2023).
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97 (1999).
Bergquist, M., Nilsson Hed, A. & Schultz, W. P. A meta-analysis of field-experiments using social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Glob. Environ. Change 59, 101941 (2019).
Constantino, S. M. et al. Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 23, 50–97 (2022).
Schneider, C. R. & van der Linden, S. Social norms as a powerful lever for motivating pro-climate actions. One Earth 6, 346–351 (2023).
Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. & Falk, A. Misperceived social norms and willingness to act against climate change. Rev. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01468 (2024).
Andre, P. et al. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 253–259 (2024).
Leviston, Z., Walker, I. & Morwinski, S. Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 334–337 (2013).
Mildenberger, M. & Tingley, D. Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 49, 1279–1307 (2019).
Sparkman, G., Geiger, N. & Weber, E. U. Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nat. Commun. 13, 4779 (2022).
Geiger, S. J. et al. Understanding the role of pluralistic ignorance in biodiversity conservation: a research agenda. Glob. Environ. Change 95, 103043 (2025).
Geiger, N. & Swim, J. K. Climate of silence: pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. J. Environ. Psychol. 47, 79–90 (2016).
Noelle-Neumann, E. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion—Our Social Skin. 2nd edn (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993).
Geiger, S. J. et al. What we think others think and do about climate change: a multicountry test of pluralistic ignorance and public-consensus messaging. Psychol. Sci. 36, 421–442 (2025).
Sevincer, A. T., Hostloesky, L., Styhler, F. & Hofmann, W. Politicians underestimate support for climate action even more than the general public. Preprint at Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/kav53_v4 (2025).
Dablander, F., Lange, F., Brick, C. & Aron, A. R. Expressing intentions is not climate action. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2512457122 (2025).
Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 10, 503–518 (2016).
Dixon, G., Clarke, C., Jacquet, J., Evensen, D. T. N. & Hart, P. S. The complexity of pluralistic ignorance in Republican climate change policy support in the United States. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 76 (2024).
Guay, B., Marghetis, T., Wong, C. & Landy, D. Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2413064122 (2025).
Landy, D., Guay, B. & Marghetis, T. Bias and ignorance in demographic perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 1606–1618 (2018).
Fennell, J. & Baddeley, R. Uncertainty plus prior equals rational bias: an intuitive Bayesian probability weighting function. Psychol. Rev. 119, 878–887 (2012).
Betsch, C. et al. Modelling the readiness for climate action across individual and system-related behaviours. Preprint at Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/enkwy (2025).
Castiglione, A., Brick, C., Holden, S., Miles-Urdan, E. & Aron, A. R. Discovering the psychological building blocks underlying climate action: a longitudinal study of real-world activism. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 210006 (2022).
Bechtoldt, M. & Schermelleh-Engel, K. Worry’s clout: concern, not positive affectivity, drives climate activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 101, 102517 (2025).
Pew Research Center. How Americans View Future Harms From Climate Change in Their Community and Around the US. (2023).
Goerg, S., Pondorfer, A. & Stöhr, V. Regional variation in social norm nudges. Sci Rep. 14, 16773 (2024).
Barnfield, M. et al. Information on public opinion has lasting effects on second-order climate beliefs, but minimal and ephemeral effects on first-order beliefs. J. Environ. Psychol. 110, 102901 (2026).
Rinscheid, A., Pianta, S. & Weber, E. U. What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues. Behav. Public Policy 5, 503–527 (2021).
Vlasceanu, M. et al. Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Sci. Adv. 10, eadj5778 (2024).
Tiede, K. E., Maur, K. & Betsch, C. People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action. Preregistrations, materials, data, and analytical code. Preprint at Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCQ37 (2026).
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. The Work for Environmental Protection Task: a consequential web-based procedure for studying pro-environmental behavior. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 133–145 (2022).
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. Validity and scope sensitivity of the Work for Environmental Protection Task. J. Environ. Psychol. 86, 101967 (2023).
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav. Res. Methods 55, 600–622 (2023).
Lehrer, L. et al. Study protocol of the planetary health action survey PACE: a serial cross-sectional survey to assess the readiness to act against climate change. BMJ Open 14, e091093 (2024).
Lees, J., Colaizzi, G., Goldberg, M. H. & Constantino, S. M. Misperceptions of support for climate policy represent multiple phenomena predicted by different factors across intergroup boundaries. Preprint at Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/vfbq4 (2023).
Poortinga, W. The role of policy appraisals and second-order beliefs in public support for climate policies in the UK. Clim. Policy https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2539977 (2025).
Sheeran, P. Intention–behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 1–36 (2002).
Todorova, B. et al. Machine learning identifies key individual and nation-level factors predicting climate-relevant beliefs and behaviors. npj Clim. Action 4, 46 (2025).
Drews, S., Savin, I. & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. Biased perceptions of other people’s attitudes to carbon taxation. Energy Policy 167, 113051 (2022).
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: reprise. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 249–254 (2018).
Ai, P. & Rosenthal, S. The model of norm-regulated responsibility for proenvironmental behavior in the context of littering prevention. Sci. Rep. 14, 9289 (2024).
Bhanot, S. P. Isolating the effect of injunctive norms on conservation behavior: new evidence from a field experiment in California. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 163, 30–42 (2021).
Bonan, J., Cattaneo, C., d’Adda, G. & Tavoni, M. The interaction of descriptive and injunctive social norms in promoting energy conservation. Nat. Energy 5, 900–909 (2020).
Steiger, A. & Kühberger, A. A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect. Z. Psychol. 226, 1–19 (2018).
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).
Goldwert, D. & Vlasceanu, M. An individual–collective–systemic behavioral climate intervention framework. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 65, 101569 (2025).
Bergquist, M., Thiel, M., Goldberg, M. H. & van der Linden, S. Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: a second-order meta-analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2214851120 (2023).
Varotto, A. & Spagnolli, A. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling: a systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 168–188 (2017).
Beiser-McGrath, L. F. & Bernauer, T. Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible?. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax3323 (2019).
Huber, R. A., Wicki, M. L. & Bernauer, T. Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness. Environ. Polit. 29, 649–673 (2020).
Jagers, S. C. et al. Bridging the ideological gap? How fairness perceptions mediate the effect of revenue recycling on public support for carbon taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany. Rev. Policy Res. 38, 529–554 (2021).
Baranzini, A. et al. Carbon pricing in climate policy: seven reasons, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e462 (2017).
Dechezleprêtre, A. et al. Fighting climate change: international attitudes toward climate policies. Am. Econ. Rev. 115, 1258–1300 (2025).
Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S. & Savin, I. Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses. Nat. Commun. 12, 7017 (2021).
Aasen, M. & Vatn, A. Public attitudes toward climate policies: the effect of institutional contexts and political values. Ecol. Econ. 146, 106–114 (2018).
Bertolotti, M. & Catellani, P. Bridging the ideological divide: communicating the positive economic impact of climate policy to persuade the right. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, e70058 (2025).
Dasandi, N. et al. Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 239 (2022).
Reynolds, J. et al. Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: a systematic review with meta-analysis. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 190522 (2020).
Tiede, K. E., Temme, H., Lehrer, L. & Betsch, C. Enhancing perceived effectiveness can increase climate policy acceptance. J. Environ. Psychol. 106, 102725 (2025).
Walker, B. J. A., Kurz, T. & Russel, D. Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy. Environ. Behav. 50, 781–806 (2018).
Levontin, L., Gilad, Z., Durango-Cohen, E. & Durango-Cohen, P. The impact factor: the effect of actual impact information and perceived donation efficacy on donors’ repeated donations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 118, 104720 (2025).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Beyond WEIRD: towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 111–135 (2010).
IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Lejarraga, T. & Hertwig, R. How experimental methods shaped views on human competence and rationality. Psychol. Bull. 147, 535–564 (2021).
Almaatouq, A. et al. Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci. 47, e33 (2024).
Baribault, B. et al. Metastudies for robust tests of theory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2607–2612 (2018).
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. & Yeager, D. S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 980–989 (2021).
Bürkner, P.-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).
Brooks, S. P. & Gelman, A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 434–455 (1998).
Gelman, A., Goodrich, B., Gabry, J. & Vehtari, A. R-squared for Bayesian regression models. Am. Stat. 73, 307–309 (2019).