{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02972728447718754, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03489724699495929, 'mean_word_length': 5.040202966432474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Personal , Social , Environmental : Future Orientation and 1 Attitudes Mediate the Associations between Locus of 2 Control and Pro-environmental Behavior

This study tested a model in which pro-environmental attitudes mediate the association between personality traits (locus of control and future orientation) and pro-environmental behavior. Two hundred and thirty participants completed measures of the above concepts and provided information about demographic variables known to be associated with pro-environmental behavior. Path analysis supported a double mediation model in which future orientation and pro-environmental attitudes (in this order) mediate the association between locus of control and behavior. Of the demographic variables, only age was directly associated with behavior. The results are discussed in light of the theory and previous findings. Keywords: future orientation, locus of control, mediation model, personality, pro-environmental behavior.


Introduction
Fears for the future of our planet rise with accumulating evidence of  25 importance and validity of the environmental plea for action (Nunez, 2019). 26 Against this backdrop, it becomes more and more important to examine factors 27 that differentiate individuals in how they perceive, appraise, and act upon the issue 28 of caring for our environment. In an era when facts and figures are more available 29 than ever but more controversial and difficult to process, it is key that we 30 understand underlying resources, predispositions, and individual-level variables 31 that may account for how individuals (and groups) relate to these data and 32 translate them (if at all) into action (or lack of it). 33 Existing research, stretching back to the 1970s, has addressed the question of 34 which, and to what extent, personality traits and characteristics are associated with 35 pro-environmental perceptions and actions (e.g., Arbuthnot, 1977). Attempts to 36 identify personality profiles associated with pro-environmental attitudes have 37 shown inconsistent results (briefly reviewed later in this paper). More interesting 38 perhaps is the search for individual-level elements and concepts that may account 39 for the extent to which individuals commit to pro-environmental behavior. Of 40 special interest is identifying those personal-level concepts that are not just given 41 but that are also at least somewhat amenable to change, thus pointing out potential 42 paths for future interventions and education programs. This study, thus, proposes and tests a multitiered model of personal factors and the routes by which they may 1 be associated with pro-environmental behavior (PEB). 2 Past and current research points to a few major insights regarding the choice 3 of potential personality factors that may be most relevant to such a model. 4 Drawing from both leading theories of personality and theories of planned, goal- 5 oriented behavior, we identify key elements for our model, which we later test. 6 Looking at how authors in this field have addressed the subject of personality 7 as a key factor in accounting for PEB, two trends emerge: one uses the popular 8 "big-five" personality model, showing some evidence of associations between 9 conscientiousness, openness to new experience, agreeableness, and outcome 10 measures related to PEBs or to pro-environmental attitudes (PEAs; Milfont & 11 Sibley, 2012). The other trend focuses on specific personality traits such as 12 extraversion, sincerity (Pettus & Giles, 1987), higher self-esteem, emotional 13 connection to nature, and prosocial predisposition (Markowitz, Goldberg, Ashton, 14 & Lee, 2012). Numerous models and individual traits have been studied, and most 15 have shown sporadic and often inconsistent evidence of links with PEB patterns. 16 What concept is most relevant in accounting for such behavior? Examining the 17 essence of PEB may present a potential answer: this behavior often involves 18 accepting certain levels of frustration or inconvenience for the sake of future 19 benefit (Kaiser & Byrka, 2011). This principle harks back to the principles of self-20 regulation-or, more simply, that individuals who are better at postponing 21 gratification are more likely to show PEBs (Bamberg, 2013). 22 Consideration of future consequences of behavior emerges as key to  (Seginer, 2009). Although studies have 27 already established associations between FO and a broad range of behaviors (e.g., 28 saving money, avoiding risky behaviors), only recently has evidence been 29 published linking FO with pro-environmental perceptions and attitudes; however, 30 the evidence was somewhat inconclusive for actual behavior (Carmi, 2013). 31 Another personality-related concept that holds promise in this direction is that 32 of locus of control (LOC; see Ajzen, 2002). This concept relates to the tendency of 33 individuals to attribute control to either themselves or external sources (luck, God, 34 fate, etc.) and the extent to which they feel they can control and navigate events in 35 their lives. The concept emerged about three decades ago as a pivotal factor in 36 accounting for behavior-change interventions, and in facilitating goal-oriented 37 behavior (e.g., Ajzen & Madden, 1986). 38 Both LOC and FO emerge as promising personality-related concepts in the 39 context of PEB patterns; yet, to better formulate the shift from internal, individual 40 predispositions to actual behavior, we need to address another missing link: PEAs.

41
Attitude is a concept representing the individual's tendency to react 42 emotionally and cognitively and to develop a certain behavioral default toward a 43 given object or idea (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). In many contexts, attitudes are 44 considered a potential for behavior toward a certain target object, person, or concept. In other words, many believe that understanding attitudes is pivotal to 1 understanding behavior and modifying attitudes, and may often result in behavior 2 modification (Fazio, 1986). 3 Based on the above ideas, we propose a chain of associations leading from 4 personality characteristics to actual behavior in the field of environmental 5 conservation ( Figure 1): characteristics representing a sense of control over oneself 6 and one's environment, alongside the tendency to postpone immediate 7 gratification for the benefit of future outcomes, shape positive attitudes toward 8 environmental issues, and thus lead to PEB. We therefore present and test a model   Literature Review 32 33 Pro-environmental Behavior 34 35 PEB was defined as behavior that seeks to minimize the negative impact of 36 one's actions on the natural world (e.g., minimizing resource and energy 37 consumption, using nontoxic substances, reducing waste production; Kollmuss & 38 Agyeman, 2002). Significant environmental behaviors were defined as those 39 undertaken to change the environment (Stern, 2000). PEA can be viewed in the 40 context of change: a change in one's own lifestyle, in one's school, in one's local 41 community, or in global society in a manner that allows better conservation of 42 resources and a smaller environmental footprint (Jensen, 2002 environmental actions, such as recycling, driving less, and buying organic food, 5 and indirect environmental actions, such as donating money, political activism, 6 educational outreach, and environmental writing. This suggests that PEB varies 7 not only in its nature but also in its magnitude: Finger (1994) noted three levels of 8 PEA: standard environmental behavior (doing at least one of the following: 9 recycling, using public transportation, etc., and trying to learn more about the 10 environment), limited activism (doing the above plus at least one of the following: 11 voting for candidates who are committed to the environment, trying to inform 12 others, signing petitions in favor of environmental protection, and engaging locally 13 to protect the environment), and protest behavior (doing the above plus at least one  PEAs as a precursor to behavior. 26 27 Pro-environmental Attitudes 28 29 Attitude is a concept representing the individual's tendency to react 30 emotionally and cognitively and to develop a certain behavioral default toward a 31 given object or idea (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Environmental attitude (EA) is 32 defined as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating the natural 33 environment with some degree of favor or disfavor (Milfont, 2007). The 34 traditional model of EA structure has three components: cognitive, affective, and  Many researchers believe that understanding attitudes is pivotal to 44 understanding behavior, and that modifying attitudes may often result in behavior modification (Fazio, 1986 19 suggested that one of the reasons for this gap may be the method of measurement. 20 He claimed that in order to find a high correlation between attitude and behavior, 21 researchers must measure the attitude toward a particular behavior. More-narrowly 22 targeted attitude measurements lead to higher correlations (Lehmann, 1999). Ajzen 23 and Fishbein (2005) claimed that attitudes do not determine behavior directly; 24 rather, they influence behavioral intentions, which in turn shape behavior. 25 26 Future Orientation 27 28 FO is the individual predisposition to bring future outcomes into current 29 considerations of one's actions (Seginer, 2009). It can be defined in a social- 30 cultural context as the degree to which individuals (or societies) engage in future- 31 oriented behavior such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying 32 gratification (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). In the personal psychological 33 contexts, FO reflects the tendency of people to plan for and achieve future goals 34 and to consider the long-term consequences of their behavior (Strathman et al., 35 1994; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). It is a human trait that enables individuals to 36 anticipate, make plans, organize future options, and choose an action that promises 37 a significant but future reward, even if it involves paying a price now (Gjesme, . 39 A few studies showed that future-oriented individuals tend to care about the . However, the current evidence is far from conclusive: other findings showed that highly future-oriented students did not 1 express stronger PEAs, and that their willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the 2 environment was significantly lower. They adopted PEBs only if doing so was to 3 their personal benefit (Carmi, 2013).

4
A meta-analysis study showed that the associations between time perspective 5 (a concept often used for FO) and PEBs were higher than those for PEAs (Milfont,6 Wilson, & Diniz, 2012). The findings indicate that FO or time perspective seems 7 to play an important role in influencing individuals' attitudes and behaviors toward 8 the environment. Thus, consideration of future consequences can be a significant 9 predictor of PEBs and PEAs (Bruderer Enzler, 2015). 10 11 Locus of Control 12 13 LOC relates to individuals' tendency to attribute control to either themselves that they can bring about environmental changes through their personal behavior 20 and that their actions with respect to the environment are therefore worthwhile. 1999). 38 39 Summary and Rationale 40 41 There is agreement in the behavioral literature in general and on PEB in to which individuals feel that they can exert some control over their environment 12 and their own world. Logic suggests that internal LOC is associated with more 13 positive attitudes toward the environment and potential PEB. 14 We therefore posit that PEAs mediate the associations between demographics, 15 FO, and LOC and PEB. Figure 1 summarizes the proposed model guiding this 16 study.

21
Sample and Settings 22 23 Two hundred thirty participants agreed to take "a survey of perceptions and 24 attitudes about the world around us." They were recruited through various online 25 social forums in Israel. Of the participants, 79% were women and 21% were men. 26 Their mean age was 34.91 years (SD = 10.97). The majority were Jews (89%), 27 followed by Muslims (3.86%) and Christians (2.29%). The remaining 4.85% either 28 identified as nondenominational or refused to answer. The greatest share of the 29 sample had a bachelor's degree or equivalent (39%), followed by a masters' 30 degree (29%), and about 30% who had a secondary school education. Two percent 31 refused to report their education. 32 33 Measures 34 35 We used online self-report questionnaires; all are validated measures of the 36 variables in our model.  level.

21
Procedure 22 23 After approval of the study by the authors' IRB, a call for participation was 24 issued in online social media forums, with a link to the questionnaires that also 25 included a brief informed-consent form. Data were gathered in a way that did not 26 require individuals to expose their identity and thus were anonymized throughout 27 the process.

29
Data Analysis 30 31 Preliminary descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 24.0. The 32 model-testing path analysis was conducted using ISM AMOS 19.0, which includes 33 a test for direct and indirect effects. 34

38
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses 39 40 Before testing the proposed model, we examined the descriptive statistics and 41 preliminary associations between the main variables in the model. Table 1 42 summarizes these analyses. 43 44

7
The results suggest reasonable-to-good reliability coefficients for the 8 questionnaire-based scores. The distribution showed no ceiling or floor effect, and 9 standard deviations were noted. The preliminary examination of the associations 10 between the study variables did not necessarily support the proposed model: 11 attitudes and behavior showed a positive correlation, and religiosity was 12 negatively associated with environmental attitudes and behavior. LOC and FO also 13 correlated with each other, as expected, but the expected correlations between FO, 14 LOC, and environmental attitudes and behavior did not emerge in this preliminary 15 analysis.

17
Model Testing 18 19 Path analysis was used to examine the model, and to test for the direct and 20 indirect effects it suggested. This method allowed us to test a full, complex model 21 without the danger of capitalization on chance (Wootton, 1994). The analysis 22 results are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 2. Whereas the original model was    The potential implications of this model for theory, future research, and 30 potential interventions are discussed next. 31

33
Discussion 34 35 Understanding the antecedents of PEB grows increasingly important in both 36 the educational and the general public contexts. Understanding the personal variables that may account for individuals' PEB is 1 vital to enabling optimal educational intervention and education programs in the 2 future, to improve the PEB of the world population. From our findings it emerges 3 that designing a structured environmental educational program that will induce and 4 empower students' LOC and FO regarding the environment may help increase 5 their PEAs and PEB.

7
Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies 8 9 When considering the study results, the reader may do well to consider the 10 study limitations. First, participants were sampled from a specific country (Israel) 11 whose environmental legislation and culture may differ from those of other