# Acting together for a positive future: A cross-cultural investigation of how environmental cognitive alternatives and efficacy beliefs contribute to individual and collective biodiversity-conservation intentions

Lucia Bosone, Jonas Rees, Tommaso Feraco, Marie Chevrier, Séverine Maggio, Franck Zenasni, Sebastian Bamberg

## ► To cite this version:

Lucia Bosone, Jonas Rees, Tommaso Feraco, Marie Chevrier, Séverine Maggio, et al.. Acting together for a positive future: A cross-cultural investigation of how environmental cognitive alternatives and efficacy beliefs contribute to individual and collective biodiversity-conservation intentions. Futures, 2026, 175, pp.103720. 10.1016/j.futures.2025.103720. hal-05442478

HAL Id: hal-05442478

https://hal.science/hal-05442478v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ELSEVIER

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Acting together for a positive future: A cross-cultural investigation of how environmental cognitive alternatives and efficacy beliefs contribute to individual and collective biodiversity-conservation intentions

Lucia Bosone<sup>a, *, †</sup>, Jonas Rees<sup>b</sup>, Tommaso Feraco<sup>c †</sup>, Marie Chevrier<sup>a</sup>, Séverine Maggio<sup>d †</sup>, Franck Zenasni<sup>d †</sup>, Sebastian Bamberg<sup>e</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Behavioural change

Biodiversity conservation

Ability to imagine the future

Efficacy beliefs

Theory of planned behaviour

## ABSTRACT

Motivating citizens to individually and collectively engage in favor of biodiversity conservation is a fundamental challenge of current society. But what are the drivers that motivate individuals to engage in biodiversity conservation actions? Growing interest in recent research on behavioral change for climate change mitigation is brought to individuals' perception of the future, and more precisely how individuals' ability to envision a positive eco-friendly future can be a fundamental step for behavioral change with regards to climate change mitigation. We argue that two important socio-cognitive dimensions need to be integrated in the modelling of biodiversity conservation intentions, related to individuals' appraisal of collective coping: the perceived ability to imagine a positive future and efficacy beliefs with regards to behavioral and social changes in favor of biodiversity conservation. To this purpose, we carried out an exploratory correlational study, collecting data from France and Germany, China and the USA (total N = 2000). Present findings confirm that the ability to imagine a positive future and efficacy beliefs, together with social identity, social norms and attitudes, are strong correlates of biodiversity-conservation intentions, both at an individual and collective level. These findings offer important insights on envisioning positive futures as a significant factor supporting pro-environmental intentions.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, Versailles F-78000, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence, Research Institute Social Cohesion, Department of Psychology Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, Bielefeld 33615, Germany</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia 8, Padua, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, Boulogne-Billancourt F-92100, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Department of Social Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, Bielefeld, Germany</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence to: Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, 25 allée des Marronniers, Versailles F-78000, France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: Lucia.bosone@univ-eiffel.fr (L. Bosone), jonas.rees@uni-bielefeld.de (J. Rees), tommaso.feraco@unipd.it (T. Feraco), Marie.chevrier@univ-eiffel.fr (M. Chevrier), Séverine.maggio@u-paris.fr (S. Maggio), Franck.zenasni@u-paris.fr (F. Zenasni), sebastian.bamberg@hsbi.de (S. Bamberg).</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Biodiversity loss, the disappearance of plant and animal species from our planet due to human activity, is a global environmental crisis affecting ecological systems, ecosystem functioning and services, leading to the loss of important ecosystem goods and thus also threatening human well-being (Cardinale et al., 2012; Elisha & Felix, 2020). The impact of biodiversity loss on our ecosystem has been described as a key sustainability problem where planetary boundaries are dramatically exceeded (Schaltegger et al., 2023) and it is occurring at an unprecedented rate, threatening earth system functioning and its adaptive capacity (Ceballos et al., 2015). Habitat degradation and land use change for human benefits have been identified as major factors contributing to biodiversity loss on a global scale (Alkemade et al., 2022).

Addressing biodiversity loss is therefore crucial for maintaining the health and resilience of ecosystems and ensuring the continued provision of ecosystem services. Motivating citizens to individually and collectively engage in favor of biodiversity conservation is thus a fundamental challenge of current society.

Indeed, human actions and consumption have a significant influence on biodiversity loss (Wilting et al., 2017). The impacts associated with agricultural activities for instance, such as food consumption and clothing purchases, as well as food production and consumption systems, contribute to the decrease in biodiversity (Crenna et al., 2020; Marques et al., 2019). Waste management and disposal practices also have a direct impact on biodiversity loss: Waste disposal in landfills can alter natural habitats, leading to the displacement or extinction of species, and can also release harmful substances into the environment, contaminating soil, water, and air, which can in turn have detrimental effects on ecosystems and the species that inhabit them (Kolawole & Iyiola, 2023; Aska et al., 2024).

Population and economic growth are driving the increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Marques et al., 2019). As the global population and economy continue to grow, the demand for resources and consumption patterns will put further pressure on biodiversity. To address the influence of individual actions and consumption on biodiversity loss, it is crucial to promote sustainable consumption practices and raise awareness about the impacts of consumer choices on biodiversity. This can include reducing waste, choosing sustainably sourced products, supporting conservation initiatives, and advocating for policies that prioritize biodiversity conservation. But what are the drivers that motivate individuals to engage in biodiversity conservation actions in their everyday life?

In a recent line of research, Bamberg et al. (2023a), (2023b) have validated with samples from 10 different countries around the world a model explaining how individuals' decisions to engage in biodiversity conservation behavior is motivated by the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991; Yuriev et al., 2020) as well as problem awareness and social identity. However, a growing interest in recent research on behavioral change for climate change mitigation is brought to individuals' perception of the future, and more precisely how individuals' ability to envision a positive eco-friendly future can be a fundamental step for behavioral change with regards to climate change mitigation (e.g. Badaan et al., 2022; Bosone et al., 2024; Daysh et al., 2024; Fernando et al., 2018, 2020; Troy et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020).

In the present paper, we propose to integrate in the model validated by Bamberg et al. (2023a) two additional psychological constructs determining individuals' intention to change their behavior, related to their appraisal of collective coping: the perceived ability to imagine a positive future (Wright et al., 2020) and efficacy beliefs with regards to behavioral and social changes in favor of biodiversity conservation.

## 1.1. The original model: TPB and social identity

According to the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), an individual's intention to perform a specific behavior is the closest predictor of their actual actions. This intention is shaped by three main components: attitude (the individual's positive or negative evaluation of the behavior), subjective norms (the perceived social pressure from important others to engage or not engage in the behavior), and perceived behavioral control (the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior). In essence, individuals' intention to engage in a specific action depends on individuals' attitudes about such an action, their perception of social norms pushing them towards adopting it, and their beliefs about whether the adoption of such an action is in their control. Since its development, the TPB has been used to predict various environmentally friendly actions (for a scoping review, see Yuriev et al., 2020), such as adopting alternative transportation (Muñoz et al., 2016), recycling waste (Echegaray & Hansstein, 2017) and saving energy (Allen & Marquart-Pyatt, 2018). However, such a model overlooks a critical influence on individuals' intention to change when facing a threat, which is the perception of the threat as well as the need to change (also defined as problem awareness; for a meta-analysis, see Klöckner, 2013), as well as identity dynamics influencing individuals' actions when facing a threat that is collective, such as biodiversity loss.

More precisely, the model validated by Bamberg et al. (2023b) integrates the main constructs of TPB with problem awareness as well as social identity. Social identity, the part of one's self-perception of being a member of a social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Vesely et al., 2021), empowers people to think and act collectively. The integration of social identity is based on the consideration that addressing environmental challenges necessitates collective efforts, as isolated individuals cannot effectively assess and respond to threats like global biodiversity loss (Bamberg et al., 2015; Fritsche et al., 2018; Schulte et al., 2020). As such, it can be expected that people who feel they belong to a group of individuals who share pro-environmental opinions and beliefs, will also report more positive attitudes, norms and perceived behavioral control with regards to biodiversity conservation behaviors. Through an empirical study comparing the predictive power of this model across 10 different countries, Bamberg et al. (2023b) confirmed this assumption, demonstrating how the extended TPB including problem awareness and social identity explains individuals' intention to engage in private pro-environmental behaviors, sustainable consumption, and to pay more for sustainable produced goods. In the present article
we thus decided to follow the conceptual adaptation proposed by Bamberg et al. (2023), which does not directly measure subjective norms as theorised by TPB, but distinguishes between different types of normative influence. Rather than using the original TPB concept of subjective norms, we will assess descriptive social norms - that is, perceptions of what significant others typically do (Cialdini et al., 1991; Göckeritz et al., 2010) - as a separate predictor alongside social identity, which reflects group-based belonging. This distinction allows us to more precisely capture how different social dynamics relate to individual and collective intentions to conserve biodiversity.

In the present paper, we test again such an extended model, integrating a further dimension that has recently been demonstrated as effective in predicting both individual and collective intentions: collective coping (composed of collective efficacy beliefs and environmental cognitive alternatives).

## 1.2. Collective coping

Collective coping is a concept that emerges from the literature on individuals' decision-making when facing a threat. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that threat perception alone has no direct effect on individuals' decision to change their behavior, or at worst can backfire, if it is not supported with solutions to cope with the threat (Peters et al., 2013). When individuals face a possible threat, they do not only evaluate the threat, but also consider the possible behavioral strategies they can adopt to cope with it. In this sense, coping appraisal (individuals' evaluations of the behavioral alternatives available to cope with a specific threat) is fundamental to drive problem-focused behavioral strategies, and to avoid maladaptive coping strategies such as threat denial (e.g., Floyd et al., 2000; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006). Given that in large-scale crises, the efforts of individuals have a meaning only if they are considered from a collective perspective (e.g., Bonnefoy et al., 2014), in these cases coping appraisal is based on individuals' appraisal of collective strategies. In a recent group of studies (Chevrier et al., in press), it has been demonstrated that individuals' intentions to engage in climate change mitigation actions is strongly influenced by their ability to imagine eco-sustainable future societies (environmental cognitive alternatives; Wright et al., 2020, 2022) as well as their collective efficacy beliefs (both collective and participative efficacy; Jugert et al., 2016; Hamann et al., 2021).

Indeed, the decision to adopt sustainable behaviors presents both temporal and social dilemmas to the individual, as the possible benefits of adopting pro-environmental behaviors are often perceived as temporally and socially distant, i.e. collective long-term benefits (e.g. mitigating climate change for future generations), while the possible costs are temporally and socially close, i.e. personal short-term costs (e.g. economic costs of buying an electric car; Joireman et al., 2006). The fact that individuals envision what a sustainable future society would look like is thus a fundamental aspect of decision-making, because it enables them to better picture and understand the benefits of their pro-environmental actions. Envisioned futures act as foundational frameworks that guide our responses to the widespread uncertainty and complexity inherent in environmental and societal challenges, both individually and collectively (Chevrier et al., 2024; Friedrich & Hendriks, 2024). Indeed, future thinking (the cognitive process of imagining and projecting into one's own future; Coulter et al., 2019; Szpunar et al., 2016) has been demonstrated to be a powerful driver of individuals' decision whether or not to participate in sustainable transformation (Thorstad & Wolff, 2018). Hence, we expect that a fundamental psychological determinant of individuals' decision to engage in environmentally sustainable actions will be their ability to imagine an alternative future worth striving for. More precisely, we argue that individuals need to imagine a reality where environmental sustainability goals are achieved to be motivated to engage in change themselves. This concept has been recently defined as environmental cognitive alternatives (ECA, Wright et al., 2020), based on Tajfel and Turner's (1978) notion of cognitive alternatives, which suggests that the existing social reality is not the only possible one, and alternatives are conceivable and potentially attainable. In four studies (total N = 1494), including both correlational and experimental designs, Wright et al. (2022) showed that ECA significantly predicted activist behaviours above and beyond traditional predictors such as environmental concerns. The ability to conceive such alternatives serves as a precursor to social change and innovation, linked to beliefs in efficacy and hope for social change (Badaan et al., 2022; Bosone et al., 2024; Hamann et al., 2021; Iyer et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2022). We argue that being able to imagine sustainable futures, alternative to the status quo, contributes to collective coping as individuals who are able to envision a positive collective future where environmental sustainability has been successfully reached will also perceive higher efficacy of pro-environmental behavioral and social changes. In this sense, we included measures of collective efficacy, defined as individuals' perception of the ability to collectively achieve a common goal (Bandura, 2000; Jugert et al., 2016; Wallis et al., 2022), as well as participative efficacy, defined as individuals' perception of their own ability to significantly contribute to the collective efforts to accomplish the goal (Van Zomeren et al., 2013). These two beliefs complement each other. In fact, while strong collective efficacy might result in inaction and free-riding, where individuals perceive the group as effective without their contribution, participative efficacy explains why people continue to engage in collective efforts despite this perception. This dynamic reflects Olson's paradox (Olson, 1968), which suggests that individuals may refrain from participating in collective action if they believe the benefits will be obtained regardless of their own input.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that cross-cultural comparison is essential when investigating how individuals imagine sustainable futures and perceive collective efficacy, as both are shaped by deeply embedded cultural patterns. Time orientation - how individuals relate to the past, present, and future - varies significantly across cultures (Sircova et al., 2014), influencing not only whether but also how people envision future scenarios. For instance, Canada and Norway are typically characterized by linear and future-oriented perspectives favoring planning and delayed gratification, while South Africa and parts of Asia may reflect present-fatalistic or cyclical conceptions of time (Gao, 2016; Lo & Houkamau, 2012). These cultural variations affect the emotional tone, perceived feasibility, and motivational impact of future-oriented thinking. Moreover, North-South and East-West cultural divides influence environmental behavior, with differing values around responsibility, agency, and collective action (Chang et al., 2011;
Clayton et al., 2019; Kaplan & Montiel, 2017). Understanding how such cultural frameworks shape future thinking and efficacy beliefs is critical for designing interventions that are both psychologically and culturally grounded. By exploring these dynamics across diverse contexts, this study will shed light on the universal and culture-specific processes underlying collective environmental coping.

## 1.3. Overall objectives

The present research aims to explore the psychological determinants of individuals' intentions to engage in biodiversity conservation behaviors, and more precisely individual and collective biodiversity conservation intentions. We define *individual intentions* as the self-reported likelihood that a person will engage in personal pro-environmental behaviors—such as reducing meat consumption or choosing eco-friendly products—based on their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. *Collective intentions* refer to the reported willingness to engage in joint or public efforts for biodiversity protection, such as participating in conservation groups or signing petitions. These definitions follow the operationalizations previously validated by Bamberg et al. (2023b), and guide our theoretical framework and empirical analyses. The present research extends past research on the influence of social identity, problem awareness and the constructs of TPB (social norms, perceived control, attitudes) by integrating two dimensions of collective coping: individuals' ability to imagine an eco-sustainable future and their perception of the efficacy of pro-environmental behavioral and social changes in reaching the imagined benefits. To this purpose, we carried out an exploratory correlational study, collecting data from four different countries: France and Germany, China and the USA. The choice of these four countries was based on the cultural distance scale proposed by Muthukrishna et al. (2020). In their work, they analyzed the cultural differences of 80 different countries with regards to the USA (one of the WEIRD nations most scrutinized by psychological research; Rad et al., 2018) as well as China (the largest population on Earth and a common cultural comparison in psychological research), drawing on the data of two waves of the World Values Survey (Inglehart et al., 2014). Based on their scale, we chose the two countries used for comparison (China and the USA), and we then selected France and Germany for two reasons: one practical reason (the majority of the co-authors of this article are either from France or Germany and could thus ensure proper translation) and secondly because their cultural distance from both USA and China are similar according to Muthukrishna et al. (2020), which led us to predict similar results for these two countries.

While our analytical approach was informed by existing theoretical frameworks - particularly models of decision-making when facing a threat that explain how individuals first appraise the threat, and then the efficacy of possible behavioural responses (e.g., Rogers, 1983; Witte, 2000) - we did not formulate or test pre-registered hypotheses. Instead, we aimed to examine whether the proposed constructs showed meaningful associations with individual and collective behavioral intentions across cultural contexts. This approach allowed us to identify promising directions for future research, particularly in relation to the role of future-oriented thinking and collective coping in biodiversity conservation.

# 2. Method

## 2.1. Measures

Participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire measuring social identity, problem awareness, the constructs of TPB (social norms, perceived control, attitudes) and the two dimensions of collective coping, as well as their behavioral intentions after a brief introduction to the phenomenon of biodiversity loss. The full questionnaire and the data are available on OSF (https://osf.io/kjuqb/?view_only=bcdf03619bb34a32a5eca9a7122a2973).

The questionnaire included the same items validated recently in 10 countries by Bamberg et al. (2023b) to measure individuals' agreement - on a scale from 1 "Completely disagree" to 7 "Completely agree" - with items assessing social identity (three items, e.g. "I feel connected to groups that are actively committed to protecting biodiversity"; α=.878), problem awareness (three items, e.g. "Biodiversity is decreasing on the earth"; α=.808), descriptive social norm (three items, e.g. "People who are important to me prefer buying products produced in an eco-friendly way"; α=.825), attitudes (participants rated their perception of two behaviors on a scale from 1 "Bad" to 7 "Good"; e.g. "Preferring to buy products produced in an eco-friendly way for me is... good/bad"; r = .503, p < .001) and perceived control (participants rated their perception of the feasibility of two behaviors on a scale from 1 "Difficult" to 7 "Easy", e.g. "Preferring to buy products produced in an eco-friendly way for me is... difficult/easy"; r = .556, p < .001).

The concept of environmental cognitive alternatives was measured through six items based on the scale by Wright et al. (2020), and previously used in the work by Bosone et al. (2024); e.g. "I can easily imagine a world in which we supply all of our energy needs without harming the natural world"; α= .898).

Efficacy beliefs were measured by 6 items (α=.814), three measuring collective efficacy (e.g. "I am certain that we will find ways to protect biodiversity") and three measuring participatory efficacy (e.g. "I believe that I, as an individual, can provide an important contribution so that, together, we can solve the problem of biodiversity loss"), inspired by the work by Hart and Feldman (2016).

Finally, individual and collective behavioral intentions were measured with the same items used by Bamberg et al. (2023b). Participants were asked to rate how willing they were to engage in a series of individual and collective behaviours - presented in Table 1 - on a scale from 1 "Not at all" to 7 "Completely".
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Individual and collective behavioural intentions.</caption><thead><tr><th>Individual intentions (α = .874)</th><th>Collective intentions (α = .905)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Switch brand of cosmetics or drugstore products if you discover that their manufacturing jeopardizes biodiversity</td><td>Work with other people to create habitats for animals and plants, such as flower meadows and ponds</td></tr><tr><td>Use a practical guide when doing your shopping, for example one advising about endangered fish species</td><td>Be part of a group of people that helps look after a nature reserve</td></tr><tr><td>Buy more organic food</td><td>Keep informed about current developments regarding biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>Live more frugally so that future generations can continue to benefit from nature's diversity and wealth</td><td>Participate actively in a nature conservation organization in order to help conserve nature and biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce your own meat consumption</td><td>Draw the attention of your friends and acquaintances to biodiversity conservation</td></tr><tr><td>Choose the eco-friendly behavioral alternatives in everyday life, because the next generation has a right to intact nature</td><td>Publicly campaign (e.g. via petitions, demonstrations) for policies that better protect nature for current and future generations</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.2. Sample and procedure

An international market research agency (IPSOS Observer<fnref n="1" />) carried out data collection in the 4 countries. In each country an online survey, hosted on the platform of the market agency, collected responses to sociodemographic questions and on the 37 items assessing the model constructs. Quotas were set to have balanced samples in terms of gender and age (across four “age groups”, 18–30, 31–45, 45–60, more than 60 years old; however, the actual age was also collected to use this as a continuous data). The questionnaires had been translated from English into the local languages of the other 3 countries following a two-step independent and blind translators procedure (a first translator, blind to the objectives of the study, and native in the output language, translated from English to the output language; a second translator, also native of the output language, also blind to the objectives of the study, translated back from the output language to English; a meeting between the researchers and the translators was then held to find agreement between the translators). Data collection took place from September to November 2022. Participants took about 15 min to complete the survey. Table 2 summarizes key demographic characteristics for the individuals representing the 4 countries.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Analysis plan

In a first step, descriptive analyses were carried out on the dimensions of the model; means, standard deviations and correlations across the different countries and for the entire sample are reported in the Supplementary Material (Tables S1 to S6). The validity of the measurement model including all the variables of interest was tested within each sample and in the total sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and compared across samples using a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) to test for measurement invariance across the four samples (Davidov et al., 2015). Finally, eight hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to analyze the influence of each psychological variable on individual intentions and collective intentions for each country.<fnref n="2" /> Although we did not formulate specific hypotheses, the order of variable entry in the regression models was informed by prior theoretical work (e.g., Rogers, 1983; Witte, 2000), which suggests that risk perception precedes and interacts with efficacy appraisals in shaping behavioral intentions when facing a collective threat (such as climate change and biodiversity loss). Accordingly, we examined whether environmental cognitive alternatives and efficacy beliefs accounted for additional variance beyond the core TPB components and problem awareness. Our approach is exploratory and correlational, aimed at identifying meaningful associations rather than testing pre-defined causal predictions.

## 3.2. Measurement models and measurement invariance across samples

Given the ordinal nature of Likert responses, diagonally weighted least squares were used as the estimation method (Brauer et al., 2023). The measurement models included all the items loading on each specific latent construct. All latent constructs were allowed to correlate freely. Configural invariance of our measurement instruments was tested using the multi-group option on Jasp.

Results show that, for two countries (China and the USA), including the two items of “perceived control” resulted in negative estimated variance, indicating problems with the discriminant validity of this scale. To assess the psychometric quality of the perceived control construct, we inspected the covariance matrix of all measurement items using pairwise Pearson product-moment covariances (Tables S7 and S8 in the Supplementary material). The two items intended to measure perceived control (Control1 and Control2) demonstrated several negative covariances with theoretically unrelated items from several other constructs (for instance with items

<footnote n="1">¹ IPSOS applies internal quality control procedures to ensure the validity of responses. However, we do not have access to detailed information on how many respondents were excluded during this quality control process. The dataset we received contained only the final validated sample.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² We conducted additional exploratory analyses testing whether the strength of the associations between psychological predictors and intentions varied across countries. These involved a series of hierarchical regressions including interaction terms between country (dummy-coded, with China as the reference category) and selected psychological variables (e.g., problem awareness, efficacy beliefs, cognitive alternatives). The analyses can be found in the Supplementary Material (Tables S17 and S18), rather than include them in the main manuscript.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2**
Sociodemographic characteristics for 4 country samples.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>USA</th><th>China</th><th>Germany</th><th>France</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>N</th><td>500</td><td>500</td><td>500</td><td>500</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><th>Gender</th><td>49 % M, 51 % F</td><td>51 % M, 49 % F</td><td>50 % M, 50 % F</td><td>49 % M, 51 % F</td><td>49.8 % M, 50.2 % F</td></tr><tr><th>Age</th><td>33.6 (10.96)</td><td>32.16 (5.38)</td><td>34.68 (10.77)</td><td>34.9 (11.53)</td><td>33.69 (9.69)</td></tr></tbody></table>

measuring Social Identity, Problem Awareness, Cognitive Alternatives, Perceived Efficacy). These values indicate potential problems with discriminant validity and may have contributed to the negative residual variances identified in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using diagonally weighted least squares estimation in JASP. Given these violations of model assumptions and threats to the validity of the measurement model, Control1 and Control2 were excluded from further analysis. We then tested a revised 8 latent factor model in each country and in the total sample. To exemplify, Fig. 1 depicts the revised model for the total sample.<fnref n="3" /> Table 3 summarizes details of the fit indices for the revised model of 8 latent factors for each of the 4 countries.

According to Hu & Bentler's (1999) guidelines, the fit of the revised measurement model was satisfactory in each of the four countries (Table 3) and in the total sample ($\chi^2 = 1879.079$, df = 532, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.036, SRMR = 0.027; Gamma hat = 0.963). The configural model across all 4 countries was also satisfactory ($\chi^2 = 3904.533$, df = 2128, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.040; Gamma hat = 0.952), as were the fit indices for the metric invariance ($\chi^2 = 6065.392$, df = 2209, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.059, and SRMR = 0.051; Gamma hat = 0.901) and for the scalar invariance ($\chi^2 = 6532.271$, df = 2710, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.053, and SRMR = 0.044; Gamma hat = 0.902) models. Although the $\chi^2$ difference between the two consecutive nested models was always significant ($p < .001$), this is usually the case for large sample size and should not be considered as evidence against invariance. Indeed, when considering the other fit indices, the changes in CFI and TLI were consistently well within the recommended cut-off of one decimal point ($\Delta CFI < .004$), and SRMR also met the proposed cut-offs of.030 for metric and.010 for scalar invariance. This suggests that model fit remains largely equivalent across models. By contrast, $\Delta RMSEA$ and $\Delta \gamma$-hat exceeded the conventional thresholds, indicating that model fit might not be fully equivalent across the four countries. For this reason, we tested the model for partial invariance by freeing the loading of one item of 'Efficacy' (namely, Efficacy 3 "It is hard to imagine that individuals like myself can make a difference with respect to a global phenomenon such as biodiversity loss") which had a disproportionate influence on model invariance. Freeing this parameter sufficed to accommodate RMSEA within standard cutoffs (RMSEA = 0.049; $\Delta RMSEA = 0.009$) but not Gamma hat (Gamma hat = 0.929; $\Delta \gamma$-hat = 0.023). Nevertheless, given the overall pattern of results and the more widely accepted criteria falling within the standard cutoffs, we will proceed with the subsequent analyses acknowledging partial invariance. The complete set of fit indices for MG-CFA models is available in Table 4.

### 3.3. Psychological determinants of behavioral intentions

Preliminary analyses revealed violations of the assumptions of linear regression in some models (specifically, all models except those for the US sample). To address these violations and ensure robust statistical inference, we employed heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators (HCO) in these cases (White, 1980). The choice of HCO estimators was justified by the large sample size ($N = 500$) for each country-specific model (Long & Ervin, 2000). Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using R Studio 2024.04.2, employing the stats and estimatr functions. Eight hierarchical models were developed for both individual and collective intentions in each country. The initial models tested the independent variables (IVs) Social Identity, Problem Awareness, Social Norms, and Attitudes (Model 1). The second set of models added the IV Cognitive Alternatives into the multiple regression (Model 2), and the final models added the variable Efficacy (Model 3). While detailed results of each country-specific model are provided in the Supplementary Material (Tables S9 to S16), we present in the following two figures the summary of the multiple regressions for each country on individual intentions (Fig. 2) and collective intentions (Fig. 3).

## 4. Discussion

Considering that a growing body of research in the context of environmental sustainability focuses on individuals' perception of the future, and more precisely their ability to envision a positive eco-friendly future (e.g. Badaan et al., 2022; Bosone et al., 2024; Daysh et al., 2024; Fernando et al., 2018, 2020; Troy et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020), it is important to test whether it is indeed an important determinant of individual and collective actions for biodiversity conservation, while analysing the cultural invariance of such new and promising constructs. The present study was designed as an exploratory correlational investigation, aiming to extend past research on the influence of Social Identity, Problem Awareness and the constructs of TPB (Social Norms, Perceived Control, Attitudes) by integrating two dimensions of collective coping: individuals' ability to imagine an eco-sustainable future and their perception of the efficacy of pro-environmental behavioral and social changes in reaching the imagined benefits. Rather than testing pre-registered

<footnote n="3">³ Although some constructs (e.g., individual and collective intentions; descriptive norms and social identity) were highly correlated, we retained them as distinct variables based on theoretical models that conceptualize them as functionally different. Individual and collective intentions refer to distinct levels of action (personal vs. group-based), while social identity and descriptive norms differ in that the former reflects a sense of belonging to a group, whereas the latter captures perceptions of what others typically do (Bamberg et al., 2015; Cialdini et al., 1990).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Revised model for the total sample. Standardized coefficients are reported.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Model fit indices for confirmatory factor analyses testing the revised 8 latent factor model.</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>df</th><th>CFI</th><th>TLI</th><th>RMSEA [90 % CI lower bound; 90 % CI upper bound]</th><th>SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>China</td><td>885.626**</td><td>532</td><td>0.996</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.036 [0.032;0.041]</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>742.400**</td><td>532</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.028 [0.023; 0.033]</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>1335.743**</td><td>532</td><td>0.994</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.055 [0.051; 0.059]</td><td>0.048</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>940.764**</td><td>532</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.039 [0.035; 0.043]</td><td>0.038</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Model fit indices for multigroup confirmatory factor analyses testing the revised 8 latent factor model across four countries.</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>df</th><th>CFI (ΔCFI)</th><th>TLI (ΔTLI)</th><th>RMSEA (ΔRMSEA)</th><th>SRMR (ΔSRMR)</th><th>γ-hat (Δγ-hat)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Overall</td><td>1879.079</td><td>532</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.036</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.963</td></tr><tr><td>Configural</td><td>3904.533</td><td>2128</td><td>0.997<br>(-0.001)</td><td>0.997<br>(-0.001)</td><td>0.041<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.040<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.952<br>(-0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Metric</td><td>6065.392</td><td>2209</td><td>0.994<br>(-0.003)</td><td>0.993<br>(-0.004)</td><td>0.059<br>(0.018)</td><td>0.051<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.901<br>(-0.041)</td></tr><tr><td>Partial</td><td>4898.009</td><td>2206</td><td>0.996<br>(-0.001)</td><td>0.995<br>(-0.002)</td><td>0.049<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.045<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.929<br>(-0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>Scalar</td><td>5677.138</td><td>2707</td><td>0.995<br>(-0.001)</td><td>0.996<br>(0.001)</td><td>0.047<br>(-0.002)</td><td>0.041<br>(-0.004)</td><td>0.922<br>(-0.007)</td></tr></tbody></table>

hypotheses, we examined theoretically informed expectations regarding how these constructs relate to individual and collective intentions, using hierarchical regressions to explore their added value.

First of all, the configural invariance of the extended model with two behavioral intentions added into the model could not be confirmed, as model testing was associated with estimation problems for the dimension of perceived control (especially in China and the USA) that led us to exclude this dimension from further analyses. We consider that such estimation problems could be due to methodological limitations (as explained below). Once perceived control was excluded from the model, results from the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis pointed to a configural validity for all the remaining psychological dimensions investigated (including two dimensions of behavioral intentions). This is particularly important as it is, to our knowledge, the first study to provide evidence that our measures of future imagination and efficacy beliefs function similarly across countries, with preliminary support for their cross-cultural applicability. However, it is important to note that the evidence for full invariance was mixed: while configural and
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Multiple Regression Coefficients for Individual Intentions by country (Model 3). *Notes*. Confidence intervals for China, Germany, and France models were calculated using heteroskedasticity-consistent (HC0) standard errors.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Multiple Regression Coefficients for Collective Intentions by country (Model 3). *Notes*. Confidence intervals for China, Germany, and France models were calculated using heteroskedasticity-consistent (HC0) standard errors.</figcaption></figure>

scalar invariance were completely supported, we could only support partial metric invariance. Additionnaly, changes in Gamma hat exceeded conventional cut-offs. This suggests that although the constructs appear broadly comparable across the four countries, some caution is warranted for specific items when interpreting mean-level comparisons, as residual measurement non-invariance may still be present (Chen, 2007; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). For instance, the item "It is hard to imagine that individuals like myself can make a difference with respect to a global phenomenon such as biodiversity loss" does not seem to be invariant. Non-invariance on this item likely reflects cross-cultural differences in the locus of environmental agency, with more collectivistic contexts attributing large-scale problems to coordinated institutional action (lower personal efficacy) and more individualistic contexts emphasizing personal responsibility and consumer efficacy (higher personal efficacy) (Eom et al., 2016; Tam & Chan, 2017). Converging evidence shows cultural moderation of the link between concern and action, cross-national differences in perceived personal effectiveness and green purchasing (U.S. vs. China), and European publics' greater attribution of responsibility to governments/industry rather than "you personally," which can depress endorsement of "individuals like myself" wording (Chan & Lau, 2001; European Commission & Directorate-General for Climate Action, 2021; Eom et al., 2016; Tam & Chan, 2017).

On the basis of the empirically supported metric invariance, we can assume that most of the items measuring the investigated variables mean the same to the respondents in the 4 countries under investigation, but acknowledge that further research with refined
measures and alternative estimation strategies is needed to confirm full scalar invariance. This finding underscores the value of conducting cross-cultural research on future-oriented constructs, as it allows us to examine how culturally shaped time perspectives and worldviews - such as linear versus cyclical conceptions of time (Gao, 2016), or individualistic versus collectivist agency (Chang et al., 2011; Kaplan & Montiel, 2017) - influence how people imagine sustainable futures and perceive their capacity to act. These cultural dimensions are essential for developing interventions that resonate across global contexts with diverse environmental values and priorities (Clayton et al., 2019; Sircova et al., 2014).

A second important result concerns the fact that, as expected, both the perceived ability to imagine a positive future, and efficacy beliefs, were significantly associated with both individual and collective intentions. This is in line with a growing body of research demonstrating that being able to imagine environmental futures is a powerful motivator of individual and social engagement for societal transitions (e.g. Badaan et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2024; Gibbs & Flotemersch, 2019; Riedy & Waddock, 2022). As such, interventions aiming at increasing the ability to imagine a positive future could effectively support individual and collective pro-environmental motivation or intention (e.g. Chabay, 2015; Guida et al., 2024; Ojala, 2017; Vallet et al., 2020). It is however important to point out that the significance of these associations varied slightly across countries, an observation that was supported by supplementary regression analyses we carried out including interaction terms between country and key psychological dimensions. As our primary objective was not to compare countries, and we did not have theoretically grounded hypotheses regarding cross-cultural variation in psychological profiles, we chose to present these exploratory analyses in the Supplementary Material (Tables S17 and S18), rather than in the main text. Nevertheless, it appears that in the USA, they were more strongly associated with behavioral intentions than the TPB constructs, while in China the strongest correlation was found between attitudes and intentions. This small difference might indicate that while envisioning the future remains an important process for attitudinal and behavioral change, its intensity might vary depending on cultural differences, which would be supported by past results demonstrating that there are cultural differences in how individuals imagine the future (Abdullah et al., 2024), and in future-oriented self-regulation tendencies between Western and Eastern countries (Lyu et al., 2019). Future-oriented self-regulation tendencies such as Time Perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), and Consideration for Future or Immediate Consequences (Arnocky et al., 2014; Strathman et al., 1994) might in fact point to intra-individual factors influencing the ability to imagine the future. Further research should thus investigate whether future-oriented self-regulation tendencies help explain the observed cultural differences in the predictive strength of future imagination—particularly why this variable was more strongly associated with behavioral intentions in the USA than in China. However, in line with established warnings about excessive analytical flexibility (Munafò et al., 2017; Simmons et al., 2011), we emphasize that these results are exploratory in nature and should be interpreted with caution.

A third important result concerns the fact that social identity remains a strong predictor of individual, and especially collective, intentions, in line with recent research demonstrating that the feeling of belonging to a group sharing pro-environmental values and opinions is a strong predictor of behavioral intentions, change, and engagement in collective actions (such as activism; Bamberg et al., 2015; Schulte et al., 2020; Vasily et al., 2021). Future research could thus investigate how different forms or sources of social identity - such as national, community, or activist group identities - differentially influence individual and collective pro-environmental intentions across cultural contexts.

Interestingly, descriptive social norms often ceased to be significant predictors once efficacy beliefs and the ability to envision positive futures were included in the models. This suggests that when individuals feel collectively efficacious and are able to imagine a desirable environmental future, the influence of perceived social prevalence (i.e., descriptive norms) may be less important for shaping intentions—a finding consistent with prior work showing that motivational and future-oriented appraisals can override social conformity effects (Brügger et al., 2015; Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019). This aligns with recent theoretical developments (Bamberg et al., 2023) and diverges from Ajzen's original TPB formulation, which conceptualized subjective norms as perceived expectations from close others (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). Future research should further clarify how different types of social influence - descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and social identity - uniquely contribute to pro-environmental intentions.

Finally, a surprising result concerns the role of problem awareness. While this variable showed a positive association with individual intentions in the USA, France, and Germany, it exhibited a negative association with collective intentions in the regression analyses for China, France, and Germany. This suggests that individuals who are more aware of biodiversity loss caused by human activity may, in some contexts, be less inclined to engage in collective action - an effect that only emerged after accounting for efficacy beliefs in the hierarchical model. However, it is important to note that this association was non-significant in the first regression model, when regressing the TPB constructs, and became significant when we included efficacy beliefs in the regression model. The shift in the direction of association between the initial and extended models may reflect underlying suppression effects or conceptual overlap with other predictors, such as perceived efficacy. Future research should further explore why problem awareness, although positively correlated with intentions at the bivariate level, becomes negatively associated with collective intentions in some contexts - particularly when efficacy beliefs and future imagination are accounted for. This may reveal complex interactions or suppression effects that shape public engagement with biodiversity loss.

The current work also includes limitations that need to be discussed. First, the use of only two items to measure perceived control may have contributed to reduced cross-cultural validity and to psychometric issues observed in our analyses. Notably, our covariance analysis revealed that both items showed several negative covariances with other psychological indicators (see Tables S7 and S8 in the Supplementary Material), suggesting potential problems with their construct validity. One possible explanation is that these items may have primarily captured perceived difficulty rather than perceived control. While the two concepts are related, they are theoretically distinct: perceived control typically reflects one's agency or capacity to perform a behavior, whereas perceived difficulty reflects the level of effort or barriers involved (Ajzen, 2002). Further research is needed to clarify whether the poor model fit of this construct stems from measurement issues, such as an unclear distinction between control and difficulty, or whether it reflects genuine cross-cultural
differences in how perceived control operates in the context of pro-environmental intentions.

A second limitation concerns the absence of measurement of specific socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the sample, other than age and gender. Indeed, the ability to imagine the future, and its impact on pro-environmental behaviors, could vary depending on individuals' socio-economic status, which empirical findings have demonstrated to be strongly linked to variation in time perception and perspective. For instance, being in a situation of socio-economic precarity is likely to focus individuals' attention on the present, and on short term benefits (i.e. a present time orientation; Adams & White, 2009; Fieulaine & Martinez, 2010; Wagner et al., 2022), which would affect their perception and projection into the future. Moreover, the ability to imagine a collective positive future could vary not only depending on time perspective, but also on the other dimensions composing the multi-faceted construct of future consciousness (Ahvenharju et al., 2018, 2021). Recent research demonstrated that future consciousness is strongly linked to behavioral change in the face of health and environmental risks (Lalot et al., 2021, Lalot et al., 2025). Further research should thus investigate whether the effect of collective coping, and in particular of the ability to imagine the future, on individuals' behavioral intentions vary depending on their individual differences with regards to future consciousness and time perspective specifically, as well as socio-economic and education background.

A further limitation concerns the mixed evidence for measurement invariance across countries. While configural, scalar, and partial metric invariance were supported according to several widely accepted criteria (e.g., ΔCFI <.01, ΔTLI <.01, ΔSRMR <.01, and, ΔRMSEA <.15; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), Gamma hat indicated possible non-equivalence. Such discrepancies are not uncommon in large samples (Chen, 2007; Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014), and may reflect either sensitivity of certain indices to sample size or genuine cultural differences in how some items are perceived. Future work should therefore treat our results as preliminary and apply more fine-grained approaches (e.g., alignment optimization) to clarify the degree of cross-cultural comparability at the item level.

Another limitation of the present study is the high correlation observed between several psychological constructs, such as attitudes and future imagination. While these were treated as separate variables based on theoretical distinctions, future research should consider using advanced psychometric modeling (e.g., bifactor or higher-order models) to better disentangle overlapping variance and ensure construct specificity. More broadly, our study also reflects a recurring challenge in environmental psychology: the trade-off between parsimony and comprehensiveness in modelling pro-environmental behaviour. While frameworks such as Bamberg et al. (2023b) deliberately emphasize item economy, others adopt more integrative approaches (e.g., Klöckner, 2013; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Our addition of future imagination and efficacy beliefs extends this debate by suggesting that overly concise models may risk omitting important predictors. Recognising this tension as a limitation underscores the need for future work to balance explanatory power with practical applicability, so as to better inform interventions for biodiversity conservation.

A final limitation concerns the fact that the present research only measured pro-environmental intentions and not actual behavior. A significant body of research has shown that intentions are one of the most reliable predictors of behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2015). However, empirical studies highlight an intention-behavior gap, where individuals with strong pro-environmental intentions often fail to translate these intentions into real actions (e.g., Grimmer & Miles, 2017). Given the debate on the effectiveness of intentions as predictors (e.g., Sniehotta et al., 2014; Ajzen, 2015), future studies should validate the present findings on the importance of collective coping, as a predictor of actual behavioral change in favor of biodiversity conservation.

Overall, the present findings have important theoretical and practical implications for Futures studies. From a theoretical point of view, this work contributes to the growing body of research on how thinking about the future (in this case, positive futures) can influence attitudes and intentions in the present (e.g. Badaan et al., 2022; Daysh et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2022). Indeed, our data demonstrates that the ability to imagine an eco-friendly future society is among the most important predictors of pro-environmental intentions (both at an individual and collective level). Considering that the ability to imagine the future is one of the pre-requisites to future literacy, or the ability to use future projections to act upon the future (Magnus et al., 2021), this work also contributes to the line of research investigating how to boost future literacy to motivate social and societal transformation (Bol & de Wolf, 2023; Häggström & Schmidt, 2021). More precisely, our work suggests that individuals' motivation to engage in pro-environmental actions may be supported by their ability to imagine a future in which pro-environmental efforts have been successful in mitigating the environmental crisis. As such, our work offers important insights for education and communication programs, as it suggests that focusing the efforts on increasing problem awareness alone might not be sufficient to support pro-environmental intentions, in line with recent research on pessimistic and optimistic persuasive messages (e.g. Troy et al., 2024). Boosting the general population's ability to imagine a positive eco-friendly future society, and their efficacy beliefs, is a fundamental direction to investigate in order to promote behavioral and social change for the sustainable transition.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Jonas Rees:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. **Lucia Bosone:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Marie Chevrier:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Tommaso Feraco:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Formal analysis. **Franck Zenasni:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. **Séverine Maggio:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Data curation. **Sebastian Bamberg:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
# Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.futures.2025.103720.

## Data availability

I have shared the link to our data within the body of the article - on OSF

## References

* Abdullah, N. A., Bastidas Cruz, J. F., & Arrazola, S. (2024). Imagining possible futures: a comparative analysis. *Journal of Futures Studies, 29*(1).

* Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. *Health Psychology, 28*(1), 83.

* Ahvenharju, S., Lalot, F., Minkkinen, M., & Quiamzade, A. (2021). Individual futures consciousness: psychology behind the five-dimensional futures consciousness scale. *Futures, 128*, Article 102708.

* Ahvenharju, S., Minkkinen, M., & Lalot, F. (2018). The five dimensions of futures consciousness. *Futures, 104*, 1–13.

* Ajen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50*(ISS. 2), 179–212.

* Ajen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: a commentary on sniehotta, presseau, and Araújo-Soares. *Health Psychology Review, 9*(2), 131–137.

* Ajen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32*(4), 665–683.

* Alkemade, R., van Bussel, L. G., Rodríguez, S. L., & Schipper, A. M. (2022). Global biodiversity assessments need to consider mixed multifunctional land-use systems. *current opinion in environmental. Sustainability, 56*, Article 101174.

* Allen, S., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2018). Workplace energy conservation at michigan state university. *International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19*(1), 114–129.

* Arnocky, S., Milfont, T. L., & Nicol, J. R. (2014). Time perspective and sustainable behavior: evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. *Environment and Behavior, 46*(5), 556–582.

* Aska, B., Franks, D. M., Stringer, M., & Sonter, L. J. (2024). Biodiversity conservation threatened by global mining wastes. *Nature Sustainability, 7*(1), 23–30.

* Badaan, V., Akil, C., Zebian, Y., & Jost, J. T. (2022). Envisioning change: an empirical test of the social psychological model of utopian thinking and collective action. *Journal of Social Psychology Research, 77*–96.

* Bamberg, S., Mues, A. W., Reese, G., Kösling, P., van Deuren, C., & Tröger, J. (2023a). Development of a measuring instrument to monitor the biodiversity awareness of the German population. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 91*, Article 102122.

* Bamberg, S., Diehl, Y., Weber, T., van Deuren, C., Mues, A. W., & Schmidt, P. (2023b). Testing the cross-cultural invariance of an extended theory of planned behaviour in predicting biodiversity-conserving behavioural intentions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 89*, Article 102042.

* Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Seebauer, S. (2015). Collective climate action: determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43*, 155–165.

* Bandura, Albert (2000). 'Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. *Current directions in psychological Science, 9*(3), 75–78.

* Bol, E., & de Wolf, M. (2023). Developing futures literacy in the classroom. *Futures, 146*, Article 103082.

* Bonnefoy, B., Demarque, C., Le Conte, J., & Feliot-Rippeault, M. (2014). Penser globalement, agir localement. Comment les distances spatiales et temporelles modulent notre relation à l'environnement. In D. Marchand, S. Depeau, & K. Weiss (Eds.), *L'homme au Risque de L'environnement* (pp. 245–269).

* Bosone, L., Thiriot, S., Chevrier, M., Rocci, A., & Zenasni, F. (2024). Visioning sustainable futures: exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a decarbonated world. *Global Environmental Psychology, 2*, 1–28.

* Brauer, K., Ranger, J., & Ziegler, M. (2023). Confirmatory factor analyses in psychological test adaptation and development. *Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 4*(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000034

* Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., ... Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. *Nature, 486* (7401), 59–67.

* Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. *Science Advances, 1*(5), Article e1400253.

* Chabay, I. (2015). Narratives for a sustainable future: vision and motivation for collective action. *Global Sustainability: Cultural Perspectives and Challenges for Transdisciplinary Integrated Research, 51*–61.

* Chan, R. Y., & Lau, L. B. (2001). Explaining Green purchasing behavior: a cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers. *Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14*(2-3), 9–40.

* Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. *Structural Equation Modeling, 14*(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

* Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. *Structural Equation Modeling, 9*(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007SEM0902_5

* Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In *In Advances in experimental social psychology*, 24 pp. 201–234). Academic Press.

* Coulter, L., Serrao-Neumann, S., & Coiacetto, E. (2019). Climate change adaptation narratives: linking climate knowledge and future thinking. *Futures, 111*, 57–70.

* Crenna, E., Marques, A., La Notte, A., & Sala, S. (2020). Biodiversity assessment of value chains: state of the art and emerging challenges. *Environmental Science Technology, 54*(16), 9715–9728.

* Davidov, E., Ciecich, J., Meuleman, B., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., & Hausherr, M. (2015). The comparability of measurements of attitudes toward immigration in the european social survey: exact versus approximate measurement equivalence. *Public Opinion Quarterly, 79*(S1), 244–266.

* Daysh, S., Thomas, E. F., Lizzio-Wilson, M., Bird, L., & Wenzel, M. (2024). “The future will be Green, or not at All”: how positive (Utopian) and negative (Dystopian) thoughts about the future shape collective climate action. *Global Environmental Psychology, 2*, 1–28.

* Echegaray, F., & Hansstein, F. V. (2017). Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 142*, 180–190.

* Elisha, O. D., & Felix, M. J. (2020). The loss of biodiversity and ecosystems: a threat to the functioning of our planet, economy and human society. *International Journal of Economics, Environmental Development and Society, 1*(1), 30–44.

* Eom, K., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Ishii, K. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. *Psychological Science, 27*(10), 1331–1339.

* European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action. (2021). *Special Eurobarometer 513: Climate change* (Report). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: (https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/report_2021_en.pdf).
Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Ferguson, A., O'Brien, L. V., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2018). Functions of utopia: how utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, **44**(5), 779-792.

Fernando, J. W., O'Brien, L. V., Burden, N. J., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Greens or space invaders: prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, **50**(2), 278-291.

Fieulaine, N., & Martinez, F. (2010). Time under control: time perspective and desire for control in substance use. *Addictive behaviors*, **35**(8), 799-802.

Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology*, **30**(2), 407-429.

Friedrich, J., & Hendriks, A. (2024). Imagined futures in sustainability transitions: towards diverse future-making. *Futures*, Article 103502.

Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). *Psychological Review*, **125**(2), 245.

Gibbs, D. A., & Flotemersch, J. (2019). How environmental futures can inform decision making: a review. *Futures*, **108**, 37-52.

Göckeritz, S., Schultz, P. W., Rendón, T., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, **40**(3), 514-523.

Grimmer, M., & Miles, M. P. (2017). With the best of intentions: a large sample test of the intention-behaviour gap in pro-environmental consumer behaviour. *International Journal of Consumer Studies*, **41**(1), 2-10.

Guida, V., Klaser, K., & Mittone, L. (2024). Building sustainable futures through soft institutional interventions in the climate change context: an intergenerational experiment. *Futures*, Article 103531.

Häggström, M., & Schmidt, C. (2021). Futures literacy-to belong, participate and act!: an educational perspective. *Futures*, **132**, Article 102813.

Hamann, K. R., Holz, J. R., & Reese, G. (2021). Coaching for a sustainability transition: empowering student-led sustainability initiatives by developing skills, group identification, and efficacy beliefs. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **12**, Article 623972.

Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. *PloS One*, **11**(8), Article e0157658.

Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **26**(1), 1-14.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. *Structural Equation modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal*, **6**(1), 1-55.

Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., & Puranen, B. (2014). World values survey: round six-country-pooled datafile version. In *Madrid: JD systems institute*, **12**.

Iyer, A., Zhang, A., Jetten, J., Hao, Z., & Cui, L. (2017). The promise of a better group future: cognitive alternatives increase students' self-efficacy and academic performance. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, **56**(4), 750-765.

Joireman, J., Strathman, A., & Balliet, D. P. (2006). Considering future consequences: an integrative model. *Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behavior*. Oxford University press.

Jugert, P., Greenaway, K. H., Barth, M., Büchner, R., Eisentraut, S., & Fritsche, I. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **48**, 12-23.

Kaplan, J., & Montiel, I. (2017). East vs. West approaches to reporting corporate sustainability strategies to the world: corporate sustainability reporting: east vs. West. *In Comparative Perspectives on Global Corporate Social Responsibility* (pp. 49-68). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. *Global Environmental Change*, **23**(5), 1028-1038.

Kolawole, A. S., & Iyola, A. O. (2023). Environmental pollution: threats, impact on biodiversity, and protection strategies. *Sustainable utilization and conservation of Africa's biological resources and environment* (pp. 377-409). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? *Environmental Education Research*, **8**(3), 239-260.

Lalot, F., Abrams, D., Ahvenharju, S., & Minkkinen, M. (2021). Being future-conscious during a global crisis: the protective effect of heightened futures consciousness in the COVID-19 pandemic. *Personality and Individual Differences*, **178**, Article 110862.

Lalot, F., Ahvenharju, S., & Uusitalo, O. (2025). Green dreams are made of this: futures consciousness and pro-environmental engagement. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, **64**(1), Article e12799.

Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. *The American Statistician*, **54**(3), 217-224.

Lyu, H., Du, G., & Rios, K. (2019). The relationship between future time perspective and self-esteem: a cross-cultural study of Chinese and American college students. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **10**, 1518.

Marques, A., Martins, I. S., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Theurl, M. C., Eisenmenger, N., ... Pereira, H. M. (2019). Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. *Nature Ecology evolution*, **3**(4), 628-637.

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ... Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. *Nature Human Behaviour*, **1**(1), 0021.

Muñoz, B., Monzon, A., & López, E. (2016). Transition to a cyclable city: latent variables affecting bicycle commuting. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **84**, 4-17.

Olson, M. (1968). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. *Health Psychology Review*, **7**(sup1), S8-S31.

Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. *Psychological Science*, **31**(6), 678-701.

Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. *Futures*, **94**, 76-84.

Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. *Developmental Review*, **41**, 71-90.

Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of homo sapiens: making psychological science more representative of the human population. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, **115**(45), 11401-11405.

Riedy, C., & Waddock, S. (2022). Imagining transformation: change agent narratives of sustainable futures. *Futures*, **142**, Article 103010.

Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. *Educational and psychological Measurement*, **74**(1), 31-57.

Schaltegger, S., Gibassier, D., & Maas, K. (2023). Managing and accounting for corporate biodiversity contributions. Mapping the field. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, **32**(5), 2544-2553.

Schulte, M., Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Rollin, P. (2020). Social identity as a key concept for connecting transformative societal change with individual environmental activism. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **72**, Article 101525.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. *Psychological Science*, **22**(11), 1359-1366.

Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. *Health Psychology Review*, **8**(1), 1-7.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, **66**, 742-752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742

Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Toward a taxonomy of Future Thinking Seeing the Future: Theoretical Perspectives on Future-Oriented Mental Time Travel, **111**, 21-35.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1978). Intergroup behavior. *Introducing Social Psychology*, **401**(466), 149-178.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), *The social psychology of inter-group relations* (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tam, K. P., & Chan, H. W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: a cross-cultural psychology perspective. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53*, 213–223.

Thorstad, R., & Wolff, P. (2018). A big data analysis of the relationship between future thinking and decision-making. In *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115* pp. E1740–E1748).

Troy, C. L., Norman, M., Kim, N., Skurka, C., & Myrick, J. G. (2024). Can you picture it? Effects of positive and negative depictions of climate futures on climate action intentions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 96*, Article 102312.

Vallet, F., Puchinger, J., Millonig, A., Lamé, G., & Nicolaï, I. (2020). Tangible futures: combining scenario thinking and personas-A pilot study on urban mobility. *Futures, 117*, Article 102513.

Van Valkengoed, A. M., & Steg, L. (2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. *Nature Climate Change, 9*(2), 158–163.

Van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T., & Schellhaas, F. M. (2013). Believing in “making a difference” to collective efforts: participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. *Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 16*(5), 618–634.

Vesely, S., Masson, T., Chokrai, P., Becker, A. M., Fritsche, I., Klöckner, C. A., & Panno, A. (2021). Climate change action as a project of identity: eight meta-analyses. *Global Environmental Change, 70*, Article 102322.

Wagner, V., Flores-Aranda, J., Villela Guilhon, A. C., Knight, S., & Bertrand, K. (2022). How do past, present and future weigh into trajectories of precarity? The time perspectives of young psychoactive substance users living in situations of social precarity in Montreal. *Qualitative Health Research, 32*(2), 195–209.

Wallis, H., Sieverding, T., Schmidt, K., & Matthies, E. (2022). # fightevery crisis: a psychological perspective on motivators of the support of mitigation measures in the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84*, Article 101898.

White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. *Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society*, 817–838.

Wilting, H. C., Schipper, A. M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J. R., & Huijbregts, M. A. (2017). Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: a global-scale footprint analysis. *Environmental Science Technology, 51*(6), 3298–3306.

Wright, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M., & Neufeld, S. D. (2020). Imagining a sustainable world: measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72*, Article 101523.

Wright, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., & Mackay, C. M. (2022). Access to environmental cognitive alternatives predicts pro-environmental activist behavior. *Environment and Behavior, 54*(3), 712–742.

Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Guillaumie, L. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: a scoping review. *Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155*, Article 104660.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable Individual-Differences metric. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77*, 1271–1288.