Cross-national insights into moral expansiveness: Selective valuation of nature versus humans

IF 7 1区心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2025-09-15 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102778

Kyle Fiore Law , Stylianos Syropoulos , Charlie R. Crimston , Ezra Markowitz , Taciano L. Milfont , Scott Claessens , Thanos Kyritsis , Quentin Atkinson , Brock Bastian , Joshua Rottman

{"title":"Cross-national insights into moral expansiveness: Selective valuation of nature versus humans","authors":"Kyle Fiore Law , Stylianos Syropoulos , Charlie R. Crimston , Ezra Markowitz , Taciano L. Milfont , Scott Claessens , Thanos Kyritsis , Quentin Atkinson , Brock Bastian , Joshua Rottman","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previous evidence from limited U.S. samples has shown that people differ in how they morally prioritize the natural world versus human outgroups. Here, we extend these findings by conducting pre-registered secondary analyses of multinational surveys with students (k = 42, N = 7443) and nationally representative samples from the World Values Survey and European Social Survey (k = 86, N = 640,178). Across datasets, at least 25 % of participants reported valuing nature over humans, while about 35 % reported valuing humans over nature. National characteristics explained 5 %–7 % of variance in moral worth attributions, with prioritizing nature over humans associated with higher country-level environmental performance and human development. Valuing nature over humans also predicted stronger pro-environmental attitudes and, to a lesser extent, outgroup bias. However, we found no consistent evidence that valuing nature comes at the expense of valuing humans. These findings underscore the need to refine theories of moral expansiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 102778"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494425002610","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous evidence from limited U.S. samples has shown that people differ in how they morally prioritize the natural world versus human outgroups. Here, we extend these findings by conducting pre-registered secondary analyses of multinational surveys with students (k = 42, N = 7443) and nationally representative samples from the World Values Survey and European Social Survey (k = 86, N = 640,178). Across datasets, at least 25 % of participants reported valuing nature over humans, while about 35 % reported valuing humans over nature. National characteristics explained 5 %–7 % of variance in moral worth attributions, with prioritizing nature over humans associated with higher country-level environmental performance and human development. Valuing nature over humans also predicted stronger pro-environmental attitudes and, to a lesser extent, outgroup bias. However, we found no consistent evidence that valuing nature comes at the expense of valuing humans. These findings underscore the need to refine theories of moral expansiveness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

道德扩张性的跨国洞察：自然与人类的选择性评估

先前来自美国有限样本的证据表明，人们在道德上优先考虑自然世界和人类外部群体的方式有所不同。在这里，我们通过对学生（k = 42, N = 7443）和来自世界价值观调查和欧洲社会调查（k = 86, N = 640,178）的国家代表性样本进行预先登记的二次分析来扩展这些发现。在所有数据集中，至少有25%的参与者报告说自然比人类更重要，而大约35%的参与者报告说人类比自然更重要。国家特征解释了5% - 7%的道德价值归因差异，优先考虑自然而不是人类与更高的国家层面的环境绩效和人类发展相关。重视自然胜过人类也预示着更强烈的亲环境态度，以及在较小程度上的外群体偏见。然而，我们没有发现一致的证据表明重视自然是以牺牲人类为代价的。这些发现强调了完善道德扩张性理论的必要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Environmental Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

10.60

自引率

8.70%

发文量

140

审稿时长

62 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space