Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation

Behavioural science has yielded insights about the actions of individuals, particularly as consumers, that affect climate change. Behaviours in other spheres of life remain understudied. In this Perspective, we propose a collaborative research agenda that integrates behavioural science insights across multiple disciplines. To this end, we offer six recommendations for optimizing the quality and impact of research on individual climate behaviour. The recommendations are united by a shift towards more solutions-focused research that is directly useful to citizens, policymakers and other change agents. Achieving this vision will require overcoming challenges such as the limited funding for behavioural and social sciences and structural barriers within and beyond the academic system that impede collaborations across disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

206,07 € per year

only 17,17 € per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Social identities in climate action

Article Open access 11 March 2022

From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards

Article 10 February 2020

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change

Article Open access 04 October 2019

References

  1. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett.15, 093001 (2020). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  2. Clayton, S. et al. Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change5, 640–646 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Composto, J. W. & Weber, E. U. Effectiveness of behavioural interventions to reduce household energy demand: a scoping review. Environ. Res. Lett.17, 063005 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Creutzig, F. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla. P. R. et al.) 752–943 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  5. Newell, P., Twena, M. & Daley, F. Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5-degree world: challenges and opportunities. Glob. Sustain.4, e22 (2021). Google Scholar
  6. Nielsen, K. S. et al. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am. Psychol.76, 130–144 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Wolske, K. S. & Stern, P. C. in Psychology and Climate Change (eds Clayton, S. & Manning, C.) 127–160 (Academic Press, 2018).
  8. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science. Nat. Hum. Behav.5, 550–556 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun.10, 4545 (2019). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  10. Wynes, S., Nicholas, K. A., Zhao, J. & Donner, S. D. Measuring what works: quantifying greenhouse gas emission reductions of behavioural interventions to reduce driving, meat consumption, and household energy use. Environ. Res. Lett.13, 113002 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Kastner, I. & Stern, P. C. Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.10, 72–89 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  13. Nielsen, K. S., Nicholas, K. A., Creutzig, F., Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C. The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Energy6, 1011–1016 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Composto, J. W., Constantino, S. M. & Weber, E. U. Predictors and consequences of pro-environmental behavior at work. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol.10, 100107 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolske, K. S., Todd-Blick, A. & Tome, E. Increasing the reach of low-income energy programmes through behaviourally informed peer referral. Nat. Energyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01298-5 (2023).
  16. Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Rand, D. G. Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature563, 245–248 (2018). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietz, T. & Whitley, C. T. Inequality, decisions, and altruism. Sociol. Dev.4, 282–303 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Kölbel, J. F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F. & Busch, T. Can sustainable investing save the world? Reviewing the mechanisms of investor impact. Organ. Environ.33, 554–574 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Wynes, S., Motta, M. & Donner, S. D. Understanding the climate responsibility associated with elections. One Earth4, 363–371 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher, D. R., Berglund, O. & Davis, C. J. How effective are climate protests at swaying policy—and what could make a difference? Nature623, 910–913 (2023). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  21. Brudermann, T., Reinsberger, K., Orthofer, A., Kislinger, M. & Posch, A. Photovoltaics in agriculture: a case study on decision making of farmers. Energy Policy61, 96–103 (2013). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Cerullo, G. & Nielsen, K. S. Decade on restoration needs behavioural science. Preprint at PsyArXivhttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g85j9 (2022).
  23. Geiger, N., Swim, J. K. & Fraser, J. Creating a climate for change: interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. J. Environ. Psychol.51, 104–116 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Rand, J. & Hoen, B. Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: what have we learned? Energy Res. Soc. Sci.29, 135–148 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms. Nat. Energy7, 1200–1207 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Franta, B. Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay. Environ. Polit.31, 555–575 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2011).
  28. Reichl, J., Cohen, J. J., Klöckner, C. A., Kollmann, A. & Azarova, V. The drivers of individual climate actions in Europe. Glob. Environ. Change71, 102390 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Javaid, A., Creutzig, F. & Bamberg, S. Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review of reviews. Environ. Res. Lett.15, 103002 (2020). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser, F. G. Climate change mitigation within the Campbell paradigm: doing the right thing for a reason and against all odds. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.42, 70–75 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Heeb, F., Kölbel, J. F., Paetzold, F. & Zeisberger, S. Do investors care about impact?. Rev. Financ. Stud.36, 1737–1787 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. A value–belief–norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev.6, 81–97 (1999). Google Scholar
  33. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci.6, 42 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris, E., Finnerty, A. N., Hastings, J., Stokes, G. & Michie, S. A scoping review of ontologies related to human behaviour change. Nat. Hum. Behav.3, 164–172 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Constantino, S. M. et al. Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest23, 50–97 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science354, 42–43 (2016). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  37. Hargreaves, T. & Middlemiss, L. The importance of social relations in shaping energy demand. Nat. Energy5, 195–201 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Bryant, C. J., Prosser, A. M. B. & Barnett, J. Going veggie: identifying and overcoming the social and psychological barriers to veganism. Appetite169, 105812 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T. & Schultz, P. W. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat. Energy5, 202–212 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci.31, 900–912 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R. & Burke, J. G. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: a review of food deserts literature. Health Place16, 876–884 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Foley, A. M. & Furszyfer Del Rio, J. A cross-country analysis of sustainability, transport and energy poverty. npj Urban Sustain.3, 41 (2023).
  43. Sovacool, B. K. et al. Policy prescriptions to address energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom. Nat. Energy8, 273–283 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Balmford, A. et al. Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biol. Conserv.261, 109256 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.41, 425–452 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Ivanova, D. et al. Carbon mitigation in domains of high consumer lock-in. Glob. Environ. Change52, 117–130 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Tam, K.-P. Understanding the psychology X politics interaction behind environmental activism: the roles of governmental trust, density of environmental NGOs, and democracy. J. Environ. Psychol.71, 101330 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Lunetto, M., Hale, J. & Michie, S. Achieving effective climate action in cities by understanding behavioral systems. One Earth5, 745–748 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliver, T. H. et al. A safe and just operating space for human identity: a systems perspective. Lancet Planet. Health6, e919–e927 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Schill, C. et al. A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain.2, 1075–1082 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A. & Funder, D. C. Principles of situation research: towards a better understanding of psychological situations. Eur. J. Pers.29, 363–381 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Pike, S. & Lubell, M. Geography and social networks in transportation mode choice. J. Transp. Geogr.57, 184–193 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Niamir, L., Ivanova, O., Filatova, T., Voinov, A. & Bressers, H. Demand-side solutions for climate mitigation: bottom-up drivers of household energy behavior change in the Netherlands and Spain. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.62, 101356 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Minor, K., Bjerre-Nielsen, A., Jonasdottir, S. S., Lehmann, S. & Obradovich, N. Rising temperatures erode human sleep globally. One Earth5, 534–549 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Jain, R. K., Qin, J. & Rajagopal, R. Data-driven planning of distributed energy resources amidst socio-technical complexities. Nat. Energy2, 1–11 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaaronen, R. O. & Strelkovskii, N. Cultural evolution of sustainable behaviors: pro-environmental tipping points in an agent-based model. One Earth2, 85–97 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu, J. et al. Coupled human and natural systems: the evolution and applications of an integrated framework. Ambio50, 1778–1783 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth3, 325–336 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Steg, L. et al. A method to identify barriers to and enablers of implementing climate change mitigation options. One Earth5, 1216–1227 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Stern, P. C., Gardner, G. T., Vandenbergh, M. P., Dietz, T. & Gilligan, J. M. Design principles for carbon emissions reduction programs. Environ. Sci. Technol.44, 4847–4848 (2010). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  61. National Research Council Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Academies Press, 2008).
  62. Kennedy, C. Boycott products from states with dirty energy. Nature551, 294–295 (2017). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  63. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science992, 987–992 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Dietz, T., Frank, K. A., Whitley, C. T., Kelly, J. & Kelly, R. Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US states. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA112, 8254–8259 (2015). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  65. Peng, W. et al. Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how. Nature594, 174–176 (2021). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  66. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 18452–18456 (2009). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  67. Khanna, T. M. et al. A multi-country meta-analysis on the role of behavioural change in reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions in residential buildings. Nat. Energy6, 925–932 (2021). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  68. Bergquist, M., Thiel, M., Goldberg, M. H. & van der Linden, S. Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: a second-order meta-analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA120, e2214851120 (2023). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  69. Chancel, L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain.5, 931–938 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Green, F. & Healy, N. How inequality fuels climate change: the climate case for a Green New Deal. One Earth5, 635–649 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Nilsen, P. & Birken, S. A. Handbook on Implementation Science (Edward Elgar, 2020).
  72. Pülzl, H. & Treib, O. in Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (eds Fischer, F. et al.) 89–107 (Routledge, 2007).
  73. Fransen, T. et al. Taking stock of the implementation gap in climate policy. Nat. Clim. Changehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01755-9 (2023).
  74. Fesenfeld, L., Rudolph, L. & Bernauer, T. Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation. Nat. Food3, 227–235 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N. & Jagers, S. C. Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nat. Clim. Change12, 235–240 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Carattini, S., Kallbekken, S. & Orlov, A. How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature565, 289–291 (2019). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  77. Mildenberger, M., Lachapelle, E., Harrison, K. & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing. Nat. Clim. Change12, 141–147 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Stern, P. C. Design principles for global commons natural resources and emerging technologies. Int. J. Commons5, 213–232 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Nielsen, K. S., Peng, W. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Feasible climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change13, 6–8 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Lange, F., Steinke, A. & Dewitte, S. The Pro-Environmental Behavior Task: A laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol.56, 46–54 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Kormos, C. & Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J. Environ. Psychol.40, 359–371 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Lange, F. et al. Beyond self-reports: a call for more behavior in environmental psychology. J. Environ. Psychol.86, 101965 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Nielsen, K. S. et al. The motivation–impact gap in pro-environmental clothing consumption. Nat. Sustain.5, 665–668 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol.63, 92–100 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Klein, S. A. & Hilbig, B. E. On the lack of real consequences in consumer choice research. Exp. Psychol.66, 68–76 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Wille, F. & Lange, F. Potential contributions of behavior analysis to research on pro-environmental behavior. Front. Psychol.13, 685621 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Nielsen, K. S., Cologna, V., Lange, F., Brick, C. & Stern, P. C. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. J. Environ. Psychol.74, 101559 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Bolderdijk, J. W., Knockaert, J., Steg, E. M. & Verhoef, E. T. Effects of pay-as-youdrive vehicle insurance on young drivers’ speed choice: results of a Dutch field experiment. Accid. Anal. Prev.43, 1181–1186 (2011). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  89. Tiefenbeck, V. et al. Overcoming salience bias: how real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Manage. Sci.64, 1458–1476 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Cropley, M., Sprajcer, M. & Dawson, D. Wastogram: validation of a new tool to measure household food waste. J. Environ. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101896 (2022).
  91. Castiglione, A., Brick, C., Miles-Urdan, E. & Aron, A. R. Discovering the psychological building blocks underlying climate action—a longitudinal study of real-world activism. R. Soc. Open Sci.9, 210006 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Allen, S., Dietz, T. & Mccright, A. M. Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.10, 133–140 (2015). Google Scholar
  93. Berger, S. & Wyss, A. M. Measuring pro-environmental behavior using the carbon emission task. J. Environ. Psychol.75, 101613 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Lange, F. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro‑environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav. Res. Methods55, 600–622 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Caggiano, H. & Weber, E. U. Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.48, 793–811 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Rozin, P. Social psychology and science: some lessons from Solomon Asch. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.5, 2–14 (2001). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Gerring, J. Mere description. Br. J. Polit. Sci.42, 721–746 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Diener, E., Northcott, R., Zyphur, M. J. & West, S. G. Beyond experiments. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.17, 1101–1119 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Cialdini, R. B. We have to break up. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.4, 5–6 (2009). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M. & Lakens, D. Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.16, 744–755 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Fell, M. J. The history of heat-as-a-service for promoting domestic demand-side flexibility: lessons from the case of Budget Warmth. J. Energy Hist. https://energyhistory.eu/en/node/239 (2021).
  102. Jenny, M. A. & Betsch, C. Large-scale behavioural data are key to climate policy. Nat. Hum. Behav.6, 1444–1447 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Masuda, Y. J. et al. Innovation diffusion within large environmental NGOs through informal network agents. Nat. Sustain.1, 190–197 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Debnath, R., van der Linden, S., Alvarez, R. M. & Sovacool, B. K. Facilitating system-level behavioural climate action using computational social science. Nat. Hum. Behav.7, 155–156 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Rai, V. & Henry, A. D. Agent-based modelling of consumer energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change6, 556–562 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Walzberg, J., Carpenter, A. & Heath, G. A. Role of the social factors in success of solar photovoltaic reuse and recycle programmes. Nat. Energy6, 913–924 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci.33, 61–83 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Ghai, S., de-Wit, L. & Mak, Y. How we investigated the diversity of our undergraduate curriculum. Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00614-z (2023).
  109. Adetula, A., Forscher, P. S., Basnight-Brown, D., Azouaghe, S. & IJzerman, H. Psychology should generalize from—not just to—Africa. Nat. Rev. Psychol.1, 370–371 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Ghai, S. It’s time to reimagine sample diversity and retire the WEIRD dichotomy. Nat. Hum. Behav.5, 971–972 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (Allyn & Bacon, 1996).
  112. Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. & Yeager, D. S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav.5, 980–989 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Owen, A. & Barrett, J. Reducing inequality resulting from UK low-carbon policy. Clim. Policy20, 1193–1208 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. Zhao, S., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Oshiro, K. & Sasaki, K. Poverty and inequality implications of carbon pricing under the long-term climate target. Sustain. Sci.17, 2513–2528 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Moshontz, H. et al. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci.1, 501–515 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav.2, 637–644 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav.1, 0021 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Frank, K. A., Lin, Q., Xu, R., Maroulis, S. & Mueller, A. Quantifying the robustness of causal inferences: sensitivity analysis for pragmatic social science. Soc. Sci. Res.110, 102815 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Prosser, A. M. B. et al. When open data closes the door: a critical examination of the past, present and the potential future for open data guidelines in journals. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12576 (2022).
  120. Michie, S. et al. Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data). Health Technol. Assess.19, 1–187 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. Chester, D. & Lasko, E. Construct validation of experimental manipulations in social psychology: current practices and recommendations for the future. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.16, 377–395 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Hoffmann, T. C. et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Br. Med. J.348, g1687 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Duncan, E. et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open10, e033516 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Skivington, K. et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. Br. Med. J.374, n2061 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Lange, F., Nielsen, K. S., Cologna, V., Brick, C. & Stern, P. C. Making theory useful for understanding high-impact behavior. A response to van Valkengoed et al. (2021). J. Environ. Psychol.75, 101611 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. van Valkengoed, A. M. et al. Theory enhances impact. Reply to: ‘The case for impact-focused environmental psychology’. J. Environ. Psychol.75, 101597 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Eronen, M. I. & Bringmann, L. F. The theory crisis in psychology: how to move forward. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.16, 779–788 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  128. Michie, S. et al. The Human Behaviour-Change Project: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning for evidence synthesis and interpretation. Implement. Sci.12, 121 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Elliott, J. H. et al. Decision makers need ‘living’ evidence synthesis. Nature600, 383–385 (2021). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  130. Watts, D. J. Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nat. Hum. Behav.1, 0015 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Brownson, R. C., Royer, C., Ewing, R. & McBride, T. D. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am. J. Prev. Med.30, 164–172 (2006). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Cairney, P. & Kwiatkowski, R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun.3, 37 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  133. Vandenbergh, M. P. & Gilligan, J. M. Beyond Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
  134. Nielsen, K. S., van der Linden, S. & Stern, P. C. How behavioral interventions can reduce the climate impact of energy use. Joule4, 1613–1616 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  135. Come together. Nat. Energy6, 765 (2021).
  136. De Bruin, W. B. & Granger, M. Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA116, 7676–7683 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Overland, I. & Sovacool, B. K. The misallocation of climate research funding. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.62, 101349 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. Otto, I. M. et al. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA117, 2354–2365 (2020). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  139. Polizzi di Sorrentino, E., Woelbert, E. & Sala, S. Consumers and their behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase modeling in LCA and ecodesign. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.21, 237–251 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  140. Sohn, J., Nielsen, K. S., Birkved, M., Joanes, T. & Gwozdz, W. The environmental impacts of clothing: evidence from United States and three European countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum.27, 2153–2164 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Moore, F. C. et al. Determinants of emissions pathways in the coupled climate–social system. Nature603, 103–111 (2022). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  142. Beckage, B. et al. Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change. Nat. Clim. Change8, 79–84 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar

Acknowledgements

K.S.N. gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Carlsberg Foundation, grant number CF22-1056. V.C. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoc Mobility Fellowship (P500PS_202935). S.B. acknowledges support from the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SI/502093-01). T.D. was supported in part by Michigan AgBio Research. F.L. was supported by an FWO postdoctoral fellowship (12U1221N).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark Kristian S. Nielsen & Jan M. Bauer
  2. Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Viktoria Cologna
  3. Department of Sociology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Sebastian Berger
  4. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Cameron Brick
  5. Department of Psychology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Elverum, Norway Cameron Brick
  6. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Thomas Dietz
  7. Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Thomas Dietz
  8. Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland Ulf J. J. Hahnel
  9. Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Ulf J. J. Hahnel
  10. Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Hohenheim, Germany Laura Henn
  11. Behavioral Economics and Engineering Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Florian Lange
  12. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Shelburne Falls, MA, USA Paul C. Stern
  13. Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Kimberly S. Wolske
  1. Kristian S. Nielsen