The Structure of Perceptions of the Natural Environment: the Role of Subject-Environment Interactions and Personality Traits

Abstract

Abstract

Background. The multifaceted nature of contemporary environmental threats directly impacts social stability and global development, driving increased research into pro-environmental behavior capable of countering these threats. Empirical investigation into the mutual influence of "top-down" (personality traits) and "bottom-up" (modes of interaction with the environment) factors on the formation of people's conceptions of nature—which underlie specific environmental attitudes and actions—is particularly relevant. This study contributes to the field of environmental psychology by offering a comprehensive analysis of the factors that shape pro-environmental behavior.

Objective. To identify factors shaping perceptions of the natural environment by integrating "bottom-up" (environmental) and "top-down" (personality) approaches to understanding the human-nature interaction.

Study Participants. The study involved 100 students from Moscow universities (mean age 19.2 years, SD = 2.81; 32% men, 68% women).

Methods. To assess "bottom-up" factors stemming from the type of subject-environment interaction, a methodology based on V.I. Panov's ecopsychological approach was developed. "Top-down" factors were assessed using the Big Five Personality Profile Questionnaire B5-10 (M.S. Egorova and O.V. Parshikova). A psychosemantic method was employed to investigate perceptions of the natural environment. Statistical data processing was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 and Jamovi software and included correlation, factor, and regression analyses.

Results. Based on assessments of interactions with nature, a three-factor structure of perceptions was identified: "ecoidentity" (connection with nature), "resourcefulness" (perception of nature as a source of resources), and "eco-concern" (concern for the state of the environment). It was found that: the highest level of "ecoidentity" is associated with the subject-isolated type of interaction; the highest "resourcefulness" is attributed to the subject-generating type of interaction; the lowest "eco-concern" is characteristic of the subject-joint type of interaction. Data were also obtained regarding the contribution of personality traits to the variability of people's conceptions of nature.

Conclusions. The study demonstrates that perceptions of nature are shaped by the combined influence of the type of direct interaction with the environment (the "bottom-up" factor) and stable personality traits (the "top-down" factor). The specific type of interaction (isolated, generative, joint) is associated with the actualization of different aspects of perceptions. Moreover, personality traits, primarily agreeableness and conscientiousness, significantly predict the propensity for ecoidentity, whereas ecoconcern is more strongly associated with neuroticism, particularly among women.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Aleksandrova, E.S. (2021). The relationship between pro-environmental behavior and personal values: A gender aspect. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 14(4), 13–20. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0861-2021-4-13-20

Aleksandrova, E.S., Lidskaya, E.V., Lopukhova, O.G., Mdivani, M.O., Panov, V.I., Panyukova, Yu.G., Sunnatova, R.I., Shumakova, N.B. (2025). Ecological behavior: man and the environment (2nd ed.). Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)

Brough, A.R., Wilkie, J.E., Ma, J., Isaac, M.S., Gal, D. (2022). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(6), 1011–1031. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab026

Brown, L., Turner, B., Cavero, V., Flores, E. (2023). Gender and the environmental health agenda: A qualitative study of policy, academic, and advocacy perspectives in Peru. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, (10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100217

Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In: S. Clayton, S. Opotow, (eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Clayton, S. (2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, (74), 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263

Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Swim, J., Bonnes, M., Steg, L., Whitmarsh, L., Carrico, A. (2016). Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039482

Clayton, S., Irkhin, B.D., Nartova-Bochaver, S.K. (2019). Environmental identity in Russia: Validation and relationship to the concern for people and plants. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 16(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2019-1-85-107

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E. (2000). New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

Egorova, M.S., Parshikova, O.V. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Short Big Five Personality Inventory (B5-10). Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological Research, 9(45), 1–14. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v9i45.492

Ermolaeva, Yu.V. (2023). Interaction with the natural environment as a factor influencing health, psychological well-being, and pro-environmental behavior. Sotsiologiya = Sociology, (5), 111–120. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/1812-9226-2023-5-111-120

Gifford, R., Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034

Hirsh, J.B., Dolderman, D. (2021). Personality predictors of environmental concern: The mediating role of environmental identity. Personality and Individual Differences, (171), 110503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110503

Homer, P.M., Kahle, L.R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

Ivanova, A.A. (2025). Individual values and environmental concerns as factors of pro-environmental behavior. Diss. Cand. Sci. (Psychol.). Moscow. (In Russ.)

Ivanova, A.A., Agisova, F.B., Soutkina, E.V., Kabanova, V.S., Patrakova, N.A., Ivande, S.K. (2023). Russian scale of pro-environmental behavior: development and psychometric assessment. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology, 16(2), 218–234. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2023160213

Je, J., Khoo, C., Yang, E.C.L. (2020). Gender issues in tourism organisations: insights from a two-phased pragmatic systematic literature review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, (30), 1–24. https://doi.org/0.1080/09669582.2020.1831000

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Lucas, R.E., Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts' enjoyment of social situations: the importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.343

Mdivani, M.O. (2022). Exploring the structure of natural identity. Obshchestvo: sotsiologiya, psikhologiya, pedagogika = Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogics, (10), 98–103. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/spp.2022.10.15

Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., Wagner, C. (2010). A cross-cultural test of the value–attitude–behavior hierarchy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2791–2813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00681.x

Nestik, T.A., Zhuravlev, A.L. (2018). Psychology of global risks. Moscow: Psychology Institute Publ. (In Russ.)

Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., Grandpierre, Z. (2019). Mindfulness in Nature Enhances Connectedness and Mood. Ecopsychology, 11(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0061

Ogunbode, C.A., Doran, R., Böhm, G. (2022). Environmental values and identities at the personal and group level. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, (42), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.020

Panov, V.I. (2022). Ecopsychological approach to mental development: stages, prerequisites, constructs. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 15(3), 100–118. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0861-2022-3-100-117

Panov, V.I. (2026). Latent factors of ideas about intragroup interactions in the context of ecopsychological types of agent-environment interactions. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology, 19(2), 29–39. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2026190202

Panyukova, Yu.G., Mdivani, M.O. (2024). Psychological Resources of Connection with Nature: An Empirical Study. Chelovek = Human, 35(3), 80–95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0236200724030056

Shatalova, O.V. (2022). Restorative Effect of Nature Contact as a Subject of Environmental Psychology. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal VShE = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 19(4), 855–871. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-4-855-871

Shatalova, O.V. (2023). Psychological Restoration and Nature Connectedness in terms of "Bottom-up" and "Top-down" Approaches to Understanding Interaction with Nature. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 19(4), 109–118. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2023190411

Soutkina, E.V., Agisova, F.B., Ivanova, A.A., Ivande, K.S., Kabanova, V.S. (2022). PRO-Environmental Behaviour In Russia. A Systematic Review. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology, 15(2), 172–193. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2022150213

Schultz, P.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Soto, C.J., Napolitano, C.M., Sewell, M.N., Yoon, H.J., Roberts, B.W. (2022). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000401

Soutter, A.R.B., Bates, T.C., Mõttus, R. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019

Soutter, A.R.B., Mõttus, R. (2021). Big Five facets' associations with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Personality, 89(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12576

Stern, P.C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

Thøgersen, J., Grunert-Beckmann, S.C. (1997). Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, (24), 182–189.

Van den Berg, A.E. (2021). The natural-built distinction in environmental preference and restoration: Bottom-up and top-down explanations. In: A.R. Schutte, J.C. Torquati, J.R. Stevens, (eds.), Nature and psychology: Biological, cognitive, developmental, and social pathways to well-being (pp. 31–60). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_3

Velikaya, N.M., Novozhenina, O.P. (2022). Environmental threats as a factor in the greening of public consciousness. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz = Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 15(4), 184–201. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2022.4.82.13

Zelezny, L., Chua, P., Aldrich, C. (2000). New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, (56), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177