Individual differences in reproductive strategy are related to views about recreational drug use in Belgium, the Netherlands and Japan

Individual differences in moral views are often explained as the downstream effect of ideological commitments, such as political orientation and religiosity. Recent studies in the U.S. suggest that moral views about recreational drug use are also influenced by attitudes towards sex and that this relationship cannot be explained by ideological commitments. In this study, we investigate student samples from Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan. We find that, in all samples, sexual attitudes are strongly related to views about recreational drug use, even after controlling for various ideological variables. We discuss our results in the light of reproductive strategies as determinants of moral views

The International Climate Psychology Collaboration: Climate change-related data collected from 63 countries.

Funder: Google Jigsaw grant (Kimberly C. Doell; Madalina Vlasceanu; Jay J. Van Bavel)Funder: FWO postdoctoral fellowship 12U1221NFunder: Dutch Research Council Grant no. 7934Funder: COVID-19 Rapid Response grant, University of ViennaFunder: the National Council for Scientific and Technological DevelopmentFunder: Christ Church College Research Centre grant to MAJA, the Biosciences and Biotechnology Research Council (BBSRC) to MAJA (David Phillips Fellowship grant number: BB/R010668/2), a Jacobs Foundation Fellowship to MAJAFunder: The work of M.D., P.B. and B.B. is supported by the DFG under Germany's Excellence Strategy (EXC 2037 and CLICCS) project no.\ 390683824, contribution to the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) of Universität Hamburg.Funder: NYUAD research funds to JJBFunder: the Swiss Federal Office of Energy through the "Energy, Economy, and Society" program to SB (grant number: SI/502093-01)Funder: A grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS).Funder: We received funding from our home research institutionFunder: Leuphana University Lüneburg research fund to DDL, LB, YAE, HP, and MSFunder: Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES-PROEX and CAPES PrInt), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)Funder: Support from the ANR-Labex Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST)Funder: University of Birmingham Start up Seed Grant to AB; Prime-Pump Fund from University of BirminghamFunder: University of Geneva faculty seed fundingFunder: Pomona College Hirsch Research Initiation Grant to ARPFunder: This research was supported by the Center for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (ANID/FONDAP #15130009) and the Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (ANID/FONDAP #15110006)Funder: National Research Foundation of Korea (grant number: NRF-2020S1A3A2A02097375)Funder: Darden School of BusinessFunder: Kieskompas - Election Compass ManyLabs contribution to TWE, AK, VC, & ALOFunder: This research was supported by the Center for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (ANID/FONDAP #15130009), the Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (ANID/FONDAP #15110006) and the National Agency of Research and Development, National Doctoral Scholarship 24210087Funder: Doctoral supervisor (PI's) Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) grantFunder: Iris Engelhard is supported with a Vici grant (grant number: 453-15-005) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).Funder: This study was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology – FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), under the grant UIDB/05380/2020.Funder: The Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV) to AFFunder: The James McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition—Scholar Award (grant #220020334) and by a Sponsored Research Agreement between Meta and Fundación Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (grant #INB2376941).Funder: Thammasat University Fast Track Research FundFunder: The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program to Dmitry Grigoryev and Albina Gallyamova.Funder: the ARU Centre for Societies and Groups Research Centre Development FundsFunder: University of Stavanger, faculty of Social Science, grant targeted to research activitiesFunder: Center for the Science of Moral Understanding to KGFunder: Faculty research fund to JG at the University of Colorado Boulder.Funder: The Swiss National Science Foundation to Ulf Hahnel (Grant number: PCEFPI_203283)Funder: the internal research funds of Kochi University of Technology.Funder: RUB appointment funds to WHFunder: Dean’s Office, College of Arts and Sciences at Seton Hall University to FJFunder: the Nicolaus Copernicus University(NCU) budgetFunder: Sectorplan Social Sciences and Humanities, The Netherlands and Erasmus Centre of Empirical Legal Studies (ECELS), Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The NetherlandsFunder: American University of Sharjah Faculty Research Grant 2020Funder: American University of Sharjah Faculty Research Grant 2020 to OKFunder: Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development SEED grant to AK & EKFunder: ANU Futures Grant to CKFunder: The data collection in Norway was partly funded by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Scheme, FAIR project No 262675Funder: Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF-E-2021-7-16)Funder: Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Lab at Cornell UniversityFunder: National Geographic Society; University of Michigan Ross School of Business (Faculty Research Funds)Funder: The Clemson University Media Forensics HubFunder: John Templeton Foundation (62631) to NL & RMR; ARC Discovery Project (DP180102384) to NLFunder: the Medical Research Council (Fellowship grant numbers: MR/P014097/1 and MR/P014097/2) to PLL, the Jacobs Foundation to PLL, and the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (Sir Henry Dale Fellowship grant number: 223264/Z/21/Z) to PLLFunder: JFRAP grant awarded to JGLFunder: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship to YLFunder: Simon Fraser University Psychology Department Research GrantFunder: GU internal funding to AAM & SARFunder: Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Innovation (RCGI), sponsored by the FAPESP (nº 2014/50279-4 and nº 2020/15230-5) and Shell Brasil, and by the Brazil’s National Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency (ANP) through the R&D levy regulation to KLMFunder: ANR grant SCALUP (ANR-21-CE28-0016-01) to HMFunder: NOMIS Foundation grant for the Centre for the Politics of Feelings to MT and KMFunder: Applied Moral Psychology Lab at Cornell UniversityFunder: a grant (PDR 0253.19) from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS).Funder: Conflict and Human Security (HUM-1084) research groupFunder: the James McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition—Scholar Award (grant #220020334) and by a Sponsored Research Agreement between Meta and Fundación Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (grant #INB2376941).Funder: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (grant no. P21-0384) to GNFunder: Grant number: EP/X02170X/1, awarded by the European Research Council and funded by the UKRIFunder: Statutory Funding of Institute of Psychology, University of Silesia in Katowice to MPCFunder: Leuphana University Lüneburg research fund to DDL, LB, YAE, HMP, and MSFunder: GU internal funding to AAM & SAR, Mistletoe Unfettered Research Grant, National Science Foundation GRFP Award (#1937959)Funder: John Templeton Foundation (62631) to NL & RMRFunder: Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceFunder: the Institute of Psychology & the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandFunder: Universitat Ramon Llull, Esade Business SchoolFunder: University of St AndrewsFunder: the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) to CSFunder: Faculty of Health PhD fellowshipFunder: School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National UniversityFunder: the Swedish Research Council (2018-01755) to GTFunder: The data were obtained in the framework of the grant of the Russian Federation Government, project № 075-15-2021-611 "Human and the changing Spaces of Ural and Siberia"Funder: Funding from Charles University, grant UNCE 24/SSH/018 - Peace Research Center Prague II and Cooperatio Program MCOM.Funder: Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil SocietyFunder: the Canada Research Chairs program to JZClimate change is currently one of humanity's greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p