1. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093001 (2020).

   Article 
   ADS 
   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

2. Clayton, S. et al. Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 640–646 (2015).

   Article 
   ADS 

   Google 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).

   Article 
   ADS 

   Google 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).

   Article 
   PubMed 

   Google 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).

   Article 
   PubMed 

   Google 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).

   Article 
   ADS 
   CAS 
   PubMed 
   PubMed Central 

   Google 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).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google 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. Energy 6, 1011–1016 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

15. Wolske, K. S., Todd-Blick, A. & Tome, E. Increasing the reach of low-income energy programmes through behaviourally informed peer referral. Nat. Energy https://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. Nature 563, 245–248 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

17. Dietz, T. & Whitley, C. T. Inequality, decisions, and altruism. Sociol. Dev. 4, 282–303 (2018).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

19. Wynes, S., Motta, M. & Donner, S. D. Understanding the climate responsibility associated with elections. One Earth 4, 363–371 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

20. Fisher, D. R., Berglund, O. & Davis, C. J. How effective are climate protests at swaying policy—and what could make a difference? Nature 623, 910–913 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

21. Brudermann, T., Reinsberger, K., Orthofer, A., Kislinger, M. & Posch, A. Photovoltaics in agriculture: a case study on decision making of farmers. Energy Policy 61, 96–103 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

22. Cerullo, G. & Nielsen, K. S. Decade on restoration needs behavioural science. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://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).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google 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. Energy 7, 1200–1207 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

26. Franta, B. Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay. Environ. Polit. 31, 555–575 (2022).

    Article 

    Google 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. Change 71, 102390 (2021).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

31. Heeb, F., Kölbel, J. F., Paetzold, F. & Zeisberger, S. Do investors care about impact?. Rev. Financ. Stud. 36, 1737–1787 (2023).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google 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 Interest 23, 50–97 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

36. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

37. Hargreaves, T. & Middlemiss, L. The importance of social relations in shaping energy demand. Nat. Energy 5, 195–201 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

38. Bryant, C. J., Prosser, A. M. B. & Barnett, J. Going veggie: identifying and overcoming the social and psychological barriers to veganism. Appetite 169, 105812 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

39. Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T. & Schultz, P. W. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat. Energy 5, 202–212 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

40. Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012).

    Article 

    Google 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 Place 16, 876–884 (2010).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google 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. Energy 8, 273–283 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

44. Balmford, A. et al. Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109256 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

45. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

46. Ivanova, D. et al. Carbon mitigation in domains of high consumer lock-in. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 117–130 (2018).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

48. Lunetto, M., Hale, J. & Michie, S. Achieving effective climate action in cities by understanding behavioral systems. One Earth 5, 745–748 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

49. Oliver, T. H. et al. A safe and just operating space for human identity: a systems perspective. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e919–e927 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

50. Schill, C. et al. A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1075–1082 (2019).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

52. Pike, S. & Lubell, M. Geography and social networks in transportation mode choice. J. Transp. Geogr. 57, 184–193 (2016).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

54. Minor, K., Bjerre-Nielsen, A., Jonasdottir, S. S., Lehmann, S. & Obradovich, N. Rising temperatures erode human sleep globally. One Earth 5, 534–549 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

55. Jain, R. K., Qin, J. & Rajagopal, R. Data-driven planning of distributed energy resources amidst socio-technical complexities. Nat. Energy 2, 1–11 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

56. Kaaronen, R. O. & Strelkovskii, N. Cultural evolution of sustainable behaviors: pro-environmental tipping points in an agent-based model. One Earth 2, 85–97 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

57. Liu, J. et al. Coupled human and natural systems: the evolution and applications of an integrated framework. Ambio 50, 1778–1783 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

58. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

59. Steg, L. et al. A method to identify barriers to and enablers of implementing climate change mitigation options. One Earth 5, 1216–1227 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google 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. Nature 551, 294–295 (2017).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

63. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992, 987–992 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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. USA 112, 8254–8259 (2015).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

65. Peng, W. et al. Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how. Nature 594, 174–176 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google 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. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google 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. Energy 6, 925–932 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google 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. USA 120, e2214851120 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

69. Chancel, L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain. 5, 931–938 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

70. Green, F. & Healy, N. How inequality fuels climate change: the climate case for a Green New Deal. One Earth 5, 635–649 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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. Change https://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. Food 3, 227–235 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google 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. Change 12, 235–240 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

76. Carattini, S., Kallbekken, S. & Orlov, A. How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature 565, 289–291 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google 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. Change 12, 141–147 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

78. Stern, P. C. Design principles for global commons natural resources and emerging technologies. Int. J. Commons 5, 213–232 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

79. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Nielsen, K. S., Peng, W. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Feasible climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 6–8 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

82. Lange, F. et al. Beyond self-reports: a call for more behavior in environmental psychology. J. Environ. Psychol. 86, 101965 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

83. Nielsen, K. S. et al. The motivation–impact gap in pro-environmental clothing consumption. Nat. Sustain. 5, 665–668 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

84. Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 63, 92–100 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

85. Klein, S. A. & Hilbig, B. E. On the lack of real consequences in consumer choice research. Exp. Psychol. 66, 68–76 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

86. Wille, F. & Lange, F. Potential contributions of behavior analysis to research on pro-environmental behavior. Front. Psychol. 13, 685621 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

89. Tiefenbeck, V. et al. Overcoming salience bias: how real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Manage. Sci. 64, 1458–1476 (2018).

    Article 

    Google 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).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google 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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

94. Lange, F. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro‑environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav. Res. Methods 55, 600–622 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

95. Caggiano, H. & Weber, E. U. Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 793–811 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

96. Rozin, P. Social psychology and science: some lessons from Solomon Asch. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 2–14 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

97. Gerring, J. Mere description. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 42, 721–746 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

98. Diener, E., Northcott, R., Zyphur, M. J. & West, S. G. Beyond experiments. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1101–1119 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

99. Cialdini, R. B. We have to break up. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 5–6 (2009).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

103. Masuda, Y. J. et al. Innovation diffusion within large environmental NGOs through informal network agents. Nat. Sustain. 1, 190–197 (2018).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

105. Rai, V. & Henry, A. D. Agent-based modelling of consumer energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 556–562 (2016).

     Article 
     ADS 

     Google Scholar 

106. Walzberg, J., Carpenter, A. & Heath, G. A. Role of the social factors in success of solar photovoltaic reuse and recycle programmes. Nat. Energy 6, 913–924 (2021).

     Article 
     ADS 

     Google Scholar 

107. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

108. Ghai, S., de-Wit, L. & Mak, Y. How we investigated the diversity of our undergraduate curriculum. Nature https://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).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

110. Ghai, S. It’s time to reimagine sample diversity and retire the WEIRD dichotomy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 971–972 (2021).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

113. Owen, A. & Barrett, J. Reducing inequality resulting from UK low-carbon policy. Clim. Policy 20, 1193–1208 (2020).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

117. Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

123. Duncan, E. et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open 10, e033516 (2020).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

127. Eronen, M. I. & Bringmann, L. F. The theory crisis in psychology: how to move forward. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 779–788 (2021).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

129. Elliott, J. H. et al. Decision makers need ‘living’ evidence synthesis. Nature 600, 383–385 (2021).

     Article 
     ADS 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

130. Watts, D. J. Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0015 (2017).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

132. Cairney, P. & Kwiatkowski, R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 3, 37 (2017).

     Article 

     Google 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. Joule 4, 1613–1616 (2020).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

135. Come together. Nat. Energy 6, 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. USA 116, 7676–7683 (2019).

     Article 
     ADS 

     Google Scholar 

137. Overland, I. & Sovacool, B. K. The misallocation of climate research funding. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62, 101349 (2020).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

138. Otto, I. M. et al. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2354–2365 (2020).

     Article 
     ADS 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google 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).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

141. Moore, F. C. et al. Determinants of emissions pathways in the coupled climate–social system. Nature 603, 103–111 (2022).

     Article 
     ADS 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

142. Beckage, B. et al. Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 79–84 (2018).

     Article 
     ADS 

     Google Scholar 

Download references