Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A positive relationship between pro-environmental behavior and subjective well-being has been used to argue for a “double dividend”, i.e. the narrative that pro-environmental behavior is beneficial for both environment and individual, when measured in the metric of subjective well-being. Our paper argues that the (causal) evidence base for such a narrative is far too weak. We suggest methodological improvements to strengthen the credibility of multivariate regression analyses with observational data. Directed acyclic graphs help with a theoretically grounded selection of control variables and equivalence tests (and associated power considerations) help interpreting null results. Illustrating both for a novel data set from a medium sized German municipality ( n = 1073 ), we find no evidence for a positive relationship between pro-environmental behavior and life satisfaction. Equivalence tests robustly reject the null hypothesis of a true effect size larger than even half that from a recent meta-analysis ( r = ± . 1 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ). We discuss the implications of these findings and conclude that this dampens enthusiasm for the narrative of the double dividend.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Binder et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: