This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (The goal of sustainable consumption behavior is to reduce the environmental impact of consumption behavior (Kumar & Yadav, 2021). Geiger et al. (2018) defined sustainable consumption behavior as an act where individuals satisfy their own needs without compromising the ecological and socio-economic conditions of all people. They developed a model of sustainable consumption behavior with different sustainability dimensions, consumption phases, and consumption areas, like food and clothes. Several individual factors are related to sustainable consumption or pro-environmental behavior, such as values, the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, personal and social norms, attitudes, intentions, perceived behavior control, and habits described in the Comprehensive Action Determination Model (Klöckner, 2013). Many of these factors have already been mentioned in other theories, such as values in the value-belief-norm-theory (Stern, 2000). This theory (Stern, 2000) integrates the three essential components of value theory, the new environmental paradigm, and norm activation. Different values (altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic) influence the beliefs (ecological worldview, adverse consequences for valued objects, and the perceived ability to reduce stress), which in turn activate pro-environmental personal norms (the obligation to act in a pro-environmental way) and behavior (activism, nonactivist public sphere behaviors, private-sphere behavior and behaviors in organizations). However, all these factors cannot explain sustainable consumption behavior altogether, so theoretical assumptions are arguing for the activation of the consumers on a deeper level (Thiermann & Sheate, 2021). Thiermann and Sheate (2021) conceptualized a model with a relational pathway as a separate pathway next to the normative pathway in the Comprehensive Action Determination Model that determines environmental behavior independently of other predictors. This relational pathway includes the concepts of relatedness, empathy, and compassion for nature. The so-called 2-path model of pro-environmental behavior aligns with scientific articles fostering the idea that inner transformational qualities should be included to explain sustainable consumption behavior (e.g., Ives et al., 2020). According to Wamsler et al. (2021), the inner transformative qualities encompass the factors of connection, awareness, insight, purpose, and agency. The factor of purpose includes activating and reflecting on one’s values (Wamsler et al., 2021).
This study’s primary goal is to investigate the relationship between moral values and sustainable behavior. Values can be seen as trans-situational goals of different importance as a guiding principle (Schwartz, 1992). Here, we focus on character strengths, which can be seen as values in action (Park & Peterson, 2006) or moral competencies (Valor et al., 2020).
Character Strengths as Moral Values
One type of moral value is character strength, one specific aspect of psychological strength (Seligman et al., 2005). Character strengths can be defined either as “...positive traits reflected in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors” (Park et al., 2004) or as skills that lead to a morally praiseworthy action and, therefore, are some moral competencies (Valor et al., 2020). According to 12 criteria for character strength, for example, ubiquity and moral value, 24 character strengths (creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning, perspective, bravery, perseverance, honesty, zest, love, kindness, social intelligence, teamwork, fairness, leadership, forgiveness, humility, prudence, self-regulation, beauty, gratitude, hope, humor, and spirituality) were detected. Those 24 character strengths are described in the Value in Action (VIA) framework. They can be divided into the six virtue categories of wisdom (e.g., creativity), courage (e.g., honesty), humanity (e.g., kindness), justice (e.g., fairness), temperance (e.g., forgiveness), and transcendence (e.g., hope). Virtues are manifestations of character strengths that enable human beings to flourish (Fowers, 2005).
The measurement of character strengths, the VIA-IS (Value in Action Inventory of Strengths) with 240 items, ten items for each character strength (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), is used to operationalize the character strengths. Peterson and Seligman (2004) reported data from more than 150,000 participants. They found that all scales had sufficient reliability and that test-retest correlations were also >.70 (across four months). Results from a preliminary exploratory factor analysis showed a five-factor solution with the strength of restraint: intellectual strength, interpersonal strength, emotional strength, and theological strength. After analyzing ipsative data, two factors with contrasting types of strength were emphasized: the first factor of emotional expression vs. intellectual strengths, and the second factor focusing on self and others (Peterson, 2006).
Character Strengths and Sustainable Consumption Behavior
Until now, only four studies have used the VIA-IS to investigate the relationship between sustainable consumption attitude and behavior. Six character strengths were highly interrelated in the first study with Mexican participants, and a common virtue factor was built. Sustainable behavior was retrieved with four scales (pro-social, ecological, frugal, and equitable behavior) summarized in a common factor (Corral Verdugo et al., 2015). The results show a high correlation between all character strengths and sustainable behavior, conceptualized as the mean of pro-ecological, altruistic, frugal, and equitable behavior. In the second study of Valor et al. (2020) with Spanish participants, only seven character strengths (appreciation of beauty and excellence, kindness, leadership, love of learning, modesty and humanity, perspective, and self-regulation) are significantly related to sustainable consumption behavior, which was retrieved with one scale of only six items. A third study showed that appreciation of beauty and excellence was the strongest predictor of self-reported pro-environmental behavior and the intention for pro-environmental behavior (Diessner & Niemiec, 2023). Another study demonstrated the relation between some character strengths and explicit and implicit attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan food (Jansen, Rahe et al., 2024). In this study, the explicit attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan food could be predicted by the character strengths of prudence, appreciation of beauty and excellence, humor, teamwork, and by diet preference.
No relevant study has been published regarding the relation between the 24 character strengths and the cloth dimension. However, compassion, the sensitivity to the suffering of others, was positively related to sustainable cloth consumption, and the manipulation of compassion has a small positive effect on the willingness to pay for sustainable clothes (Geiger et al., 2018). Another study within a Chinese sample showed that biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic values were related to sustainable cloth consumption behavior and can be explained in the framework of the value-belief norm theory with a Chinese sample (Hong et al., 2024). In this study, sustainable fashion consumption and trust in recycling were significant predictors of sustainable cloth consumption behavior.
This study will add to the three others (Corral Verdugo et al., 2015; Diessner & Niemiec, 2023; Valor et al., 2020) in that it will investigate the relationship between character strengths and, according to the model of Geiger et al. (2018), different dimensions (food, clothes, and general) of sustainable consumption behavior.
Research Question and Hypotheses
In line with the studies of Corral Verdugo (2012) and Valor et al. (2020), we expect that participants with high values in some character strengths will show high values of sustainable behavior toward food, clothes, and life in general. According to that research question, the following hypotheses are formulated:
According to the study of Jansen, Rahe et al. (2024), we assume that the character strengths of prudence, appreciation of beauty and excellence, humor, teamwork, and diet preference predict sustainable behavior towards food.
According to the study of Valor et al. (2020) we expect that the seven character strengths of appreciation of beauty and excellence, kindness, leadership, love of learning, modesty and humanity, perspective, and self-regulation are significant positive predictors of general sustainable consumption behavior.
In an exploratory manner, which character strength predicts the consumption behavior towards cloth will be investigated.
Method
Participants
In this correlational study, 203 people from Germany, 144 women, 57 men, and two diverse participated. One hundred thirty-seven were omnivores, and 65 were vegetarians/vegans; one person did not answer this question. Participants were recruited through newsletters and social media from the participating universities. If they were students at the participating university, they got course credit. However, the participant’s name could not be linked to the data. For Hypothesis 1, medium effect sizes for the correlations (r = .3) between character strengths and the three sustainable behavioral consumption categories are assumed. Due to multiple tests, p was Bonferroni corrected and set to .002. The power analysis (power of 1-ß = .80) resulted in N = 145 participants (Faul et al., 2007). For Hypothesis 2, a power analysis for the linear regression resulted in N = 172 (Faul et al., 2007) assuming a medium effect size of f2 = 0.15, an alpha level of p = .05, a power of 1-ß = .80 and 25 possible predictors for the dependent variable sustainable behavior regarding clothes, food, and in general (24 character strengths and diet preference).
Material
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire was applied with the following variables: sex (Male, Female, Diverse); age; level of education (categorial: No qualification, ‘Mittlere Reife’, A-levels, Bachelor, Master, PhD); frequency of active meditation experience (with the categories Never, Minutes per year, month, week or day); mindful movement experience (with the categories Never, Minutes per year, month, week or day); choice of diet (Vegetarian/Vegan, Omnivorous); the importance of, a) nutrition, b) the choice of a diet due to environmental and ethical reasons, and c) the choice of a diet due to health reasons. All choices were registered with a scale from 1 = Not important at all to 5 = Very important (see Table 1 below).
Table 1
Demographic Data
| Choice of diet | Sex | Age | Level of education | Importance of nutrition2 | Diet choice: Environmental/ethical reasons2 | Diet choice: Health reasons2,3 | Active meditation (min/week) | Mindful movement experience (min/week) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetarian/vegan (N = 65) |
| 27.34 (11.14) |
|
|
|
| 2.90 (8.13) | 4.48 (10.19) |
| Omnivorous (N = 137) |
| 28.40 (11.64) |
|
|
|
| 1.07 (4.12) | 1.84 (4.83) |
Note. 1Missing information regarding diet preference (vegetarian/vegan or omnivorous) for one person. 2Categories: 1 = Not important at all, 2 = Not important, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important. 3Missing data for one person from the group of omnivores. 4‘Mittlere Reife’ = school leaving certificate after 10 years of school.
The demographic and mindfulness activity data were primarily collected to provide a detailed description of the sample because it has been shown that some aspects of dispositional mindfulness and sustainable attitude and behavior are related (Jansen, Rahe & Wolff, 2024). No hypothesis was formulated regarding the relation to the character strengths.
German Values in Action Inventory of Strengths 120-Item Short Form (VIA-120)
The German Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (Short Form; Höfer et al., 2020) consists of 120 items, with different items for each of 24 character strengths, which could be classified according to Peterson and Seligman (2004) into the six virtues of wisdom, courage, humanity, transcendence, justice, and moderation. Intercorrelations between the scales of the 120-item version and the original 240-item version (Sample 1) ranged from r = .52 (Hope) to r = .89 (Prudence). Criterion validity was demonstrated with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). The comparison of the factor structure between the original and the short form showed a good convergence (Tucker’s Phi .93 – .99 Sample 1 general population, .95 – .98 Sample 2, physicians and medical students).
The questionnaire uses a five-point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. The short form is comparable in terms of the validity and reliability of the original VIA 240-item long form (Höfer et al., 2020). Seven character strengths (appreciation of beauty, fairness, honesty, humility, leadership, self-regulation, teamwork) could not be included in the further analyses due to low reliability (Cronbach’s alpha <.69). The reliabilities of all character strengths are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
Means And Standard Deviations of and Correlations Between the Study Variables and Reliability of the Measurements
| Variable | M | SD | alpha | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Food | 4.63 | 0.85 | .77 | — | |||||||||||||||||
| 2. Clothes | 3.33 | 0.92 | .76 | .541** | — | ||||||||||||||||
| 3. Bravery | 3.64 | 0.61 | .72 | .073 | .164* | — | |||||||||||||||
| 4. Creativity | 3.33 | 0.74 | .81 | .106 | .184** | .419** | — | ||||||||||||||
| 5. Curiosity | 3.50 | 0.72 | .77 | .305*** | .335*** | .369** | .550** | — | |||||||||||||
| 6. Forgiveness | 3.53 | 0.74 | .72 | .235*** | .162* | .178* | .035 | .282** | — | ||||||||||||
| 7. Gratitude | 3.54 | 0.75 | .79 | .166* | .239*** | .192** | .193** | .413** | .450** | — | |||||||||||
| 8. Hope | 3.47 | 0.82 | .78 | .175* | .214*** | .306** | .240** | .588** | .384** | .593** | — | ||||||||||
| 9. Humor | 3.82 | 0.65 | .72 | .039 | .136 | .313** | .247** | .306** | .177* | .329** | .223** | — | |||||||||
| 10. Judgment | 3.86 | 0.69 | .77 | .220*** | .095 | .290** | .255** | .316** | .240** | .197** | .169* | .190** | — | ||||||||
| 11. Kindness | 4.22 | 0.62 | .77 | .256*** | .253*** | .238** | .185** | .299** | .397** | .491** | .267** | .453** | .254** | — | |||||||
| 12. Love | 3.72 | 0.86 | .70 | .210** | .239*** | .307** | .192** | .456** | .265** | .516** | .564** | .248** | .212** | .358** | — | ||||||
| 13. Love of learning | 3.20 | 0.84 | .76 | .239*** | .305*** | .258** | .486** | .543** | .249** | .233** | .334** | .073 | .363** | .242** | .194** | — | |||||
| 14. Perseverance | 3.68 | 0.71 | .79 | .170* | .185** | .460** | .230** | .424** | .232** | .338** | .508** | .175* | .301** | .193** | .308** | .223** | — | ||||
| 15. Perspective | 3.47 | 0.65 | .70 | .080 | .179* | .371** | .312** | .326** | .179* | .337** | .287** | .248** | .448** | .256** | .329** | .273** | .276** | — | |||
| 16. Prudence | 3.51 | 0.70 | .73 | .268*** | .101 | .221** | .177* | .221** | .339** | .393** | .284** | .110 | .667** | .364** | .267** | .276** | .375** | .471** | — | ||
| 17. Social intelligence | 3.92 | 0.64 | .70 | .154* | .202** | .357** | .183** | .338** | .252** | .458** | .383** | .275** | .203** | .496** | .507** | .160* | .356** | .386** | .311** | — | |
| 18. Spirituality | 2.18 | 0.98 | .85 | -.072 | .007 | .209** | .241** | .335** | .234** | .522** | .398** | -.021 | .059 | .224** | .243** | .252** | .288** | .309** | .215** | .286** | — |
| 19. Zest | 3.32 | 0.76 | .79 | .228*** | .246*** | .404** | .381** | .660** | .363** | .515** | .773** | .407** | .184** | .339** | .510** | .446** | .491** | .230** | .219** | .374** | .375** |
Note. alpha = Cronbach’s alpha.
*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001
Sustainable Consumption Behavior Measurement
The questionnaire on sustainable consumption behavior (SCB; Geiger et al., 2018) towards food (16 items, for example: “I buy fair-trade food”), clothes (16 items, for example: “I buy ecologically produced clothes, e.g., from bio-cotton”), and in general (6 items, for example: “I take a short shower instead of a long bath”) has been used. Answers were given on a seven-point scale. The scale is based on the cube model of SCB (Geiger et al., 2018). The reliability was acceptable for the food questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha = .774) and the cloth questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha = .764) but not for the general questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha = .538). For this, the scale in general, was not considered further anymore.
Procedure
The survey was set in an online tool for questioning, SoSciSurvey (Leiner, 2019). The link to the study was provided to the students at the respective universities and via social media. First, all participants gave their informed consent. Then, they filled out the socio-demographic questionnaire, the character strengths questionnaire, and the questionnaires of sustainable measurement. The study with the sample size calculation and the analysis plan was preregistered at OSF (see Jansen et al., 2022); all data can be found there. In an exploratory manner, we investigate if the character strengths and virtues differ between vegetarians/vegans and omnivores (see Jansen et al. (2025a) in the Supplementary Materials). Furthermore, the study was conducted according to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Ethics Research Board of the University of Regensburg (No. 22-3059-101).
Statistical Models
First, the correlation between the 17 character strengths (bravery, creativity, curiosity, forgiveness, gratitude, hope, humor, judgment, kindness, love, love of learning, perseverance, perspective, prudence, social intelligence, spirituality, zest) was calculated with a reliability > = .70, and the two questionnaires on sustainable behavior. Second, two multiple stepwise hierarchical regressions with sustainable food and clothes criteria were conducted. In the first block, diet preference was included as a predictor because it has been shown that the explicit attitudes towards vegetarian compared to meat-based food depend on their diet (Siebertz et al., 2022). The 17 character strengths were included as predictor variables in the second block.
Results
After Bonferroni corrections (p ≤ .002), there were significant correlations between sustainable behavior towards food and kindness, forgiveness, curiosity, love of learning, prudence, zest, and judgment. Furthermore, there were significant correlations between sustainable behavior towards clothes and hope, kindness, love, curiosity, love of learning, gratitude, and zest. Correlations between all study variables are shown below in Table 2.
The first stepwise hierarchical regression analysis with the criterion sustainable behavior towards food, the 17 character strengths, and the diet preference as predictors showed that the model was significant. There was no multi-collinearity and no autocorrelation but heteroscedasticity. The results showed that the first model with diet preference was significant, F(1, 200) = 44.645, p < .001. Diet preference explained already 17.8%. The second model, which included the character strengths as predictors, showed significant improvement of the first model, F(4, 197) = 21.655, p < .001. Curiosity, prudence, and negatively spirituality were significant predictors of sustainable behavior toward food and added 12.3% of the variance to the first step, and this final model accounted for 30.1%, Table 3a.
Table 3a
Hierarchical Regression Results for Sustainable Behavior Towards Food
| 95% CI for B | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | B | LL | UL | SE B | ß | R2 | ∆R2 |
| Step 1 | .18 | .18*** | |||||
| Constant | 4.77*** | -4.66 | 4.89 | 0.06 | |||
| Diet preference | 0.39*** | -0.50 | -0.27 | 0.06 | -.43*** | ||
| Step 2 | .25 | .07*** | |||||
| Constant | 3.68*** | -3.16 | 4.20 | 0.26 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.36*** | -0.47 | -0.25 | 0.06 | -.40*** | ||
| Curiosity | 0.31*** | -0.17 | 0.45 | 0.07 | .26*** | ||
| Step 3 | .29 | .04*** | |||||
| Constant | 3.02*** | -2.37 | 3.67 | 0.33 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.35*** | -0.46 | -0.24 | 0.06 | -.39*** | ||
| Curiosity | 0.26*** | -0.12 | 0.40 | 0.07 | .22*** | ||
| Prudence | 0.24*** | -0.09 | 0.39 | 0.08 | .20*** | ||
| Step 4 | .31 | .02*** | |||||
| Constant | 2.99*** | -2.35 | 3.64 | 0.33 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.32*** | -0.43 | -0.21 | 0.06 | -.36*** | ||
| Curiosity | 0.32*** | -0.17 | 0.47 | 0.08 | .27*** | ||
| Prudence | 0.27*** | -0.12 | 0.42 | 0.08 | .22*** | ||
| Spirituality | -0.13*** | -0.24 | -0.02 | 0.06 | -.15*** | ||
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit.
Diet preference: -1 = Vegan/vegetarian, 1 = Omnivorous.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The second stepwise hierarchical regression analysis with the criterion sustainable behavior towards clothes, the 17 character strengths, and the diet preference as predictors showed that the model was significant. There was no multi-collinearity and no autocorrelation or heteroscedasticity. The results showed that the first model with diet preference was significant, F(1, 200) = 16.813, p < .001. Diet preference explained 7.3%. The second model, which included the character strengths as predictors, showed significant improvement from the first model. Curiosity and kindness were significant predictors of sustainable behavior toward clothes. They added 11.8% of the variance to the first step; this final model accounted for 19.1% of the variance, see Table 3b.
Table 3b
Hierarchical Regression Results for Sustainable Behavior Towards Clothes
| 95% CI for B | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | B | LL | UL | SE B | ß | R2 | ∆R2 |
| Step 1 | .08 | .08*** | |||||
| Constant | 3.43*** | 3.30 | 3.56 | 0.07 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.28*** | -0.41 | -0.14 | 0.07 | -.28*** | ||
| Step 2 | .17 | .09*** | |||||
| Constant | 2.03*** | 1.43 | 2.62 | 0.30 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.24*** | -0.37 | -0.12 | 0.06 | -.25*** | ||
| Curiosity | 0.40*** | 0.23 | 0.56 | 0.08 | .31*** | ||
| Step 3 | .19 | .02*** | |||||
| Constant | 1.30*** | 0.41 | 2.19 | 0.45 | |||
| Diet preference | -0.23*** | -0.35 | -0.10 | 0.06 | -.23*** | ||
| Curiosity | 0.34*** | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.09 | .27*** | ||
| Kindness | 0.22*** | 0.02 | 0.42 | 0.10 | .15*** | ||
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit.
Diet preference: -1 = Vegan/vegetarian, 1 = Omnivorous.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
Regarding Hypothesis 1, our results showed positive (despite the character strength of spirituality on consumption behavior of food) relations between some character strengths and sustainable behavior toward food and clothes. The character strengths that are positively related to sustainable behavior toward food and clothes are kindness, love of learning, curiosity, and zest. This is only in line with our second hypothesis for the character strengths of prudence. However, sustainable behavior towards food was predicted, besides diet preference by curiosity, prudence, and negative spirituality. Sustainable behavior towards clothes was additionally to the diet preference predicted by kindness and curiosity. The third hypothesis was not further investigated due to the low reliability of the general consumption measurement.
Relation of Character Strengths and Sustainable Behavior Toward Food and Clothes
The relationship between kindness and love of learning towards both types of sustainable behavior is in line with the results of the study by Valor et al. (2020). Kindness describes the values of care, compassion, and generosity (Park et al., 2004), which could be included in the prosocial behavior concept related to sustainable behavior (Otto et al., 2021). Love of learning comprises the mastery of new skills and the ability to systematically add further information to what one knows (Park et al., 2004). The result is also in line with a study by Jansen, Rahe et al. (2024), which showed that love of learning correlates to explicit attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan food, but only for omnivores. For the vegans and vegetarians, the implicit attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan food were positively correlated with the character strength of love of learning. Besides this, curiosity and zest were related to sustainable behavior but not relevant correlational factors in the study of Valor et al. (2020). Curiosity describes the need for an information search to close a knowledge gap (Loewenstein, 1994). Zest describes the ability to approach life with excitement and energy (Park et al., 2004). Both character strengths are related to openness to new experiences, and openness is related to sustainable behavior (Song & Kim, 2018). There are different facets within the concept of openness, and the facet of intellectual curiosity is consistently associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Markowitz et al., 2012).
However, when entering the character strengths and the diet preference in both regression models, curiosity was relevant in both models. Curiosity is essential to acquire new knowledge about the sustainable behavior of food and clothes. Prudence means to be aware of the extended consequences of one’s actions. Choosing a vegetarian or vegan diet means considering the implications for your health and the planet. The negative prediction of the character strength of spirituality on sustainable food consumption is difficult to explain — people with high scores in spirituality report lower sustainable food consumption. Even this seems contradictory; it is in line with the result that vegetarians and vegans show a lower value of spirituality than omnivores (see Jansen et al. (2025a) in the Supplementary Materials). Because animal welfare, health, and environmental reasons were the most dominant motivators for a vegetarian diet within developed Western nations (Rosenfeld, 2018) and also in Germany (Janssen et al., 2016), where this study has been conducted, the reasons for sustainable food behavior are more rational than spiritual in this specific sample.
Kindness was a significant predictor of sustainable clothing consumption. This aligns with the study of Geiger and Keller (2018), which demonstrated a relation between compassion and the willingness to pay for fair-trade clothes. Kindness and compassion are both prosocial constructs, though it was indicated that kindness and compassion result from separable motivation systems differing in their emotional reaction and resulting actions (Kirby et al., 2022).
In some respects, this study’s results differ from those of Corral Verdugo et al. (2015), Valor et al. (2020), and Diessner and Niemiec (2023). Reasons for this could be the different measurements of sustainable behavior and the various analysis methods in the few studies on the relation between character strengths and sustainable behavior. Some studies use composite scores to investigate sustainable behavior (e.g., Valor et al., 2020) or the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale, where participants had to indicate how frequently they engaged in 12 pro-environmental behaviors during the past year (Diessner & Niemiec, 2023). The result of the study of Diessner and Niemiec (2023), which showed that appreciation of beauty and excellence is essential for pro-environmental behavior, could not be replicated because this character strength shows low reliability in this study. In contrast to the former studies, this study here differentiates, according to the model of Geiger et al. (2018), between two areas of sustainable behavior.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The study hints that internal transformative qualities like character strengths might be relevant to sustainable behavior. However, the few existing correlational studies have different results regarding which character strength is related to which type of sustainable behavior, which limits the conclusive evaluation of the importance of character strengths for sustainable behavior. One reason for these different results might be the various measurements of sustainable consumption behavior. A methodological study that compares the different measurements and validates the essential components would be needed. Furthermore, studies on the relationship between character strengths and sustainable behavior are conducted in various countries. Central cultural value orientations like collectivism, femineity, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance can influence sustainable consumption (Chwialkowska et al., 2020). Besides, a possible cultural effect of the VIA should be discussed. Seven of the 24 character strengths show low internal consistencies, which contradicts the study of Corral Verdugo (2012) in a Mexican sample.
The relevant character strengths for sustainable behavior towards food and clothes were kindness, love of learning, curiosity, and zest. Hence, we suggest emphasizing those character strengths without neglecting the others because the results depend on measuring sustainable behavior. For example, simple shifts can be made in daily life to strengthen the character strength of kindness, like smiling from the heart to others and appreciating other people. But there is also a link to environmental design. Biophilic design might lead to improved character strengths like a love of learning, so it has been shown that students in classrooms with a natural view are more positive in rating the course than students in a course with a view of a concrete retaining wall (Benfield et al., 2015).
Because the explained variance of sustainable behavior is 19%–31%, relevant predictors of sustainable behavior, like personal and social norms or habits and attitudes, should be included in further studies (Klöckner, 2013).
Limitations and Future Studies
The study is limited because seven of the 24 character strengths showed low reliability. Nevertheless, emphasizing measurement efficiency over internal consistency can be sufficient using short scales (Ziegler et al., 2014). Furthermore, the percentage of participating men and women, vegetarians/vegans, are different. Besides this, in future studies, the reasons for executing sustainable behavior concerning food and clothing, the possible gratification and social reward, and the costs of carrying out this consumption behavior for behaving sustainably should be included in the analysis. The study presented here is a starting point for further investigations on the various factors of internal transformative qualities (connection, awareness, insight, purpose, and agency) and different dimensions of sustainable consumption behavior.