Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Understanding and reducing the intention–behaviour gap in climate action

Nature Climate Change (2026) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Climate-friendly intentions often fail to translate into action. In this Review, we synthesize evidence as to what shapes the intention–behaviour relationship and propose a tripartite framework of explanatory mechanisms—intrapersonal, social and structural. Intrapersonal mechanisms include cognitive biases, emotion-based drivers and behavioural habits; social mechanisms encompass norms, identity and visibility; and structural mechanisms involve affordability, convenience and systems-based trust. For each category, we review evidence-based interventions that increase follow-through, offering actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners. The challenge is to draw from this intervention toolbox appropriately and to understand boundary conditions. By diagnosing diverse psychological and contextual barriers to climate action, this paper provides a road map for closing the intention–behaviour gap, thus helping transform public will into meaningful climate action.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Framework of mechanisms and interventions.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. & Falk, A. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 253–259 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Leiserowitz, A. et al. International Public Opinion on Climate Change, 2023 (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Data for Good at Meta, 2023).

  3. Osberghaus, D., Botzen, W. J. W. & Kesternich, M. The intention–behavior gap in climate change adaptation: evidence from longitudinal survey data. Ecol. Econ. 231, 108543 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195 (2020).

  5. Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Klöckner, C. A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1028–1038 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chapman, C. M., McKay, K., Schultz, T. & Gulliver, R. Are self-reports reliable proxies for actual prosocial and proenvironmental behaviour? A meta-analytic review. OSF https://osf.io/f4k8j/overview (2026).

  8. Metcalfe, J. & Mischel, W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychol. Rev. 106, 3–19 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaiser, F. G., Byrka, K. & Hartig, T. Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 351–367 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110, 403–421 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berger, S. & Wyss, A. M. Measuring pro-environmental behavior using the carbon emission task. J. Environ. Psychol. 75, 101613 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. The work for environmental protection task: a consequential web-based procedure for studying pro-environmental behavior. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 133–145 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carrington, M., Neville, B. & Whitwell, G. Lost in translation: exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. J. Bus. Res. 67, 2759–2767 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 503–518 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rhodes, R. E., Cox, A. & Sayar, R. What predicts the physical activity intention–behavior gap? A systematic review. Ann. Behav. Med. 56, 1–20 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abraham, C. & Sheeran, P. Implications of goal theories for the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. Curr. Psychol. 22, 264–280 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ouellette, J. & Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol. Bull. 124, 54–74 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Webb, T. L. & Sheeran, P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 132, 249–268 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gardner, B. Modelling motivation and habit in stable travel mode contexts. Transp. Res. F 12, 68–76 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Danner, U. N., Aarts, H. & de Vries, N. K. Habit vs. intention in the prediction of future behaviour: the role of frequency, context stability and mental accessibility of past behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 245–265 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A. & Moonen, A. Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 111–128 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sheeran, P., Godin, G., Conner, M. & Germain, M. Paradoxical effects of experience: past behavior both strengthens and weakens the intention–behavior relationship. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2, 309–318 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Juvan, E. & Dolnicar, S. Measuring environmentally sustainable tourist behaviour. Ann. Tour. Res. 59, 30–44 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Auger, P. & Devinney, T. M. Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 76, 361–383 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vesely, S. & Klöckner, C. A. Social desirability in environmental psychology research: three meta-analyses. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395 (2020).

  26. Kaiser, F., Ranney, M., Hartig, T. & Bowler, P. Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. Eur. Psychol. 4, 59–74 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chao, Y.-L. & Lam, S.-P. Measuring responsible environmental behavior: self-reported and other-reported measures and their differences in testing a behavioral model. Environ. Behav. 43, 53–71 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M. & Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 392–404 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vesely, S. & Klöckner, C. A. How anonymity and norms influence costly support for environmental causes. J. Environ. Psychol. 58, 27–30 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vesely, S. et al. Donations to renewable energy projects: the role of social norms and donor anonymity. Ecol. Econ. 193, 107277 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Albarracín, D., Fayaz-Farkhad, B. & Granados Samayoa, J. A. Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3, 377–392 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ge, W., Sheng, G. & Zhang, H. How to solve the social norm conflict dilemma of green consumption: the moderating effect of self-affirmation. Front. Psychol. 11, 566571 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S. & Louis, W. R. Energizing and de-motivating effects of norm-conflict. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39, 57–72 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S. & Louis, W. R. Conflicting norms highlight the need for action. Environ. Behav. 46, 39–162 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vesely, S. et al. Climate change action as a project of identity: eight meta-analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102322 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Knapova, L., Cho, Y. W., Chow, S.-M., Kuhnova, J. & Elavsky, S. From intention to behavior: within- and between-person moderators of the relationship between intention and physical activity. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 71, 102566 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Göransson, J. & Andersson, H. Factors that make public transport systems attractive: a review of travel preferences and travel mode choices. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 15, 32 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shakeel, S. R., Yousaf, H., Irfan, M. & Rajala, A. Solar PV adoption at household level: insights based on a systematic literature review. Energy Strategy Rev. 50, 101178 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Porter, J. J., Dessai, S. & Tompkins, E. L. What do we know about UK household adaptation to climate change? A systematic review. Climatic Change 127, 371–379 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, Y. et al. Understanding the intention–behavior gap in sustainable travel: a two-step approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 33, 2345–2366 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dinc-Cavlak, O. & Ozdemir, O. Using the theory of planned behavior to examine repeated organic food purchasing: evidence from an online survey. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 36, 147–176 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nguyen, H.-D. et al. Can carbon-labeled food shift Vietnamese consumers towards greener consumption? Integrating theory of consumption value and theory of planned behavior. Environ. Res. Commun. 7, 075022 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sultan, P., Tarafder, T., Pearson, D. & Henryks, J. Intention–behaviour gap and perceived behavioural control–behaviour gap in theory of planned behaviour: moderating roles of communication, satisfaction and trust in organic food consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 81, 103838 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. van Valkengoed, A. M. & Steg, L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 158–163 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Carrero, I., Valor, C., Redondo, R. & Vilà, I. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of implementation intentions for pro-environmental behavior adoption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 55, 63–75 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Grelle, S., Kuhn, S., Fuhrmann-Riebel, H. & Hofmann, W. The role of framing and effort in green nudging acceptance. Behav. Public Policy 8, 717–732 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stieglitz, S., Mirbabaie, M., Deubel, A., Braun, L.-M. & Kissmer, T. The potential of digital nudging to bridge the gap between environmental attitude and behavior in the usage of smart home applications. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 72, 102665 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gosnell, G. K., List, J. A. & Metcalfe, R. A New Approach to an Age-Old Problem: Solving Externalities by Incenting Workers Directly (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016).

  51. Tsipursky, G., Votta, F. & Mulick, J. A. A psychological approach to promoting truth in politics: the pro-truth pledge. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 6, 271–290 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Lokhorst, A. M., Werner, C., Staats, H., van Dijk, E. & Gale, J. L. Commitment and behavior change: a meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research. Environ. Behav. 45, 3–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Andor, M. A. & Fels, K. M. Behavioral economics and energy conservation—a systematic review of non-price interventions and their causal effects. Ecol. Econ. 148, 178–210 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vesely, S. et al. Norms, prices, and commitment: a comprehensive overview of field experiments in the energy domain and treatment effect moderators. Front. Psychol. 13, 967318 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Aydin, E., Brounen, D. & Kok, N. Information provision and energy consumption: evidence from a field experiment. Energy Econ. 71, 403–410 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Buckley, P. Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 172, 106635 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Doidge, M. & Feng, H. The role of anticipated regret in farmers’ land conversion decisions. Land 14, 361 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Li, H. et al. Influence of environmental aesthetic value and anticipated emotion on pro-environmental behavior: an ERP study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 5714 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ayres, I., Raseman, S. & Shih, A. Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29, 992–1022 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Carrico, A. R. & Riemer, M. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 1–13 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Gillingham, K. T. & Bollinger, B. Social learning and solar photovoltaic adoption. Manage. Sci. 67, 7091–7112 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Tsvetanov, T. Promotional campaign duration and word of mouth in solar panel adoption. Mark. Sci. 43, 1132–1148 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Fielding, K. S., Hornsey, M. J., Thai, H. A. & Toh, L. L. Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change 158, 181–199 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Fielding, K. S. & Hornsey, M. J. A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front. Psychol. 7, 121 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. MacInnes, S. et al. Who do we trust on climate change, and why? Glob. Environ. Change 96, 103096 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., Marshall, G. & Louis, W. R. Intergroup conflict over climate change: problems and solutions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 55, 243–250 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Günther, A. et al. Psychological and contextual determinants of clean energy technology adoption. Nat. Rev. Clean Technol. 1, 547–565 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. De Groote, O. & Verboven, F. Subsidies and time discounting in new technology adoption: evidence from solar photovoltaic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 2137–2172 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stern, P. C. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 22, 461–478 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. O’Shaughnessy, E., Barbose, G., Kannan, S. & Sumner, J. Evaluating community solar as a measure to promote equitable clean energy access. Nat. Energy 9, 955–963 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rai, V., Reeves, D. C. & Margolis, R. Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV. Renew. Energy 89, 498–505 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Roberson, L. & Helveston, J. P. Not all subsidies are equal: measuring preferences for electric vehicle financial incentives. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 084003 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Clinton, B. C. & Steinberg, D. C. Providing the spark: impact of financial incentives on battery electric vehicle adoption. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 98, 102255 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shen, X., Qiu, Y. L., Liu, P. & Patwardhan, A. The effect of rebate and loan incentives on residential heat pump adoption: evidence from North Carolina. Environ. Resour. Econ. 82, 741–789 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Borenstein, S. & Davis, L. W. The distributional effects of US clean energy tax credits. Tax Policy Econ. 30, 191–234 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Priessner, A. & Hampl, N. Can product bundling increase the joint adoption of electric vehicles, solar panels and battery storage? Explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint study in Austria. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106381 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Plananska, J. & Gamma, K. Product bundling for accelerating electric vehicle adoption: a mixed-method empirical analysis of Swiss customers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 154, 111760 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Camilleri, A. R. & Larrick, R. P. Metric and scale design as choice architecture tools. J. Public Policy Mark. 33, 108–125 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Wicki, M., Brückmann, G. & Bernauer, T. How to accelerate the uptake of electric cars? Insights from a choice experiment. J. Clean. Prod. 355, 131774 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Brockway, A. M., Conde, J. & Callaway, D. Inequitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in California. Nat. Energy 6, 892–903 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Nakaishi, T. & Chapman, A. Eco-labels as a communication and policy tool: a comprehensive review of academic literature and global label initiatives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 202, 114708 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Weber, A. Mobile apps as a sustainable shopping guide: the effect of eco-score rankings on sustainable food choice. Appetite 167, 105616 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Spandonidis, C., Belioka, M.-P. & Eriksson, O. Multi-criteria-based evaluation of digital carbon footprint tools from a household user perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 481, 144151 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Droubi, S., Heffron, R. J. & McCauley, D. A critical review of energy democracy: a failure to deliver justice? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 86, 102444 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Huber, R. A., Greussing, E. & Eberl, J.-M. From populism to climate scepticism: the role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environ. Polit. 31, 1115–1138 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Bretter, C. et al. Mapping, understanding and reducing belief in misinformation about electric vehicles. Nat. Energy 10, 869–879 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 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  Google Scholar 

  96. Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms. Nat. Commun. 15, 8888 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Chan, M.-p.S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Hornsey, M. J., Smith, A. E., Pearson, S., Bretter, C. & Nylund, J. L. Using conversational AI to reduce science skepticism. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 67, 102216 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Lewandowsky, S. & van der Linden, S. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 32, 348–384 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Medvedev, D., Davenport, D., Talhelm, T. & Li, Y. The motivating effect of monetary over psychological incentives is stronger in WEIRD cultures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 456–470 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Dablander, F., Lange, F., Brick, C. & Aron, A. R. Expressing intentions is not climate action. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2512457122 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Gemmecke, C., Kühner, C., Zacher, H. & Hüffmeier, J. Prompting change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the (un)confounded effects of prompts on pro-environmental behavior. Appl. Psychol. 74, e70003 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Shipley, N. J. & van Riper, C. J. Pride and guilt predict pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis of correlational and experimental evidence. J. Environ. Psychol. 79, 101753 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A. & Schultz, W. P. A meta-analysis of field-experiments using social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Glob. Environ. Change 59, 101941 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K. T. & Wight, K. G. Making prosocial social: the effectiveness of social proof for energy conservation using social media. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 8, 290–300 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  106. 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  Google Scholar 

  107. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Brosch, T. The effectiveness of nudging: a meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107346118 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Potter, C. et al. The effects of environmental sustainability labels on selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: a systematic review. Environ. Behav. 53, 891–925 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Galende-Sánchez, E., Sorman, A. H., González-Eguino, M., González-Medina, M. & Gómez-Fortes, B. Behind the curtains of deliberation: unveiling climate policy and behavioural challenges through a mini-public in Spain. J. Environ. Plan. Policy Manage. 26, 402–416 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Chan, M.-P. S. & Albarracín, D. A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1514–1525 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an ARC Laureate grant awarded to M.J.H. (FL230100022).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Kelly S. Fielding & Matthew J. Hornsey

Authors
  1. Kelly S. Fielding
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Hornsey
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.S.F. and M.J.H. contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly S. Fielding.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Sebastian Berger, Fabian Dablander, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fielding, K.S., Hornsey, M.J. Understanding and reducing the intention–behaviour gap in climate action. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02630-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02630-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing