Keywords
choice experiment
hybrid latent class model
proactive personality
status quo
How to Cite
Abstract
This study explores how proactive personality and respondents' income influence preferences for urban air pollution mitigation programs in Poland. For this purpose, we conducted a choice experiment that elicited preferences for improving air quality, used a validated psychometric scale to measure proactivity, and collected information on individual income. To analyse the data, we employed a hybrid latent class model that accounts for heterogeneity in preferences. The model identified four distinct respondent classes: three supported public investments in air pollution mitigation, while one preferred maintaining the current situation. Our results indicate that proactive personality significantly increased the probability of belonging to the class that showed the strongest support for air quality improvement and had the highest willingness to pay for proposed changes. Interestingly, it also increased the probability of belonging to the class that preferred to keep the status quo. Individual income did not directly explain preference heterogeneity, but it was positively correlated with proactivity.
References
Adikoeswanto, D., Nurjanah, S., Mukhtar, S., Eliyana, A., Pratama, A. S., Anggraini, R. D., & Mohd Kamil, N. L. (2024). Fostering voice behavior in correctional institutions: Investigating the role of organizational support and proactive personality. Plos One, 19(5), e0303768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303768
Bartczak, A., Budziński, W., Liebe, U., & Meyerhoff, J. (2025). Distributive justice concerns when combating air pollution: The joint modelling of attitudes and preferences. Energy Economics, ,141, 107978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107978
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X439208
Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., Bolduc, D., Boersch-Supan, A., Brownstone, D., & Bunch, D. S. (2002). Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges. Marketing Letters, 13, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020254301302
Bergeron, D. M., Schroeder, T. D., & Martinez, H. A. (2014). Proactive Personality at Work: Seeing More to Do and Doing More? Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9298-5
Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7–8), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365
Boyce, C., Czajkowski, M., & Hanley, N. (2019). Personality and economic choices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 94, 82-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.12.004
Börger, T., Glenk, K., Meyerhoff, J., & Rehdanz, K., (2025). Mitigating cost-vector effects in stated choice experiments using cheap talk and opt-out reminders. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 12(3), 701-737. https://doi.org/10.1086/731886
Budziński, W., & Czajkowski, M. (2018). Hybrid choice models vs. endogeneity of indicator variables: A Monte Carlo investigation. https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2018-21.html
De Clercq, D., & Pereira, R. (2023). Proactive champions: How personal and organizational resources enable proactive personalities to become idea champions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(5), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1973945
De Magistris, T., Akaichi, F., & Youssef, K. B. (2016). Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method. Agricultural Economics, 62(8),378-384. https://doi.org/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON
Du, Y., Sun, T., Peng, J., Fang, K., Liu, Y., Yang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2018). Direct and spillover effects of urbanization on PM2. 5 concentrations in China’s top three urban agglomerations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.290
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2023a). Air pollution quick country facts. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/air-pollution/air-pollution-country-fact-sheets-2024/quick-country-facts
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2023b). Europe’s air quality status 2023 [Briefing]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-air-quality-status-2023
Faccioli, M., Czajkowski, M., Glenk, K., & Martin-Ortega, J. (2020). Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 174, 106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600
Farizo, B. A., Oglethorpe, D., & Soliño, M. (2016). Personality traits and environmental choices: On the search for understanding. Science of the Total Environment, 566, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.053
Fuller Jr, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008
Gkargkavouzi, A., & Halkos, G. (2025). The psychology of non-market environmental valuation: An integrative review of research evidence, theoretical insights, and policy considerations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101, 102510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102510
Grebitus, C., Lusk, J. L. and Nayga Jr, R. M. (2013). Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.02.004
Grilli, G., & Notaro, S. (2019). Exploring the influence of an extended theory of planned behaviour on preferences and willingness to pay for participatory natural resources management. Journal of environmental management, 232, 902–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.103
GUS. (2022). Komunikat w sprawie przeciętnego wynagrodzenia w gospodarce narodowej w 2021 roku. stat.gov.pl. https://stat.gov.pl/sygnalne/komunikaty-i-obwieszczenia/lista-komunikatow-i-obwieszczen/komunikat-w-sprawie-przecietnego-wynagrodzenia-w-gospodarce-narodowej-w-2021-roku,273,9.html (in Polish).
GUS. (2023). Sytuacja demograficzna Polski do roku 2022. https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/ludnosc/sytuacja-demograficzna-polski-do-roku-2022,40,3.html (in Polish).
Hanley, N. & Czajkowski, M. (2019). The role of stated preference valuation methods in understanding choices and informing policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(2), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez005
Holmes, T. P., Adamowicz, W. L., & Carlsson, F. (2017). Choice Experiments. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (T. 13, pp. 133–186). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_5
Hurtubia, R., Nguyen, M. H., Glerum, A., & Bierlaire, M. (2014). Integrating psychometric indicators in latent class choice models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 64, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.010
Institute For Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). (2019). Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Results. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
Jacquemet, N., Joule, R.-V., Luchini, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2013). Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of environmental economics and management, 65(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004
Jin, Y., Andersson, H., & Zhang, S. (2020). Do preferences to reduce health risks related to air pollution depend on illness type? Evidence from a choice experiment in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 103, 102355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102355
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., & Scarpa, R. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
Jonker, M. F. (2022). The Garbage Class Mixed Logit Model: Accounting for Low-Quality Response Patterns in Discrete Choice Experiments. Value in Health, 25(11), 1871–1877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.013
Kanten, P., & Ulker, F. E. (2012). A relational approach among perceived organizational support, proactive personality and voice behaviour. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1016–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.173
Kim, H. S., & Park, I. (2017). Influence of Proactive Personality on Career Self‐Efficacy. Journal of Employment Counseling, 54(4), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12065
Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Fisher, S., Suk, W. A., Sly, P., Chiles, T. C., & Bose-O’Reilly, S. (2019). Pollution and children’s health. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2389–2394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.375
Lelieveld, J., Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., Fnais, M., Haines, A., & Münzel, T. (2020). Loss of life expectancy from air pollution compared to other risk factors: A worldwide perspective. Cardiovascular Research, 116(11), 1910–1917. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvaa025
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018079
Lin, S., Huang, Y., & Chen, C. T. (2025). Exploring the Factors That Impact Employee Environmental Creative Performance in Taiwan’s Environmental Manufacturing Sectors: A Multilevel Analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 35(3), 3422-3444. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70285
Mariel, P. & Meyerhoff, J., (2016). Hybrid discrete choice models: Gained insights versus increasing effort. Science of the total environment, 568, 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.019
McFadden, D. (1972). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. UC Berkeley IURD Working Paper Series.
Meyerhoff, J. & Liebe, U. (2009). Status quo effect in choice experiments: Empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land economics, 85(3), 515-528. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.3.515
Milfont, T. L. (2021). Where do pro-environmental tendencies fit within a taxonomy of personality traits? In Research handbook on environmental sociology (pp. 97–115). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800370456.00014
Muffato, V., Miola, L., Pazzaglia, F., & Meneghetti, C. (2025). Are explorers greener? Investigating the role of personality traits, connectedness to nature and attitudes toward exploring in various pro-environmental behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1404095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404095
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Pavalache-Ilie, M., & Cazan, A.-M. (2018). Personality correlates of pro-environmental attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 28(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2018.1429576
Roberts, B., Jackson, J. J., Duckworth, A. L., & Von Culin, K. (2011). Personality Measurement and Assessment in Large Panel Surveys. Forum for Health Economics & Policy, 14(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2202/1558-9544.1268
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What Do Proactive People Do? A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality and Career Success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x
Sharma, S., Chandra, M., & Kota, S. H. (2020). Health effects associated with PM 2.5: A systematic review. Current Pollution Reports, 6, 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-020-00155-3
Sokołowski, J. (2024). Assessing individual environmental capital and pro-climate behaviour: A residential sector choice experiment on heating investment preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 447, 141591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141123
Soliño, M., & Farizo, B. A. (2014). Personal traits underlying environmental preferences: A discrete choice experiment. PloS One, 9(2), e89603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089603
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stevens, T. H., Tabatabaei, M., & Lass, D. (2013). Oaths and hypothetical bias. Journal of environmental management, 127, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.038
Teye-Kwadjo, E. & de Bruin, G. P. (2022). Rasch analysis of the proactive personality scale. Psychological reports, 125(5), 2788-2806. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211028110
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (2010). Intra-individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors-in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 17, 215–285. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2399206
Vanwalleghem, D., & Mirowska, A. (2020). The investor that could and would: The effect of proactive personality on sustainable investment choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 26, 100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100313
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement Error in “Big Five Factors” Personality Assessment: Reliability Generalization across Studies and Measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970475
Wang, S., Wei, J., Zhang, P., Song, J., Chen, J., & Li, G. (2025). The chain mediating effect of self-efficacy and health literacy between proactive personality and health-promoting behaviors among Chinese college students. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 16101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00936-0
Zambrano‐Monserrate, M.A. (2024). Trust, corruption, and willingness to pay for improved environmental goods: An experimental analysis from a developing country. Social Science Quarterly, 105(3), 709-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13381
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Economics and Environment