Publications

2024

Sherman, D. K., & Van Boven, L. (2024). The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 18, 31-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12104

Cole, J. C., Ehret, P. J., Sherman, D. K., & Van Boven, L. (2022). Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy. Climatic Change, 173 (10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03396-x
Sherman, D. K., Updegraff, J. A., Handy, M. S., Eom, K., & Kim, H. S. (2022). Beliefs and social norms as precursors of environmental support: The joint influence of collectivism and socioeconomic status. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211007252

Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2021). Elite influence on public attitudes about climate policy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.023
Brick, C., & Sherman, D. K. (2021). When does being watched change pro-environmental behaviors in the laboratory? Sustainability, 13(5), 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052766
Eom, K., Tok, T. Q. H., Saad, C. S., & Kim, H. S. (2021). Religion, environmental guilt, and pro-environmental support: The opposing pathways of stewardship belief and belief in a controlling god. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101717
Eom, K., Saad, C. S., & Kim, H. S. (2021). Religiosity moderates the link between environmental beliefs and pro-environmental support: The role of belief in a controlling god. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 891-905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220948712
Sherman, D. K., Shteyn, M. F., Han, H., & Van Boven, L. (2021). The exchange between citizens and elected officials: A social psychological framework for citizen climate activists. Behavioural Public Policy, 5(4), 576-705. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.41

Eom, K., Papadakis, V., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2019). The psychology of pro-environmental support: In search of global solutions for a global problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 490-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854099

Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018a). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617748966
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018b). Toward surmounting the psychological barriers to climate policy—appreciating contexts and acknowledging challenges: A reply to Weber (2018). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 512-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618774535
Ehret, P. J., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K., (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: Understanding climate policy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618758709
Eom, K., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 60-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009

Brick, C., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). "Green to be seen" and "brown to keep down": Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
Ehret, P. J., Sparks, A. C., & Sherman, D. K. (2017). Support for environmental protection: An integration of ideological-consistency and information-deficit models. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1256960

Eom, K., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Ishii, K. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental beliefs and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1331-1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660078

Sasaki, J. Y., Kim, H. S., Mojaverian, T., Kelley, L. D. S., Park, I. Y., & Janušonis, S. (2013). Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr089