Are climate change perceptions related with plastic policy support? Effects of climate change skepticism, guilt, and efficacy on the acceptance of the plastic tax

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337327 December 29, 2025 16 / 30 acceptance requires multi-faceted policy approaches addressing both risk communication and value-based messaging. Specifically, policymakers should combine evidence-based risk communication strategies to enhance perceived climate threats with targeted messaging that resonates with environmental and altruistic values while addressing materialistic concerns through economic framing. The explanatory power of Model 2, which adds the three variables in planned behavior to Model 1, was 36.0%, with a model fit of 55.503 (p < .001). The tolerance was above 0.1, and the VIF was below 10, indicating no multicollinearity. In Model 2, the sociodemographic factors were the same as in Model 1: Higher age and education were significantly associated with the support for the plastic tax. The value factors of environmentalism, altruism, and egalitarianism had a significantly positive effect on the support for the plastic tax, while materialism demonstrated a significantly negative relationship with the support for the plastic tax. As for the risk perception paradigm factors, perceived risk, knowledge, and trust, excluding emotion, all had a significantly positive association with the support for the plastic tax. Among planned behavior factors, climate change skepticism had a significantly negative link with the support for the plastic tax; guilt and efficacy had a significantly positive association with the support for the plastic tax.

Based on the standardized regression coefficients in Model 2, we found that the effect size is positively associated with in the order of perceived risk > climate change skepticism > trust > environmentalism > knowledge > egalitarianism > altruism > guilt > efficacy > materialism. As in Model 1, perceived risk had the strongest positive association with the support for the plastic tax. In Model 2, the moderator variable of climate change skepticism had the second largest relationship, which can be interpreted as a result of different political frameworks. Despite the emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, doubts about Table 3. Regression analysis to identify factors associated with the acceptance of the plastic taxes. Variables Model 1 Model 2 b S.E Beta b S.E Beta (Constants) .135 .239 .478 .249 Sociodemographic factors Sex −.009 .041 −.005 −.038 .040 −.020 Age .054*** .015 .082 .054*** .015 .083 Education .105* .042 .056 .098* .042 .052 Income .029 .024 .026 .029 .024 .026 Independent 1 Values factors Environmentalism .174*** .034 .131 .136*** .034 .103 Altruism .094*** .023 .099 .082*** .023 .087 Egalitarianism .101*** .023 .095 .098*** .023 .093 Materialism −.105*** .025 −.097 −.072** .025 −.067 Independent 2 Risk Perception Paradigm Perceived risk .269*** .036 .217 .200*** .037 .161 Knowledge .126*** .031 .103 .119*** .033 .098 Trust .184*** .033 .139 .149*** .036 .113 Emotion .071* .032 .058 .053 .032 .043 Moderating Environmental Psychological factors

Climate change skepticism −.123*** .026 −.122 Guilt .101** .034 .081 Efficacy .086* .034 .072 F value 64.373*** 55.503*** R 0.585 0.600 R2 0.342 0.360 adj. R2 0.337 0.353 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337327.t003