2005	Meinhold & Malkus	They correlated self-efficacy with environmental attitudes (r = 0.23), with environmental knowledge (r = 0.16) and with pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.30). Environmental attitudes with environmental knowledge (r = 0.18) and with pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.45) and environmental knowledge with pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.34), all with a significance less than 0.001.
2006	Corral, Frías, Fraijo & Tapia	They found significant differences between sex and age with respect to risk propensity; between sex, age and schooling in terms of lack of self-control; between sex and age with respect to antisocial behavior and between sex and age in terms of anti-environmental behavior.
2006	Corral et al.	Other relationships with perceptions of time perspective: 1) orientation to the past, 2) future orientation and 3) sustainable styles with dimensions such as: a) this hedonistic, b) present fatalistic, c) positive last d) past negative e) propensity future.
2007	Cerda, García, Díaz & Núñez	They tested the direct effect of environmental protection on the environmental behavior of the consumer of organic products and the promoter of environmental culture; the causal relationship between the promotion of environmental protection and the environmental behavior of the environmental monitor and the environmental cultural promoter.
2008	Milfont, Andrade, Belo & Pessoa	They established positive associations between negative past and present hedonist, positive past and present fatalist. The hedonistic present with the positive past and the fatalistic present.
2008	Corral et al.	In the context of the psychology of water resources and services, found that the utilitarian beliefs determine water consumption indicated by washing dishes, grooming, watering plants, washes dishes and cleaning sidewalk.
2009	Corral, Tapia, Fraijo & González	They revealed ten dimensions of sustainable behavior: perception of environmental norms, appreciation for the natural, pro-environmental indignation, affinity for diversity, deliberation, fairness, altruism, pro-ecologism, austerity and self-presentation.
2009	Frías, Rodríguez & Corral	They tested, through a structural model, the effect of the social norm on anti-environmental behavior. In this system of equations, deterrence and the personal norm had a lower incidence or zero in the behavior unfavorable to the environment.
2009	Harranz, Proy and Eguiguren	Through a trail model, they established the intention as the main determinant of recycling behavior. In the system of equations, beliefs indirectly influenced recycling and intention was the transmitting variable.
2009	Orostegui & Matos	The high stratum (62 kg/inhabitant/day) generated less waste than the medium (74 kg/inhabitant/day) and low (77 kg/inhabitant/day) strata and with respect to the district average (71 kg/inhabitant/day). Organic matter, paper and cardboard were the prevailing municipal waste. In this sense, the high stratum produced recycling waste.
2009	Frías et al.	Shows that social norms determine individual principles crystallized into specific actions, but both are embodied in moral standards define an identity based on the context.
2009	Gilford	Pessimism rather than fatalism is different spatial levels: local, national and global. Consequently, farsightedness is not just a perceptual bias of social, collective and personal standards indicated by their degree of usefulness and hedonism, but also is a bias scenario that the recipient is unknown and homogenized thus to have control or certainty context of water availability.
2009	Corral et al.	Modeled both variables with social intolerance and age to show that there was an implicit relationship between environmental conservation and affinity towards nature. In this sense, farsightedness would be linked to social intolerance since the biofilia would immediate and specific conservation actions in the immediate environment, but once guaranteed the existence of species, the individual could develop a hedonism and utilitarianism to its preserved environment.
2010	Fernández, Porter & Neyra	They found differences between teachers and students regarding their learning environment. While the students considered that their environment had social relevance, the teachers assumed the natural environment as the most important development factor for their community.
2010	Gissi & Soto	For the authors the appropriation of the space is gestated with the tequio, which is the personal work carried out by a member of the collective before entering community work.
2010	Hidalgo & Pisano	The perception of risk was determined by attitude (β = 0.305, p = 0.000) and the intention was influenced by self-efficacy (β = 0.259, p = 0.001).
2010	Jiménez & Lafuente	He established three factors of the four possible dimensions. The first factor explained 46.4% of the variance, the second 28.6% and the third explained 25.15% of the variance. They determined differences between men and women [X² = 10.088 (2 gl), p = 0.007], for years [X² = 176.77 (8 gl), p = 0.000] and habitat [X² = 21.657 (6 gl), p = 0.001].