Understanding individual lifestyles is essential, as they are the foundation of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) and are interwoven with related psychological factors. Particularly, plastic consumption, a globally serious problem, is inseparable from daily lifestyles. However, few studies have investigated the frequency of such behaviors in daily life. This study aims to classify lifestyles based on daily dietary habits, and to examine the demographic profiles, attitudes, values, and relevant pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) associated with each group. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 2400 individuals in Japan to investigate the interrelations between lifestyle patterns, values, and PEBs. The daily dietary habits were measured on a four-point Likert scale and frequencies, such as the frequency of eating instant meals, ready-made meals, and buying meals at convenience stores. We also measured the value scale (Steg et al., 2014) to identify the characteristics of the classified lifestyles, following plastics-related PEBs, behavioral intentions, social norms, perceived behavioral control, and relevant psychological construal, such as perceived effectiveness and awareness. We obtained four groups from the cluster analysis using lifestyle variables. One was ecological and the rest were not, namely, "selfish", "rude", and "passive", indicating that non-ecological lifestyles were not homogeneous. Value differences revealed that the cluster group named "ecological" tended to be altruistic and biospheric, and the group named "overconsuming" tended to be selfish. Meanwhile, another group named "passive" tended to be non-altruistic, non-hedonic, and non-selfish, which seemed to do nothing because they had no value orientation. Further group comparison by one-way ANOVA revealed that the "ecological" group showed the highest engagement in the PEBs, intentions, and attitudes, and the "passive" group showed the least for these variables. In contrast, the "overconsuming" group showed an inconsistent pattern. Our results suggest that we need a different approach to the features of lifestyles when considering efficient interventions.