Cross-National Variation of Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Testing the Sociocultural Hindrance Hypothesis

Abstract

Although it is widely accepted that women are more pro-environmental than men, findings regarding gender differences in environmental concern have actually been mixed. In this study, we attempt to reconcile these mixed findings by considering the influence of sociocultural contexts. Specifically, we propose that some sociocultural contexts tend to hinder the psychological process that underlies gender differences in environmental concern. We tested this sociocultural hindrance hypothesis with an international survey data set (International Social Survey Programme) that involved respondents from 32 countries. We found that gender differences in environmental concern were smaller in societies with higher levels of gender inequality, economic scarcity, power distance, and collectivism. These results highlight the need to examine both the “why” and “when” questions for gender differences in environmental concern. They also indicate the importance of considering not only individual-level variables but also societal-level factors in the study of environmental concern.

Keywords

environmental concern gender differences cross-national variation sociocultural contexts culture

Introduction

Among the environmental social science literature, the position that women are more pro-environmental than men is widely accepted (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; McCright & Xiao, 2014). This position has served as the theoretical foundation for a number of recent studies on why such differences between the two genders exist (e.g., Arnocky & Stroink, 2011) and how these differences influence pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Lόpez-Mosquera, 2016). Some studies have shown that women are indeed more pro-environmental (e.g., Blocker & Eckberg, 1997; Xiao & McCright, 2015). However, the picture is less clear among studies conducted outside North America. In some societies, such as New Zealand, similar differences were found (Milfont & Sibley, 2016), whereas in others, Hungary for instance, no differences were found (Kovács et al., 2014). In some rare cases, such as China, men were even found to be more pro-environmental than women (Xiao & Hong, 2010). These mixed findings indicate that a more elaborate understanding is required about the role of gender.

To fully appreciate the relationship between gender and environmental concern, we believe that broader sociocultural contexts, which are a powerful force behind the human mind and behavior, must be considered (Norenzayan, 2011). Most previous studies have considered the differences between men and women in environmental concern to be universally similar. In this study, we challenge this view by showing that the magnitude of such differences varies among different societies and that such variation can be explained by certain societal-level factors.

Gender Differences in Environmental Concern

In this investigation, we refer to the differences between women and men in terms of the level of environmental concern as gender differences in environmental concern (see also Blocker & Eckberg, 1997; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993). We first give an overview of past studies in this regard.

Environmental concern is typically conceptualized as a multifaceted construct with two major components: concern regarding specific environmental issues and general pro-environmental beliefs (Dunlap & Jones, 2002; Franzen & Meyer, 2010). The first component is usually operationalized by individuals’ awareness of the threat of various environmental issues (e.g., Xiao & McCright, 2015). The second component is usually operationalized by individuals’ support for environmental protection in general, such as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP; e.g., Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010) and pro-environmental view (e.g., Xiao & McCright, 2015), or their willingness to contribute to it, such as willingness to pay (e.g., Dunlap & Jones, 2002).

Some studies have found that women express greater environmental concern than men do (e.g., Blocker & Eckberg, 1997). These results have been replicated in a number of survey studies conducted in the United States. For example, using the 2000 and 2010 General Social Survey data, Xiao and McCright (2015) found that in the United States, women reported higher levels of environmental concern than men did. These findings, together with those from similar studies (Dietz, Kalof, & Stern, 2002), have supported the position that women are more pro-environmental than men are. In a recent review, Gifford and Nilsson (2014) listed gender as one of the personal factors that influence environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior.

This position has inspired some investigators to further explicate the influence of gender. Recent studies have attempted to identify the mediating psychological mechanisms behind the gender differences (e.g., Milfont & Sibley, 2016). For instance, Arnocky and Stroink (2011) examined whether the gender differences can be explained by the higher level of emotional empathy among women. Some studies have incorporated the role of gender into existing theoretical models of pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Joireman & Liu, 2014). For example, Lόpez-Mosquera (2016) integrated gender into the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), where gender differences were examined in each of the factors in the theory when predicting participants’ intention to pay for the conservation of a national park.

Notably, when we consider studies that were conducted outside the United States, the pattern of gender differences in environmental concern is less clear. For example, Kovács et al. (2014) found that women reported higher NEP levels than men did in an American sample, but not in a Hungarian sample. Similarly, Vikan, Camino, Biaggio, and Nordvik (2007) found gender differences in the NEP in a Swedish sample, but not in two Brazilian samples. Furthermore, Eisler, Eisler, and Yoshida (2003) found that women reported more positive attitudes toward the environment than men did in the United States, Sweden, and Japan, but not in Germany. In a study that involved respondents from 14 countries, Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich (2000) found that gender differences in the NEP were significant when they analyzed all countries as a whole, but not when they analyzed each country separately (except for the United States). In an exceptional case, Xiao and Hong (2010) even found a reverse pattern (men reporting higher levels of environmental concern) in a Chinese sample. In a meta-analysis that involved data from 36 countries, Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) found that the pooled correlation between gender and NEP was not significant.

The position that women are more pro-environmental than men seems to require more cross-national validation. The magnitude (and even the direction) of the gender differences appears to vary across societies. This possibility has rarely been tested, because most studies have used samples from only one society (Milfont & Sibley, 2016; Xiao & McCright, 2015) or a few societies (Eiseler et al., 2003; Vikan et al., 2007). Zelezny et al. (2000) did use participants from a number of societies, but they did not directly compare the magnitude of gender differences across the societies. Because of the focus of their meta-analysis and the limitation of their data, Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) also did not examine whether the relationship between gender and NEP varied across societies. Notably, some large-scale cross-national studies have included gender as a predictor of environmental concern (e.g., Givens & Jorgenson, 2011, 2013). For example, using the fourth wave of the World Value Survey, Gelissen (2007) found that gender was not a significant predictor of environmental concern. Using the fifth wave of the World Value Survey, Givens and Jorgenson (2011) found that women were more likely than men to consider looking after the environment as important. However, these studies have commonly considered the effect of gender to be fixed across societies; no random slope of gender has been tested in the analyses. In summary, up to date research that has examined the relationship between gender and environmental concern has been silent on the possibility that the gender differences vary across societies.

The present study addresses the need for investigations that directly compare the relationship between gender and environmental concern across a substantial number of societies. On the basis of the literature review above, we expect to observe a significant cross-national variation of the magnitude of the gender differences. We also attempt to identify societal-level factors that can explain this expected cross-national variation. Next, we develop our hypotheses with reference to psychological studies on gender differences and the cross-cultural psychology literature.

The Sociocultural Hindrance Hypothesis

The relationship between gender and environmental concern can be understood through the gender socialization theory (Blocker & Eckberg, 1997; Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; McCright & Xiao, 2014). This theory posits that gender differences in environmental concern are attributable to the differential socialization experiences of boys and girls, particularly at an early age. Boys and girls are taught different values and social expectations, which are associated with the presumed social roles of men and women in society. The presumed breadwinner or provider role of men renders socialization of boys focused on competition-related values, such as independence and achievement, and the disposition of assertiveness, whereas the presumed nurturer or caregiver role of women renders socialization of girls focused on altruism-related values, such as benevolence, and the dispositions of agreeableness and empathy (Wood & Eagly, 2012). Because environmental concern often requires individuals to consider the interest of other people and even the biosphere (Dietz et al., 2002), such concern aligns more closely with the emphasis in socialization for girls than that for boys.

Research on culture and gender often assumes that the contents of gender socialization are similar across cultures (Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). This assumption leads to the expectation that when boys and girls internalize what is emphasized in their respective socialization experiences, universally, women would be more likely to possess altruistic orientations and thus more ready to develop environmental concern. Research findings have apparently supported this expectation. For example, Schwartz and Rubel (2005) showed that in more than 100 cultural groups, women possessed higher levels of altruism-related values and lower levels of competition-related values than men did. Similarly, Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) observed that among participants from 26 cultures, women consistently reported higher levels of agreeableness and warmth and lower levels of assertiveness than men did. These findings together indicate that in general women have stronger altruistic orientations than men do. Furthermore, studies have confirmed that these orientations in general are positively associated with environmental concern (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Hirsh, 2010; Luchs & Mooradian, 2012).

However, it is important to note that altruistic orientations do not necessarily turn into environmental concern. Indeed, although values and environmental concern are positively correlated, the strength of this correlation is only moderate (pooled r = .34; Klöckner, 2013). This potential incongruence between values and environmental concern can be understood through the following. Values and dispositions are abstract and higher order cognitive representations of human motivations that guide and influence people’s evaluations and actions in the social world (see Boer & Fischer, 2013; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Given that domain-specific attitudes can serve the function of self-expression (see Milfont, 2009, for a review), naturally, people tend to develop attitudes that accord with their values and dispositions. Yet, it is important to note that not every individual can freely pursue self-expression (Boer & Fischer, 2013); consequently, the development of broad motivation orientations into domain-specific attitudes may be disrupted, resulting in values-attitudes incongruence (Boer & Fischer, 2013; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012). For example, when individuals consider compliance with social norms as important, their attitudes and behaviors are less likely to correspond to their personal values (Lönnqvist, Leikas, Paunonen, Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006). Similarly, at a collective level, the link between values and attitudes is weaker in societies that emphasize adherence to social norms and rules (Boer & Fischer, 2013). Applying this view to the relationship between gender and environmental concern, it is conceivable to expect that although women may have stronger altruistic orientations than men do, as long as there is hindrance to autonomous self-expression, they do not necessarily hold a more supportive attitude toward environmental protection.

Hindrance to autonomous self-expression may reside in sociocultural contexts (Boer & Fischer, 2013; Costa et al., 2001; Sibley et al., 2012). Some sociocultural contexts are more limiting or restrictive; people living in these contexts are encouraged to follow certain social scripts, such as gender roles and social norms, and discouraged to express their own values or opinions (Fischer & Boer, 2015). As a result, a lower level of value-attitude congruence is expected in these contexts; that is, people are less likely to hold social attitudes that correspond to their personal values. Accordingly, we propose that in sociocultural contexts that hinder individuals from expressing themselves, women are less likely to develop environmental concern, even though they may possess higher levels of altruistic orientations, resulting in smaller gender differences in environmental concern. We refer to this proposition as the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The sociocultural hindrance hypothesis.

To test this hypothesis, we need to identify societal-level factors that characterize how limiting or restrictive different sociocultural contexts are. Studies have shown that such factors reside in social institutions, economic systems, and cultures (Fischer & Boer, 2015; Norenzayan, 2011). Thus, we identify four factors from these three domains.

Gender inequality

Gender inequality is a social institutional factor that is often invoked in the study of gender differences (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008; Wood & Eagly, 2002). Societies with higher levels of gender inequality tend to place greater emphasis on traditional gender ideology (Baxter & Kane, 1995). This emphasis inhibits people from expressing their values or dispositions in attitudes and behavior because they are expected to think and behave in accordance with what is already prescribed for men and women. In addition, because women are usually assigned a lower social status in gender-unequal societies, their personal views on specific issues such as environmental problems may be devalued. Accordingly, we expect gender inequality to be a sociocultural hindrance: Gender differences in environmental concern are smaller in societies with greater gender inequality.

Economic scarcity

As noted, the magnitude of the gender differences in environmental concern depends on the extent to which individuals can freely express their altruistic orientations. Whether free self-expression is encouraged in a society in turn depends on the economic condition of society (Inglehart, 1997; Welzel & Inglehart, 2010; Welzel, Inglehart, & Klingemann, 2003). In poor societies, people have limited personal and social resources; for these people, survival is the top priority (see Welzel & Inglehart, 2010). Because groups represent a better shelter for individuals to obtain resources and protection, people in poor societies tend to stay with groups and obey people in higher power positions (Welzel & Inglehart, 2010; Welzel et al., 2003). To maintain group cohesion, they may even give in to the opinions of the groups, especially of authorities. Furthermore, because they need to utilize whatever opportunities that are available, regardless of whether their decisions are in line with their values and dispositions or not, self-expression becomes secondary or even unimportant (see also Fischer & Boer, 2015). As a result, the relation between personal values (in this case, altruistic orientations) and social attitudes (in this case, environmental concern) would be weaker.

By contrast, in affluent societies, the enhanced economic freedom enables people to enjoy numerous choices and opportunities. Resources in the society also protect people from major setbacks and thereby allow them to explore and pursue their higher order needs (Inglehart, 1997). As a result, both men and women could prioritize their autonomy or freedom to express their own values. This should render a strong relation between altruistic orientations and environmental concern possible. Because altruistic orientations are more readily endorsed by women, we expect larger gender differences in environmental concern in affluent societies. In line with this expectation, Hunter, Hatch, and Johnson (2004) found that gender differences in household-oriented pro-environmental behavior were more pronounced in affluent societies than in poor societies.

In summary, we expect that economic scarcity acts as another sociocultural hindrance. We hypothesize that gender differences in environmental concern are smaller in societies with higher levels of economic scarcity.

Power distance and collectivism

We consider two cultural factors from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010)—distance and collectivism—to be relevant. Power distance refers to the cultural conception of the legitimacy of power inequality within society (Hofstede, 2001). In a high power distance culture, people tend to consider inequality in social power as legitimate and the social hierarchy as rigid and justifiable. People in this context readily follow the opinions and orders of those with higher power positions (Altemeyer, 1996). Thus, people tend not to express personal values and attitudes. The de-emphasis of personal values is particularly salient for women because they often have a lower power position than men do (Lee, Pratto, & Johnson, 2011). However, in a low power distance culture, social inequality is seen as undesirable. In this context, both men and women enjoy freedom to pursue and express their values. Thus, we hypothesize that gender differences in environmental concern are smaller in societies with higher levels of power distance.

In collectivistic societies, people tend to be context-dependent; they are motivated to adjust their personal attitudes and behavior according to contextual cues (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In such societies, people are more likely to express opinions that are in line with social norms, regardless of their personal views (Bond & Smith, 1996). Therefore, the translation of altruistic orientations into environmental concern may be impeded. In line with this view, Boer and Fischer (2013) found a weaker association between self-transcendence values and environmental attitudes in societies with higher levels of collectivism. Accordingly, we hypothesize that gender differences in environmental concern are smaller in more collectivistic societies.

Overview of the Present Study

In the present study, we directly compare the magnitude of gender differences in environmental concern across a number of societies. Based on the preceding review of the literature, we propose five hypotheses. We expect to find smaller gender differences in some societies than others (Hypothesis 1). We propose the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis for explaining this expected variation. Specifically, we argue that some sociocultural contexts hinder the development of internalized altruistic orientations into environmental concern. We accordingly hypothesize that gender differences in environmental concern are smaller in societies with higher levels of gender inequality (Hypothesis 2), economic scarcity (Hypothesis 3), power distance (Hypothesis 4), and collectivism (Hypothesis 5).

Data regarding environmental concern collected from multiple societies are required to test these hypotheses. We referred to a widely used international survey: the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Data regarding the sociocultural factors were obtained from various sources.

Method

Individual-Level Data

We obtained the individual-level data regarding environmental concern from the Environment III module of the ISSP (ISSP Research Group, 2012). The data were collected between 2009 and 2011 from representative samples in 32 nations.¹ In total, 45,199 participants were included. Following the practice of past studies (Marquart-Pyatt, 2012; Xiao & McCright, 2015), we operationalized environmental concern in three ways: positive beliefs and worldviews toward environmental protection (pro-environmental view), awareness of the threat of specific environmental problems (awareness of problems), and willingness to contribute to environmental protection (willingness to pay). We selected items according to past studies that had also used the ISSP data (Franzen & Vogl, 2013; Marquart-Pyatt, 2012). Pro-environmental views were measured through six items: “People worry too much about human progress harming the environment,” “We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs,” “There are more important things to do in life than protect the environment,” “There is no point in doing what I can for the environment unless others do the same,” “It is too difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment,” and “Modern science will solve our environmental problems with little change to our way of life.” Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). We reversely recoded the responses and computed an average score across the items for each participant, with a higher score representing a more pro-environmental view (α = .65). Awareness of problems was measured by having participants rate the dangerousness of five issues (“air pollution caused by cars”; “air pollution caused by industry”; “pollution of a country’s rivers, lakes, and streams”; “pesticides and chemicals used in farming”; and “the rise in the world temperature caused by climate change”) on a 5-point scale (1 = extremely dangerous to 5 = not dangerous at all). We reversely recoded the responses and computed an average score for each participant, with a higher score representing stronger awareness of problems (α = .80). Willingness to pay was measured by four items: “I do what is right for the environment, even when it costs money or takes more time”; “How willing would you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect the environment?” “How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment?” and “How willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment?” Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = very willing/agree strongly to 5 = very unwilling/disagree strongly). We reversely coded the responses and generated an average score for each participant, with a higher score indicating a stronger willingness to pay (α = .78).²

Societal-Level Data

For gender inequality, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) in 2010 from the United Nations Development Programme (2013) was used. This index measures a nation’s performance in reducing gender disparities in reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. It ranges from 0 (no inequality) to 1 (complete inequality). Economic scarcity was measured according to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, using the 2009 data from the World Bank (2016). For power distance and collectivism, we referred to the works by Hofstede and colleagues (2010). Based on a study of more than 116,000 employees from seven occupational groups of International Business Machine (IBM) in 40 countries, Hofstede (1980) identified four dimensions (including power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and uncertainty avoidance) that could characterize the cultural differences across the countries and derived a score on each dimension for each country. More recently, Hofstede et al. (2010) referred to other cross-cultural studies and updated the country scores; this latest data set involves more than 60 societies. We obtained the scores on power distance (PD) and individualism-collectivism (IC) from this data set, with higher scores indicating stronger power distance and collectivism. Past studies have shown that these scores are valid predictors for cross-cultural differences in behavior (e.g., Boer & Fischer, 2013; see Hofstede et al., 2010, for a review).³

Results

We conducted a series of multilevel analyses using Stata 12.0 (StataCorp, 2011) for each of the three indicators of environmental concern separately. Gender was treated as a predictor at Level 1 (the individual level); individuals’ personal income, educational level, and age were included as control variables.⁴ GII, GDP, PD, and IC were treated as predictors at Level 2 (the national level). To facilitate interpretation of the results, gender was coded as −1 for female and 1 for male, and the four societal-level variables were standardized.

In each series, we first constructed a random-coefficient model (Model 1), in which we allowed the slope of gender to vary so that we could determine whether it showed significant cross-national variation by examining its random effects (see Tables 1 -3). Gender significantly predicted all three indicators of environmental concern, and the coefficients were consistently negative, indicating that females reported higher levels of environmental concern than males did. More important, in line with Hypothesis 1, the random effects of gender were significant, suggesting a significant cross-national variation of the gender differences.

Table 1.

Results From Multilevel Analyses With Pro-Environmental View as Outcome Variable.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)
Intercept	3.120*** (.044)	3.111*** (.029)	3.121*** (.026)	3.124*** (.035)	3.123*** (.035)
Gender difference
Gender (female = −1, male = 1)	−.060*** (.008)	−.057*** (.006)	−.058*** (.005)	−.061*** (.006)	−.061*** (.006)
Societal-level predictor
GII		−.200*** (.032)
GDP			.197*** (.026)
PD				−.134*** (.033)
IC					.142*** (.035)
Cross-level interaction
Gender × GII		.033*** (.006)
Gender × GDP			−.034*** (.005)
Gender × PD				.024*** (.006)
Gender × IC					−.022** (.006)
Variance
Gender (Level 2)	.0015**	.0006*	.0004*	.0008**	.0009**
Intercept (Level 2)	.0606***	.0259***	.0206***	.0369***	.0364***
Residual (Level 1)	.3905	.4006	.4006	.3939	.3939
Sample info
Number of countries	32	31	31	31	31
Number of individuals	37,959	35,835	35,835	35,335	35,335
Model index
Log likelihood	−36,110.511	−34,533.227	−34,528.060	−33,759.753	−33,760.664

Note. GII = Gender Inequality Index; GDP = GDP per capita; PD = power distance; IC = individualism-collectivism. The change in number of countries across models was due to missing data (see Note 3).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Results From Multilevel Analyses With Awareness of Problems as Outcome Variable.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)
Intercept	3.838*** (.042)	3.852*** (.031)	3.843*** (.028)	3.845*** (.035)	3.847*** (.031)
Gender difference
Gender (female = −1, male = 1)	−.062*** (.007)	−.059*** (.006)	−.060*** (.005)	−.062*** (.005)	−.062*** (.005)
Societal-level predictor
GII		.185*** (.034)
GDP			−.182*** (.028)
PD				.136*** (.034)
IC					−.171*** (.031)
Cross-level interaction
Gender × GII		.025*** (.006)
Gender × GDP			−.027*** (.005)
Gender × PD				.022*** (.005)
Gender × IC					−.020*** (.005)
Variance
Gender (Level 2)	.0011**	.0006**	.0004*	.0004*	.0005*
Intercept (Level 2)	.0563***	.0292***	.0245***	.0380***	.0292***
Residual (Level 1)	.3868	.3937	.3937	.3719	.3719
Sample info
Number of countries	32	31	31	31	31
Number of individuals	40,054	37,909	37,909	37,417	37,417
Model index
Log likelihood	−37,910.910	−36,206.075	−36,201.222	−34,669.159	−34,667.326

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Results From Multilevel Analyses With Willingness to Pay as Outcome Variable.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)	γ (SE)
Intercept	2.787*** (.049)	2.765*** (.046)	2.767*** (.038)	2.788*** (.047)	2.793*** (.050)
Gender difference
Gender (female = −1, male = 1)	−.022** (.008)	−.020** (.007)	−.021** (.007)	−.022** (.008)	−.022** (.007)
Societal-level predictor
GII		−.100* (.050)
GDP			.168*** (.038)
PD				−.085^† (.046)
IC					.021 (.050)
Cross-level interaction
Gender × GII		.018* (.008)
Gender × GDP			−.025*** (.007)
Gender × PD				.014^†† (.007)
Gender × IC					−.019** (.007)
Variance
Gender (Level 2)	.0013**	.0011**	.0007*	.0011**	.0010*
Intercept (Level 2)	.0755***	.0643***	.0444***	.0687***	.0760***
Residual (Level 1)	.7102	.7191	.7191	.6878	.6878
Sample info
Number of countries	32	31	31	31	31
Number of individuals	40,227	38,048	38,048	37,501	37,501
Model index
Log likelihood	−50,292.901	−47,803.262	−47,793.065	−46,284.383	−46,284.362

†

p = .062. ^††p = .059. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Next, we constructed four slope-as-outcome models (Models 2-5), in which we included either GII, GDP, PD, or IC as a predictor for both the intercept of the outcome variable and the slope of gender. As an illustration, Model 2 with pro-environmental view as the outcome variable is shown as follows:

Level 1: Pro-environmental view = β_0j + β_1j (Gender) + β_2-4 (Control variables) + r_ij.

Level 2: β_0j = γ₀₀ + γ₀₁ (GII) + u_0j; β_1j = γ₁₀ + γ₁₁ (GII) + u_1j.

Our hypotheses were tested by examining the coefficient of the cross-level interaction (γ₁₁); a significant coefficient would suggest that the slope of gender on environmental concern depends on the societal-level variable in question (see Tables 1 -3). In support of Hypothesis 2, the Gender × GII interaction was positive and significant, indicating smaller gender differences among societies with stronger gender inequality. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the Gender × GDP interaction was negative and significant, indicating larger gender differences among societies with more economic prosperity (or less economic scarcity). In accordance with Hypothesis 4, the Gender × PD interaction was positive and significant or marginally significant, indicating smaller gender differences among societies with higher power distance. Finally, in support of Hypothesis 5, the Gender × IC interaction was negative and significant, indicating larger gender differences among societies with stronger individualism (or weaker collectivism). These patterns were confirmed with a series of simple slope analysis (see Table 4): The simple slopes of gender were smaller, sometimes even nonsignificant, when gender inequality was high, economic prosperity was low, power distance was high, or individualism was low. In sum, these findings support the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis.⁵

Table 4.

Results From Simple Slope Analyses.

Outcome variable	Pro-environmental view		Awareness of problems		Willingness to pay
Outcome variable	Intercept	Slope of gender	Intercept	Slope of gender	Intercept	Slope of gender
Hypothesis 1
High GII (above mean 1 SD)	2.904*** (.045)	−.021* (.008)	4.036*** (.048)	−.034*** (.008)	2.662*** (.071)	−.001 (.012)
Low GII (below mean 1 SD)	3.304*** (.041)	−.084*** (.008)	3.666*** (.043)	−.082*** (.008)	2.859*** (.064)	−.034** (.011)
Hypothesis 2
High GDP (above mean 1 SD)	3.310*** (.036)	−.087*** (.006)	3.660*** (.039)	−.085*** (.007)	2.929*** (.052)	−.042*** (.009)
Low GDP (below mean 1 SD)	2.917*** (.037)	−.020** (.007)	4.025*** (.041)	−.032*** (.007)	2.596*** (.055)	.007 (.010)
Hypothesis 3
High PD (above mean 1 SD)	2.983*** (.050)	−.032*** (.008)	3.981*** (.051)	−.040*** (.007)	2.700*** (.068)	−.005 (.011)
Low PD (below mean 1 SD)	3.251*** (.046)	−.079*** (.008)	3.708*** (.047)	−.083*** (.007)	2.868*** (.063)	−.032** (.011)
Hypothesis 4
High IC (above mean 1 SD)	3.259*** (.047)	−.074*** (.009)	3.677*** (.042)	−.080*** (.007)	2.810*** (.068)	−.034** (.011)
Low IC (below mean 1 SD)	2.973*** (.050)	−.037*** (.009)	4.017*** (.046)	−.042*** (.008)	2.768*** (.073)	−.002 (.011)

Note. GII = Gender Inequality Index; GDP = GDP per capita; PD = power distance; IC = individualism-collectivism. Gender was coded in female = -1 and male = 1. Standard errors are shown in brackets.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although our focus is on the cross-level interaction effect, one observation regarding the main effects of the societal-level factors is worth noting. We found that the main effects of the four societal-level factors on awareness of problems were in a different direction from their effects on pro-environmental view and willingness to pay. These results seem to indicate that in societies with higher levels of gender inequality, economic scarcity, power distance, and collectivism, people have higher levels of awareness of problems but lower levels of pro-environmental view and willingness to pay (see Table 4). Because the gender differences were smaller in these societies, as reported earlier, apparently these main effects suggest that men and women have a similarly high level of awareness of problems. This seems to disagree with our expectation; according to the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis, men and women should have similarly low levels of awareness of problems in these societies. We revisit this issue in the general discussion.

General Discussion

Although the view that women are more pro-environmental than men is widely accepted, studies conducted in different societies have revealed mixed findings regarding gender differences in environmental concern (e.g., Kovács et al., 2014; Zelezny et al., 2000). In the present investigation, we systematically compared the gender differences across a number of societies and found a significant cross-national variation. These findings call into question the extent to which gender differences in environmental concern are universally similar.

The sociocultural hindrance hypothesis represents a validated explanation for the cross-national variation. We developed this hypothesis on the basis of the gender socialization theory, which has accumulated much empirical support (see McCright & Xiao, 2014, for a review). According to the theory, gender differences in environmental concern are attributable to the socialization process. Because of their different socialization experiences, women are more likely than men to have internalized altruistic values and dispositions; these altruistic orientations in turn guide women to develop higher levels of environmental concern. Because such development is based on the extent to which an individual can freely express themselves, we argue that any hindrance to self-expression would reduce gender differences in environmental concern. Following the cross-cultural psychology literature (Boer & Fischer, 2013; Sibley et al., 2012), we further argue that such hindrance may reside in sociocultural contexts. This account is supported by the present findings. These findings signify the need for researchers to reconsider how the development of environmental concern based on altruistic orientations might be dependent on sociocultural contexts.

Understanding Gender and Environmental Concern

The sociocultural hindrance hypothesis implies that socialization alone is insufficient for the development of environmental concern. Women still need a supportive sociocultural context to freely pursue and express their values and thereby develop environmental concern. Our findings signify the need for future studies to investigate not only “why” gender differences in environmental concern arise but also “when” such differences would be large or small (Joireman & Liu, 2014; Lippa, 2010). In the present study, we focused on the “when” question. Future research should examine both questions simultaneously. With individual-level data regarding values or dispositions and environmental concern, researchers can test to what extent altruistic orientations mediate gender differences in environmental concern (the “why” question). Furthermore, with data regarding certain sociocultural factors, researchers can test whether sociocultural contexts moderate the mediating effect of altruistic orientations in gender differences (answering the “when” question).

Examining both questions simultaneously also allows us to extend the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Based on the gender socialization theory, we assume that the extent to which men and women internalize the emphases of their respective socialization experiences is cross-nationally invariant (and thereby gender differences in altruistic orientations are expected to be similar across societies). Although this assumption has received support from some large-scale international studies (Costa et al., 2001; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), the possibility that the magnitude of gender differences in altruistic orientations varies across societies should not be overlooked. For instance, Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz (2009) reported that gender differences in benevolence and universalism were smaller in some societies than others. These findings imply that the cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern we observed are perhaps attributable to not only the effects of sociocultural hindrance on self-expression (what we argued in the present investigation) but also their effects on the internalization process in the first place. Accordingly, the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis can be extended in the following way: Some sociocultural contexts are limiting or restrictive; these contexts not only hinder people from expressing their values or dispositions in domain-specific social attitudes and behavior but also impede individuals’ internalization of the emphases of their socialization experiences. As far as we understand, this view is compatible with research findings in socialization studies. Research has shown that children do not passively internalize what their parents emphasize; they decide whether to accept or reject the socialization contents (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). A crucial determinant for children’s internalization of socialization contents is the sense of self-determination (Barni, Ranieri, Scabini, & Rosnati, 2011; Knafo & Assor, 2007); children must feel that the meanings of such contents are generated by themselves rather than imposed by others. Because parenting practices under restrictive sociocultural contexts (e.g., economically scarce societies) tend to emphasize unquestioning obedience and strict social role obligations (Greenfield, 2009; Park & Lau, 2016), children’s exploration of the personal meanings of their socialization experiences in these contexts may be impeded. Therefore, the assumed gender differences in altruistic orientations, which are considered as a product of socialization, may be reduced. To test directly this extended version of the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis in future studies, researchers may adopt a longitudinal design that includes parent-child dyads from multiple societies. Such a design would allow researchers to compare parental socialization, internalization of socialization contents, and environmental concern among boys and girls and to examine the extent to which sociocultural contexts moderate the associations between these variables.

Our findings suggest that gender differences in environmental concern are larger, rather than smaller, in more gender-equal societies. These results may seem counterintuitive to some. When a society becomes more gender egalitarian, gender differences are intuitively expected to become smaller. This intuition rests on the assumption that the actual gender roles determine the gender differences in environment concern; when the actual division of labor between men and women becomes more gender egalitarian, the gender differences should become smaller (e.g., Kovács et al., 2014). However, research findings do not support this assumption. For example, individual-level analyses have failed to establish a significant relationship between people’s actual roles in society (e.g., being parent or homemaker) and their environmental concern (McCright, 2010; Strapko, Hempel, Macllroy, & Smith, 2016). It implies that even if the division of labor becomes more gender egalitarian, it still does not change the gender differences in environmental concern. We believe that the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis provides a more valid explanation for the findings. In more gender-equal societies, because both men and women enjoy more freedom of self-expression, there are larger gender differences in environmental concern. This pattern is actually consistent with findings from cross-national comparisons of gender differences in other domains (e.g., visuospatial performance; Lippa, Collaer, & Peters, 2010), which have also shown that gender differences are larger in gender-equal societies.

Our findings echo the call by Kennedy and Dzialo (2015) for studies that consider the role of power relations in understanding the relation between gender and environmentalism. These findings indicate that the extent to which women can freely express their values and dispositions depends on the culture of power distance. In societies with higher levels of power distance, the legitimization of power differences between men and women represents a particularly pronounced hindrance to women’s self-expression (because women are often of lower power position). To fully appreciate the role of power relations in shaping the gender differences, it is important for future studies to consider not only the role of actual power differences but also the extent to which such differences are legitimized.

Understanding Economic Development and Environmental Concern

Our findings reveal a more complicated picture about the relationship between economic development and environmental concern. The influence of economic development on environmental concern has received much attention in the literature (e.g., Franzen & Meyer, 2010; Inglehart, 1995). The relationship between the two variables is typically explicated with reference to two hypotheses: the affluence (or prosperity) hypothesis (Franzen, 2003) and postmaterialism hypothesis (Inglehart, 1995; Kemmelmeier, Krόl, & Kim, 2002). The affluence hypothesis posits that environmental quality is a normal good, the demand for which increases as income rises. The postmaterialism hypothesis suggests that when the society becomes more affluent, people experience a shift of their values from prioritizing basic and economic needs (e.g., security, jobs) to emphasizing higher order needs (e.g., freedom of expression, environmental concern). Notably, both of these hypotheses focus on the main effect of economic development on environmental concern. Our findings suggest that economic development may have an additional influence on environmental concern: It moderates the relationship between altruistic orientations and environmental concern. Economic development influences people’s choices and opportunities to express what they care about. When the society becomes more affluent, people do not only demand environmental quality and endorse postmaterialistic values more strongly; they also enjoy more freedom and opportunities to express themselves. We believe that this additional influence of economic development might represent a new perspective on the consistency (or the lack thereof) between values and environmental concern and between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior (see Pisano & Lubell, 2017).

Other Issues

As noted in the “Results” section, the main effects of the four societal-level factors on awareness of problems appeared to be inconsistent with those on the other two components of environmental concern. We found that individuals reported higher levels of awareness of problems in societies with higher levels of gender inequality, economic scarcity, power distance, and collectivism. The smaller gender differences we observed in these societies appeared to be due to men and women showing similarly high levels of awareness of problems. This pattern apparently disagrees with the predictions of the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis.

We believe that this pattern of results underscores the importance of considering environmental concern as a multifaceted construct (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). On one hand, the various elements of environmental concern may be similarly associated with some anteceding factors. For instance, according to value-belief-norm theory (Stern, 2000), altruistic values are expected to form the motivational basis for all elements of environmental concern. On the other hand, the different elements may respond differently to some other anteceding factors. Studies have shown that awareness of environmental problems is associated with indicators of national development in a manner different from those of other elements of environmental concern (e.g., Marquart-Pyatt, 2012). For instance, Lo (2016) reported that although support for environmental protection was positively determined by national affluence, awareness of environmental problems was negatively associated with it. These findings can be understood according to the following account. More developed societies, with their abundant economic resources and effective social institutions, can offer more protection to their members against the threat of problems, including environmental ones; consequently, people living in developed societies feel less vulnerable to environmental problems and are less likely to see their threat as proximal or dangerous (Lo, 2016). Based on this account, we believe that the main effects of the societal-level factors on awareness of problems in our current study are not necessarily incompatible with the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis; these anteceding factors may affect awareness of problems via two separate pathways. First, as stated in our sociocultural hindrance hypothesis, they impede the translation of altruistic orientations into environmental concern. Second, these factors themselves represent a lower level of societal development; people living in societies characterized by these factors are less protected against environmental problems and therefore feel more vulnerable to these problems and are more likely to perceive them as dangerous.

Practical Implications

Our findings imply that cultivating altruistic orientations in the public alone does not necessarily promote environmental concern. A supportive sociocultural context that allows individuals to freely express their personal values is also required. Given that the social hindrance factors we identified are entrenched in the economic system, social institutions and culture of a society, it seems to be a daunting, if not impossible, task for governments and organizations to eliminate these factors. Furthermore, whether it is really appropriate to call for changes to the existing culture and institutions of a society is a matter of debate. Alternatively, we believe a more realistic and defensible position is to suggest that government leaders and environmental practitioners consider the importance of building pro-environmental norms. As discussed, in societies wherein the hindrance on self-expression is strong, people are more likely to comply with the norms on social attitudes (see Boer & Fischer, 2013). In this regard, using normative messages (e.g., messages that highlight the prevalence of environmental concern) could be an effective strategy to garner support for environmental protection from the public in these societies.

Limitations and Future Directions

Two limitations are worth discussing. First, we follow a common practice in past studies on culture and gender differences (Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) by assuming that the contents of gender socialization are similar across cultures. It is assumed that across cultures there is a similar differentiation between the socialization emphasis for boys and that for girls. The extent to which this assumption is justified remains untested (Hunter et al., 2004). Directly testing this assumption requires cross-national data for comparing the emphases parents (and other agents) put on the socialization of boys and that of girls. Existing international survey programs do not appear to contain such data. Thus, new investigations are necessary.

Another limitation is the range of societies covered in our data set. Although the ISSP involves a considerable number of societies (in total, 32 societies), it is still far from covering all societies in this world. There is some possible skewness of the data. For example, most of the societies covered by the ISSP data are high-income countries. Moreover, societies from some continents (e.g., Africa) are not represented in the data. Notwithstanding this limitation, we believe that the present study still advances the literature. Our results reveal a cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern and highlight the importance of societal-level factors in understanding such variation. Future studies may adopt datasets that cover a wider range of societies to further explicate the relationship among societal-level factors, gender, and environmental concern.

Conclusion

According to a review of existing mixed findings and our own results in the present research, we conclude that some modifications are required for the widely accepted notion that women are more pro-environmental than men. We demonstrated that gender differences in environmental concern were smaller in societies with higher levels of gender inequality, economic scarcity, power distance, and collectivism. These results highlight that researchers should not overlook the influence of sociocultural contexts to fully appreciate the role of gender. We hope that these findings can stimulate researchers’ interest in the interplay between psychological processes underlying environmental concern at the individual-level and societal-level factors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this article was partially supported by a grant from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong (Project No. SBI15HS07).

Notes

Author Biographies

Hoi-Wing Chan is a PhD candidate at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His major research interests include conservation psychology, pro-environmental behavior, and cultural influence.

Vivien Pong is pursuing a master in philosophy degree in the social science program at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include conservation psychology, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and empathy.

Kim-Pong Tam is an associate professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research examines people’s construal of their relationship with the natural world, and the interplay between psychological processes and sociocultural factors in determining environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Altemeyer

(1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Arnocky

Stroink

M. L.

(2011). Gender differences in environmental concern and cooperation: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16, 1-14.

Barni

Ranieri

Scabini

Rosnati

(2011). Value transmission in the family: Do adolescents accept the values their parents want to transmit? Journal of Moral Education, 40, 105-121. doi:10.1080/03057240.2011.553797

Baxter

Kane

E. W.

(1995). Dependence and independence: A cross-national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender & Society, 9, 193-215. doi:10.1177/089124395009002004

Blocker

T. J.

Eckberg

D. L.

(1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 841-858.

Boer

Fischer

(2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1113-1147. doi:10.1037/a0031347

Bond

Smith

P. B.

(1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Costa

Jr. Terracciano

McCrae

R. R.

(2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

10.

Davidson

D. J.

Freudenburg

W. R.

(1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339. doi:10.1177/0013916596283003

11.

Dietz

Kalof

Stern

P. C.

(2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 353-364. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088

12.

Dunlap

R. E.

Jones

R. E.

(2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In Dunlap

R. E.

Michelson

(Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

13.

Eisler

A. D.

Eisler

Yoshida

(2003). Perception of human ecology: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 89-101. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00083-X

14.

Fischer

Boer

(2015). Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-analysis of value-personality correlations. Journal of Personality, 83, 491-510. doi:10.1111/jopy.12125

15.

Franzen

(2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297-308. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402005

16.

Franzen

Meyer

(2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26, 219-234. doi:10.1093/esr/jcp018

17.

Franzen

Vogl

(2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1001-1008. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009

18.

Gelissen

(2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39, 392-415. doi:10.1177/0013916506292014

19.

Gifford

Nilsson

(2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141-157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034

20.

Givens

J. E.

Jorgenson

A. K.

(2011). The effects of affluence, economic development, and environmental degradation on environmental concern: A multilevel analysis. Organization & Environment, 24, 74-91. doi:10.1177/1086026611406030

21.

Givens

J. E.

Jorgenson

A. K.

(2013). Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 42, 418-431. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.005

22.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401-418. doi:10.1037/a0014726

23.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4

24.

Hawcroft

L. J.

Milfont

T. L.

(2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143-158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003

25.

Hirsh

J. B.

(2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 245-248. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.004

26.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

27.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Culture and organization: Software for the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

29.

Hunter

L. M.

Hatch

Johnson

(2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677-694. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x

30.

Inglehart

(1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 57-72. doi:10.1017/S1049096500056080

31.

Inglehart

(1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32.

ISSP Research Group. (2012). International Social Survey Programme: Environment III—ISSP 2010 (GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5500 Data file version 2.0.0). Retrieved from https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=5500

33.

Joireman

Liu

R. L.

(2014). Future-oriented women will pay to reduce global warming: Mediation via political orientation, environmental values, and belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.005

34.

Kemmelmeier

Krόl

Kim

Y. H.

(2002). Values, economics, and proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 256-285. doi:10.1177/10697102036003004

35.

Kennedy

E. H.

Dzialo

(2015). Locating gender in environmental sociology. Sociology Compass, 9, 920-929. doi:10.1111/soc4.12303

36.

Klöckner

C. A.

(2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1028-1038. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014

37.

Knafo

Assor

(2007). Motivation for agreement with parental values: Desirable when autonomous, problematic when controlled. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 232-245. doi:10.1007/s11031-007-9067-8

38.

Kovács

Pántya

Medvés

Hidegkuti

Heim

Bursavich

J. B.

(2014). Justifying environmentally significant behavior choices: An American-Hungarian cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 31-39. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.001

39.

Kuczynski

Parkin

C. M.

(2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In Grusec

J. E.

Hastings

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259-283). New York, NY: Gifford Press.

40.

Lee

I. C.

Pratto

Johnson

B. T.

(2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 1029-1064. doi:10.1037/a0025410

41.

Lippa

R. A.

(2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1098-1110. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x

42.

Lippa

R. A.

Collaer

M. L.

Peters

(2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sex Behavior, 39, 990-997. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8

43.

A. Y.

(2016). National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 873-890. doi:10.1177/0963662515581302

44.

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Leikas

Paunonen

Nissinen

Verkasalo

(2006). Conformism moderates the relations between values, anticipated regret, and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1469-1481. doi:10.1177/0146167206291672

45.

Lόpez-Mosquera

(2016). Gender differences, theory of planned behavior and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 165-175. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.006

46.

Luchs

M. G.

Mooradian

T. A.

(2012). Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: Elucidating the gender effect. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 127-144. doi:10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

47.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

48.

Marquart-Pyatt

S. T.

(2012). Contextual influences on environmental concerns cross-nationally: A multilevel investigation. Social Science Research, 41, 1085-1099. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.04.003

49.

McCright

A. M.

(2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32, 66-87. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1

50.

McCright

A. M.

Xiao

(2014). Gender and environmental concern: Insights from recent work and for future research. Society & Natural Resources, 27, 1109-1113. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.918235

51.

Milfont

T. L.

(2009). A functional approach to the study of environmental attitudes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 10, 235-252.

52.

Milfont

T. L.

Sibley

C. G.

(2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85-88. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.044

53.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 842-860. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00059.x

54.

Norenzayan

(2011). Explaining human behavioral diversity. Science, 332, 1041-1042. doi:10.1126/science.1207050

55.

Park

Lau

A. S.

(2016). Socioeconomic status and parenting priorities: Child independence and obedience around the world. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 43-59. doi:10.1111/jomf.12247

56.

Pisano

Lubell

(2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49, 31-58. doi:10.1177/0013916515600494

57.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

58.

Schmitt

D. P.

Realo

Voracek

Allik

(2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168-182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

59.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.

60.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel

(2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010-1028. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010

61.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel-Lifschitz

(2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 171-185. doi:10.1037/a0015546

62.

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

Duckitt

(2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 664-677. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002

63.

StataCorp. (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Author.

64.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175

65.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Kalof

(1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002

66.

Strapko

Hempel

Macllroy

Smith

(2016). Gender differences in environmental concern: Reevaluating gender socialization. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 1015-1031. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1138563

67.

United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Gender Inequality Index. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index

68.

Vikan

Camino

Biaggio

Nordvik

(2007). Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm. Environment and Behavior, 39, 217-228. doi:10.1177/0013916506286946

69.

Welzel

Inglehart

(2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97, 43-63. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z

70.

Welzel

Inglehart

Klingemann

H. D.

(2003). The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 341-379. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00086

71.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699

72.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55-123. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7

73.

World Bank. (2016). GDP per capita (current US$) [Database]. World Development Indicators. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

74.

Xiao

Hong

(2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and Environment, 32, 88-104. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z

75.

Xiao

McCright

A. M.

(2015). Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in USA. Environment and Behavior, 47, 17-37. doi:10.1177/0013916513491571

76.

Zelezny

L. C.

Chua

P.-P.

Aldrich

(2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB