The environmental concern literature consistently finds that women when compared with men participate more in private environmental behaviors such as recycling and green consumer activities. A common argument posits that this is because women possess stronger proenvironmental values, beliefs, and attitudes relative to men. Research findings in China, however, do not seem to support this argument. We use data from the 2010 Chinese General Social Survey to reexamine this argument by testing a model of the mediation effects of postmaterialism, environmental knowledge, and the New Ecological Paradigm, as well as a model of the moderation effect of postmaterialism. Our results show that lower levels of environmental knowledge of Chinese women relative to men hinder their participation in private environmental behaviors. There is also some evidence for the moderation effect of postmaterialism. We conclude this study by stating theoretical and policy implications of our findings, and offering insights for future research.
AhernL. (2012). The role of media system development in the emergence of postmaterialist values and environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 538-557. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00848.x
2.
BergquistM.NilssonA. (2016). I saw the sign: Promoting energy conservation via normative prompts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.005
3.
BlockerT. J.EckbergD. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 841-858.
4.
BordR. J.O’ConnorR. E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830-840.
5.
BrechinS. R. (1999). Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: Evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 793-809.
6.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
7.
DagherG.ItaniO.KassarA. N. (2015). The impact of environmental concern and attitude on green purchasing behavior: Gender as the moderator. Contemporary Management Research, 11, 179-206. doi:10.7903/cmr.13625
8.
DavidsonD. J.FreudenburgW. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339.
9.
DietzT.DanA.ShwomR. (2007.). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72, 185-214. doi:10.1526/003601107781170026
10.
DietzT.KalofL.SternP. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 353-364. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088
11.
DunlapR. E.van LiereK.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
12.
DunlapR. E.YorkR. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly, 49, 529-563. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00127.x
13.
FranzenA.MeyerR. (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
14.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141-157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034
15.
HadlerM. (2013). Environmental behaviors in a transatlantic view: Public and private actions in the United States, Canada, Germany, and the Czech republic, 1993-2010. International Journal of Sociology, 43, 87-108. doi:10.2753/IJS0020-7659430403
16.
HadlerM.HallerM. (2011). Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. International Sociology, 26, 315-345. doi:10.1177/0268580910392258
17.
HayesB. C. (2001). Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 657-671. doi:10.1177/106591290105400309
18.
HongD.FanY.XiaoC. (2014). Examining the application of Chinese version of the NEP (CNEP): A study based on 2010 Chinese General Social Survey. Sociological Studies, 172, 49-72. (In Chinese)
19.
HunterL. M.HatchA.JohnsonA. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677-694. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x
20.
InglehartR. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
JagersS. C.MartinssonJ.MattiS. (2016). The environmental psychology of the ecological citizen: Comparing competing models of pro-environmental behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 97, 1005-1022. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12313
KiddQ.LeeA. (1997). Postmaterialist values and the environment: A critique and reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 1-16.
24.
KvaløyB.FinseraasH.ListhaugO. (2012). The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. Journal of Peace Research, 49, 11-22. doi:10.1177/0022343311425841
25.
LiuX.MuR. (2016). Public environmental concern in China: Determinants and variations. Global Environmental Change, 37, 116-127. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.008
26.
López-MosqueraN. (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
27.
MaciasT.WilliamsK. (2016). Know your neighbors, save the planet: Social capital and the widening wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment and Behavior, 48, 391-420. doi:10.1177/0013916514540458
28.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x
29.
McCrightA. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population & Environment, 32, 66-87. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1
30.
McCrightA. M.XiaoC. (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
31.
MohaiP.SimõesS.BrechinS. R. (2010). Environmental concerns, values and meanings in the Beijing and Detroit metropolitan areas. International Sociology, 25, 778-817. doi:10.1177/0268580910378138
32.
MorrenM. H.GrinsteinA. (2016). Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 91-106. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.003
33.
NawrotzkiR. J. (2012). The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organization & Environment, 25, 286-307. doi:10.1177/1086026612456535
34.
NewmanT. P.FernandesR. (2016). A re-assessment of factors associated with environmental concern and behavior using 2010 General Social Survey. Environmental Education Research, 22, 153-175. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.999227
35.
OatesC. J.McDonaldS. (2006). Recycling and the Domestic Division of Labor: Is Green Pink or Blue?Sociology, 40(3): 417-433.
36.
PiraniE.SecondiL. (2011). Eco-Friendly Attitudes: What European Citizens Say and What They Do. International Journal of Environmetnal Research, 5(1): 67-84.
37.
PisanoI.LubellM. (2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49, 31-58. doi:10.1177/0013916515600494
38.
SeebauerS.FleißJ.SchweighartM. (2016). A household is not a person: Consistency of pro-environmental behavior in adult couples and the accuracy of proxy-reports. Environment and Behavior, 49, 603-637. doi:10.1177/0013916516663796
39.
ShieldsT.ZengK. (2012). The reverse environmental gender gap in china: Evidence from “the China survey.”Social Science Quarterly, 93(1), 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00802.x
40.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuaganoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
41.
StrapkoN.HempelL.MacIlroyK.SmithK. (2016). Gender differences in environmental concern: Reevaluating gender socialization. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 1015-1031. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1138563
42.
TakahashiB.SelfaT. (2015). Predictors of pro-environmental behavior in rural American communities. Environment and Behavior, 47, 856-876. doi:10.1177/0013916514521208
43.
TindallD. B.DaviesS.MauboulesC. (2003). Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 909-932. doi:10.1080/716100620
44.
WangZ.GuoD.WangX. (2016). Determinants of residents’ e-waste recycling behavior intentions: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 850-860. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.155
45.
XiaoC.DunlapR. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A U.S.-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 471-493. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00467.x
46.
XiaoC.HongD. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and Environment, 32, 88-104. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z
47.
XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2014). A test of the biographical availability argument for gender differences in environmental behaviors. Environment and Behaviors, 46, 241-263. doi:10.1177/0013916512453991
48.
YangR.LongR. (2016). Analysis of the influencing factors of the public willingness to participate in public bicycle projects and intervention strategies—A case study of Jiangsu province, China. Sustainability, 8, 349. doi:10.3390/su8040349
49.
YangS.ZhangY.ZhaoD. (2016). Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and indirect ways in China? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics. Energy Policy, 93, 196-205. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.018
50.
ZhaoX. (2012). Personal values and environmental concern in China and the US: The mediating role of informational media use. Communication Monographs, 79, 137-159. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.672999
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.
