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.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
ArnockyS.StroinkM. L. (2011). Gender differences in environmental concern and cooperation: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16, 1-14.
4.
BarniD.RanieriS.ScabiniE.RosnatiR. (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
5.
BaxterJ.KaneE. W. (1995). Dependence and independence: A cross-national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender & Society, 9, 193-215. doi:10.1177/089124395009002004
6.
BlockerT. J.EckbergD. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 841-858.
7.
BoerD.FischerR. (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
8.
BondR.SmithP. 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
9.
CostaP.Jr.TerraccianoA.McCraeR. 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.
DavidsonD. J.FreudenburgW. 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.
DietzT.KalofL.SternP. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 353-364. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088
12.
DunlapR. E.JonesR. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In DunlapR. E.MichelsonW. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
13.
EislerA. D.EislerH.YoshidaM. (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.
FischerR.BoerD. (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.
FranzenA. (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.
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
17.
FranzenA.VoglD. (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.
GelissenJ. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39, 392-415. doi:10.1177/0013916506292014
19.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (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.
GivensJ. E.JorgensonA. 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.
GivensJ. E.JorgensonA. 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.
GreenfieldP. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401-418. doi:10.1037/a0014726
23.
GrusecJ. E.GoodnowJ. 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.
HawcroftL. J.MilfontT. 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.
HirshJ. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 245-248. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.004
26.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Culture and organization: Software for the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
29.
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
30.
InglehartR. (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.
InglehartR. (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.
JoiremanJ.LiuR. 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.
KemmelmeierM.KrόlG.KimY. H. (2002). Values, economics, and proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 256-285. doi:10.1177/10697102036003004
KlöcknerC. 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.
KnafoA.AssorA. (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.
KovácsJ.PántyaJ.MedvésD.HidegkutiI.HeimO.BursavichJ. 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.
KuczynskiL.ParkinC. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In GrusecJ. E.HastingsP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259-283). New York, NY: Gifford Press.
40.
LeeI. C.PrattoF.JohnsonB. 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.
LippaR. 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.
LippaR. A.CollaerM. L.PetersM. (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.
LoA. Y. (2016). National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 873-890. doi:10.1177/0963662515581302
44.
LönnqvistJ.-E.LeikasS.PaunonenS.NissinenV.VerkasaloM. (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-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
46.
LuchsM. G.MooradianT. 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.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (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-PyattS. 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.
McCrightA. 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.
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
51.
MilfontT. L. (2009). A functional approach to the study of environmental attitudes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 10, 235-252.
52.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. 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.
NezlekJ. 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.
NorenzayanA. (2011). Explaining human behavioral diversity. Science, 332, 1041-1042. doi:10.1126/science.1207050
55.
ParkH.LauA. 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.
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
57.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
58.
SchmittD. P.RealoA.VoracekM.AllikJ. (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.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
60.
SchwartzS. H.RubelT. (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.
SchwartzS. H.Rubel-LifschitzT. (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.
SibleyC. G.OsborneD.DuckittJ. (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.
SternP. 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.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002
66.
StrapkoN.HempelL.MacllroyK.SmithK. (2016). Gender differences in environmental concern: Reevaluating gender socialization. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 1015-1031. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1138563
VikanA.CaminoC.BiaggioA.NordvikH. (2007). Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm. Environment and Behavior, 39, 217-228. doi:10.1177/0013916506286946
69.
WelzelC.InglehartR. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97, 43-63. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z
70.
WelzelC.InglehartR.KlingemannH. 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.
WoodW.EaglyA. 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.
WoodW.EaglyA. 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
XiaoC.HongD. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and Environment, 32, 88-104. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z
75.
XiaoC.McCrightA. 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.
ZeleznyL. C.ChuaP.-P.AldrichC. (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.
