Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-8
Multilevel Evidence for the Parent-Adolescent Dyadic Effect of Familiarity With Climate Change on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in 14 Societies: Moderating Effects of Societal Power Distance and Individualism
In the present study, we adopted a global view for exploring how parent–adolescent dyads influence one another’s pro-environmental behaviors across 14 societies. We evaluated whether their own and the other’s familiarity with climate change are linked with their pro-environmental behaviors between parents and adolescents. We also explored the moderating role of societal power distance and individualism on these dyadic effects. We tested hypotheses using the data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2018 (including 62,080 parent–adolescent dyads from 14 societies). Conducting multilevel actor–partner interdependence models, we found that parents’ and adolescents’ familiarity with climate change generally predicted their own and the other’s pro-environmental behaviors within a family context in most societies. More importantly, the dyadic patterns were stronger in societies with lower levels of power distance or higher levels of individualism. Finally, we discuss the implications of promoting pro-environmental behaviors from a cultural perspective and a dyadic approach.
AiP.LiW.YangW. (2021). Adolescents’ social media use and their voluntary garbage sorting intention: A sequential mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 8119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158119
2.
AndoK.YorifujiK.OhnumaS.MatthiesE.KanbaraA. (2015). Transmitting pro-environmental behaviors to the next generation: A comparison between Germany and Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12078
3.
BallantyneR.FienJ.PackerJ. (2001). Program effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109598657
4.
BalundėA.PerlaviciuteG.Truskauskaitė-KunevičienėI. (2020). Sustainability in youth: Environmental considerations in adolescence and their relationship to pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 582920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582920
BocchiA.PalmieroM.RedondoJ. M. C.TascónL.NoriR.PiccardiL. (2021). The role of gender and familiarity witha modified version of the almeria boxes room spatial task. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 681. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060681
8.
BradleyG. L.BabutsidzeZ.ChaiA.ReserJ. P. (2020). The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410
9.
BronfenbrennerU. (1987). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
10.
BruléG. (2022). Evaluation of existing indexes of sustainable well-being and propositions for improvement. Sustainability, 14, 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14021027
11.
ChanK.McNealJ. U. (2003). Parent-child communications about consumption and advertising in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760310483685
12.
ChenB.VansteenkisteM.BeyersW.SoenensB.Van PetegemS. (2013). Autonomy in family decision making for Chinese adolescents: Disentangling the dual meaning of autonomy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1184–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113480038
13.
CiprianiM.GiulianoP.JeanneO. (2013). Like mother like son? Experimental evidence on the transmission of values from parents to children. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.002
14.
CollC. G.CrnicK.LambertyG.WasikB. H.JenkinsR.GarciaH. V.McAdooH. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x
15.
ColladoS.EvansG. W. (2019). Outcome expectancy: A key factor to understanding childhood exposure to nature and children’s pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.001
16.
ColladoS.StaatsH.SanchoP. (2019). Normative influences on adolescents’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of parents and friends. Environment and Behavior, 51, 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517744591
17.
CookW. L.KennyD. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405
18.
DamerellP.HoweC.Milner-GullandE. J. (2013). Child-orientated environmental education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 015016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015016
19.
DongC.CaoS.LiH. (2020). Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105440
20.
EisemanD. L.ArmstrongA. K.ChatrchyanA. M. (2020). Designing an extension climate stewards volunteer program: incorporating sense of community, social practice, and self-efficacy theories. Environmental Education Research, 26, 1636–1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1811841
21.
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. K.IshiiK. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27, 1331–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660078
22.
FremstadA.UnderwoodA.ZahranS. (2018). The environmental impact of sharing: household and urban economies in CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics, 145, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.024
23.
GarciaF.SerraE.GarciaO. F.MartinezI.CruiseE. (2019). A third emerging stage for the current digital society? Optimal parenting styles in Spain, the United States, Germany, and Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132333
24.
GentinaE.MuratoreI. (2012). Environmentalism at home: The process of ecological resocialization by teenagers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.373
25.
GentinaE.SinghP. (2015). How national culture and parental style affect the process of adolescents’ ecological resocialization. Sustainability, 7, 7581–7603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067581
26.
GoldsteinB.GounaridisD.NewellJ. P. (2020). The carbon footprint of household energy use in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 19122–19130. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922205117
27.
GongY.LiJ.XieJ.ZhangL.LouQ. (2022). Will “green” parents have “green” children? The relationship between parents’ and early adolescents’ green consumption values. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04835-y
28.
GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002
29.
GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2012). Action speaks louder than words: The effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents’ pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.001
30.
GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2017). Why young people do things for the environment: The role of parenting for adolescents’ motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.005
GuanX.LiX. (2017). A cross-cultural examination of family communication patterns, parent-child closeness, and conflict styles in the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Family Communication, 17, 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1293062
33.
HoC.BluesteinD. N.JenkinsJ. M. (2008). Cultural differences in the relationship between parenting and children’s behavior. Developmental Psychology, 44, 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.507
34.
HofferthS. L. (2003). Race/ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families: Culture, context, or economy?Journal of Family Issues, 24, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X02250087
35.
HofstedeG. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01733682
36.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations Across Nations (2nd ed). SAGE.
37.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
38.
HomburgA.StolbergA. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.003
39.
HoppeI.TaddickenM.ReifA. (2018). What do people know about climate change—And how confident are they? On measurements and analyses of science related knowledge. Journal of Science Communication, 17, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030201
40.
HuppertE.CowellJ. M.ChengY.Contreras-IbáñezC.Gomez-SicardN.Gonzalez-GadeaM. L....DecetyJ. (2019). The development of children’s preferences for equality and equity across 13 individualistic and collectivist cultures. Developmental science, 22, e12729. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12729
41.
ItoK.LeungA. K.-Y.HuangT. (2020). Why do cosmopolitan individuals tend to be more pro-environmentally committed? The mediating pathways via knowledge acquisition and emotional affinity toward nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101395
42.
JanmaimoolP.KhajohnmaneeS. (2019). Roles of environmental system knowledge in promoting university students’ environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainability, 11, 4270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164270
43.
JiaF.YuH. (2021). Action, communication, and engagement: how parents “ACE” children’s pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101575
44.
Katz-GerroT.GreenspanI.HandyF.VeredY. (2020). Environmental behavior in three countries: The role of intergenerational transmission and domains of socialization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101343
45.
KimS. S.ReedP. G.HaywardR. D.KangY.KoenigH. G. (2011). Spirituality and psychological well-being: Testing a theory of family interdependence among family caregivers and their elders. Research in Nursing & Health, 34, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20425
46.
LansfordJ. E.ZietzS.Al-HassanS. M.BacchiniD.BornsteinM. H.ChangL.Deater-DeckardK.Di GiuntaL.DodgeK. A.GurdalS.LiuQ.OburuP.PastorelliC.SkinnerA. T.SorbringE.TapanyaS.SteinbergL.Uribe TiradoL. M.YotanyamaneewongS.AlampayL. P. (2021). Culture and social change in mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism and parenting attitudes. Social Sciences, 10, 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10120459
47.
LiL. M. W.MeiD.LiW.-Q.LeeH. (2020). The relationship between dialectical beliefs and pro-environmental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 52, 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518799821
48.
LindseyE. W.CalderaY. M. (2006). Mother–father–child triadic interaction and mother–child dyadic interaction: Gender differences within and between contexts. Sex Roles, 55(7), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9106-z
49.
LiuP.TengM.HanC. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126
50.
LoA. Y.ChowA. T. (2015). The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Climatic Change, 131, 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1378-2
51.
LouX.LiL. M. W. (2021). The relationship between identity and environmental concern: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101653
52.
LouX.LiL. M. W. (2022). The mediating role of self-enhancement value on the relationship of power distance and individualism with pro-environmental attitudes: Evidence from multilevel mediation analysis with 52 Societies. Cross-Cultural Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971221093122
53.
MasudM. M.AkhtarR.AfrozR.Al-AminA. Q.KariF. B. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior and public understanding of climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20, 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9509-4
54.
McQuillanM. E.SmithL. B.YuC.BatesJ. E. (2020). Parents influence the visual learning environment through children’s manual actions. Child Development, 91, e701–e720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13274
55.
MeeusenC. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of environmental concern: The influence of parents and communication patterns within the family. The Journal of Environmental Education, 45, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.846290
56.
MertensS.d’HaenensL. (2014). Parental mediation of internet use and cultural values across Europe: Investigating the predictive power of the Hofstedian paradigm. Communications, 39, 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0018
57.
MiaoL.WeiW. (2013). Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.008
58.
MilfontT. L. (2010). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In Corral-VerdugoV.García-CadenaC. H.Frías-ArmentM. (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice (pp. 19–42). Nova Science Publishers.
59.
MurilloS. A. (2013). Urban population knowledge of climate change in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Revista Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Económico, 19, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.35319/lajed.201319108
60.
MuroiS. K.BertoneE. (2019). From thoughts to actions: The importance of climate change education in enhancing students’ self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 35, 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2019.12
61.
OjalaM.BengtssonH. (2018). Young people’s coping strategies concerning climate change: Relations to perceived communication with parents and friends and pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51, 907–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518763894
62.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
63.
OzdemirS.ÖzdemirM.BoersmaK. (2021). How does adolescents’ openness to diversity change over time? The role of majority-minority friendship, friends’ views, and classroom social context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01329-4
64.
PatelJ.ModiA.PaulJ. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5
65.
Pavalache-IlieM.CazanA. M. (2018). Personality correlates of pro-environmental attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 28, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2018.1429576
PinheiroJBatesD.DebRoyS.SarkarD., & R Core Team. (2021). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package Version 3.1-152, 3(57), 1–89. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
68.
PinquartM.KauserR. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149
69.
PisanoI.LubellM. (2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49, 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515600494
70.
PrendergastK.HaywardB.AoyagiM.BurninghamK.HasanM. M.JacksonT.JhaV.KurokiL.LoukianovA.MattarH.SchudelI.VennS.YoshidaA. (2021). Youth attitudes and participation in climate protest: An international cities comparison frontiers in political science special issue: Youth activism in environmental politics. Frontiers in Political Science, 107, 696105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.696105
71.
RatinenI. (2021). Students’ knowledge of climate change, mitigation and adaptation in the context of constructive hope. Education Sciences, 11, 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030103
72.
RudyD.GrusecJ. E. (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.68
SabatierC. (2008). Ethnic and national identity among second-generation immigrant adolescents in France: The role of social context and family. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.08.001
75.
ShohamA.DalakasV. (2003). Family consumer decision making in Israel: The role of teens and parents. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760310472263
76.
SinghP.SahadevS.OatesC. J.AlevizouP. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior in families: A reverse socialization perspective. Journal of Business Research, 115, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.047
77.
SongL.GolinkoffR. M.StuehlingA.ResnickI.MahajanN.Hirsh-PasekK.ThompsonN. (2017). Parents’ and experts’ awareness of learning opportunities in children’s museum exhibits. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 49, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.01.006
78.
StraubC. L.LeahyJ. E. (2017). Intergenerational environmental communication: Child influence on parent environmental knowledge and behavior. Natural Sciences Education, 46, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2016.06.0018
79.
TamK.-P.ChanH.-W. (2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change, 48, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenv cha.2017.12.001
80.
TamK. P.MilfontT. L. (2020). Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101474
81.
TamK.LeungA. K.-Y.ClaytonS. (2021). Research on climate change in social psychology publications: A systematic review. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12477
82.
TraynorA.RaykovT. (2013). Household possessions indices as wealth measures: A validity evaluation. Comparative Education Review, 57, 662–688. https://doi.org/10.1086/671423
UmuhireM. L.FangQ. (2016). Method and application of ocean environmental awareness measurement: Lessons learnt from university students of China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102, 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.067
85.
VaughanC.GackJ.SolarazanoH.RayR. (2003). The effect of environmental education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: A study of intergenerational and intercommunity learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34, 12–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960309603489
86.
WallisH.KlöcknerC. (2020). The transmission of energy-saving behaviors in the family: A multilevel approach to the assessment of aggregated and single energy-saving actions of parents and adolescents. Environment and Behavior, 52(3), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518802342
87.
WallisH.LoyL. S. (2021). What drives pro-environmental activism of young people? A survey study on the Fridays for future movement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101581
88.
WinterichK. P.ZhangY. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/675927
WuX. Y.LuW. J. (2013). A study on environmental attitude, environmental behavior and environment issues of living place: The questionnaire survey for some dwellers in Shenzhen. Applied Mechanics and Materials,368, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.368-370.290
XuX.TanY.ChenS.YangG.SuW. (2015). Urban household carbon emission and contributing factors in the Yangtze River Delta, China. PLOS ONE, 10, e0121604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121604
93.
YouM.JuY. (2020). The outrage effect of personal stake, familiarity, effects on children, and fairness on climate change risk perception moderated by political orientation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6722. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186722
94.
ZhangJ.GhorbaniA. A. (2004, October). Familiarity and trust: Measuring familiarity with a web site. Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference on Privacy, Trust and Security (pp. 23–28). Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
95.
ŽukauskienėR.Truskauskaitė-KunevičienėI.GabėV.KaniušonytėG. (2020). “My words matter”: The role of adolescents in changing pro-environmental habits in the family. Environment and Behavior, 53(10), 1140–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520953150
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.
