The present research investigates how the cultural value of collectivism interacts with socioeconomic status (SES) to influence the basis of action. Using a U.S. national sample (N = 2,538), the research examines how these sociocultural factors jointly moderate the strength of two precursors of environmental support: beliefs about climate change and perceived descriptive norms. SES and collectivism interacted with climate change beliefs such that beliefs predicted environmental support (i.e., proenvironmental behaviors and policy support) more strongly for those who were high in SES and low in collectivism than for all other groups. This interaction was explained, in part, by sense of control. For descriptive norms, SES and collectivism did not interact but rather norms predicted action most strongly for those high in collectivism and high in SES. These findings demonstrate the theoretical and applied importance of examining multiple sociocultural characteristics together to understand the factors that drive action.
American National Election Studies. (2016). The ANES 2016 Time Series Study. electionstudies.org
3.
AndoK.OhnumaS.ChangE. C. (2007). Comparing normative influences as determinants of environmentally conscious behaviours between the USA and Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00223.x
4.
BaldassareM.KatzC. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592245002
5.
BallewM. T.PearsonA. R.GoldbergM. H.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2020). Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Global Environmental Change, 60, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102024
6.
BondR.SmithP. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956)line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
7.
BrickC.ShermanD. K.KimH. S. (2017). “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
De GrootJ.StegL. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(8), 1817–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x
10.
DuttonD. B.LevineS. (1989). Overview, methodological critique, and reformulation. In BunkerJ. P.GombyD. S.KehrerB. H. (Eds.), Pathways to health: The role of social factors (pp. 29–69). Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
11.
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. K. (2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009
12.
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. K.IshiiK. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1331–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660078
13.
EomK.PapadakisV.ShermanD. K.KimH. S. (2019). The psychology of proenvironmental support: In search of global solutions for a global problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854099
14.
EomK.SaadC.KimH. S. (2020). Religiosity moderates the link between environmental beliefs and pro-environmental support: The role of belief in a controlling god. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220948712
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ. (2017). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51(2017), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.010
17.
GieferM. M.PetersonM. N.ChenX. (2019). Interactions among locus of control, environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour in China. Environmental Conservation, 46(3), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291900004
18.
GoldsteinN. J.CialdiniR. B.GriskeviciusV. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
19.
GreavesM.ZibarrasL. D.StrideC. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003
20.
GrossmannI.VarnumM. E. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610377119
21.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998
HofstedeG.HofstedeG.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
24.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
KashimaY.SiegalM.TanakaK.KashimaE. (1992). Do people believe behaviours are consistent with attitudes? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00959
27.
KimH. S.LawrieS. I. (2019). Culture and motivation. In CohenD.KitayamaS. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 268–291). Guilford Press.
28.
KimH. S.MarkusH. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77800(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785
29.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self- expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1
30.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K.UpdegraffJ. A. (2016). Fear of Ebola: The influence of collectivism on xenophobic threat responses. Psychological Science, 27(7), 935–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616642596
31.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
32.
LachmanM. E.WeaverS. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
33.
LenzenM.SunY. Y.FaturayF.TingY. P.GeschkeA.MalikA. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
34.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In KitayamaS.MarkusH. R. (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 89–130). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10152-003
MiyamotoY.YooJ.LevineC. S.ParkJ.BoylanJ. M.SimsT.MarkusH. R.KitayamaS.KawakamiN.KarasawaM.CoeC. L.LoveG. D.RyffC. D. (2018). Culture and social hierarchy: Self- and other-oriented correlates of socioeconomic status across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000133
MorlingB.KitayamaS.MiyamotoY. (2003). American and Japanese women use different coping strategies during normal pregnancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256878
39.
NaJ.McDonoughI. M.ChanM. Y.ParkD. C. (2016). Social class differences in consumer choices: Working-class individuals are more sensitive to choices of others than middle-class individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216634043
40.
NielsenK. S.ClaytonS.SternP. C.DietzT.CapstickS.WhitmarshL. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624
41.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P. (2018). A diversity science approach to climate change. In ClaytonS.ManningC. (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses (pp. 95–124). Academic Press.
44.
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P.Romero-CanyasR.BallewM. T.Larson-KonarD. (2018). Diverse segments of the US public underestimate the environmental concerns of minority and low-income Americans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12429–12434. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804698115
RothbaumR.WeiszJ. R.SnyderS. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5
47.
RotterJ. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
48.
SavaniK.MarkusH. R.ConnerA. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011618
49.
SchuldtJ. P.PearsonA. R. (2016). The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization: Evidence from a US national survey experiment. Climatic Change, 136(3–4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1631-3
50.
SchuldtJ. P.PearsonA. R.Romero-CanyasR.Larson-KonarD. (2017). Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change. Climatic Change, 141(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1893-9
51.
ShteynbergG.GelfandM. J.KimK. (2009). Peering into the “magnum mysterium” of culture: The explanatory power of descriptive norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 46–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108326196
52.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
53.
SnibbeA. C.MarkusH. R. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703
54.
StephensN. M.MarkusH. R.TownsendS. S. M. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814
55.
TamK. P.ChanH. W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
56.
TriandisH. C.BontempoR.VillarealM. J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
57.
WeirT.DoveyL.OrchertonD. (2017). Social and cultural issues raised by climate change in Pacific Island countries: An overview. Regional Environmental Change, 17(4), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1012-5
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.
