Research Statement
What is the relationship between environmental values and pro-environmental behaviour in individualistic (German) and collectivistic (Armenian) cultures? How does the effect of the values on pro-environmental behaviour compare in both cultures? Does the social identity approach, such as promoting pro-environmental in group norm, have an effect on statements about future environmental behaviour in participants’ daily life?
H1: Do the environmental values in Armenia(collectivistic culture) have a positive effect on pro-environmental behaviour?
H2: Do the environmental values in Germany(individualistic culture) significantly affect pro-environmental behavior more than in Armenia(collectivistic culture)?
H3: Do strong Biospheric values indicate strong pro-environmental behaviour and vice versa?
H4: Does the pro-environmental in-group message have a positive effect on the statement about future environmental behaviour in both countries?
Research design
For the research, an online survey is conducted by web-based questionnaire portal Lime Survey and in the survey participated total of 144 people from Germany and Armenia, 72 participants from each country. To attract enough participants for this research, the lottery was played, and from all participants, 5 persons had a chance to win a up to 20,00-euro gift card, the winners will be identified randomly, and the questionnaire is distributed online on social networks like Facebook.
The survey consists of 5 sections. In the first part of my survey, I asked the participants in case they win the money (20-euro gift card), what percentage they be willing to donate to Environmental Organizations such as The Armenian Environmental Network (for Armenian participants)/WWF Deutschland (for German participants)? With answer options of 0%, 25%, 50% or 100%. Half of the participants from each country, 36 from Germany and 36 from Armenia, in addition to the donation question, were provided additional positive injunctive norm message: “In a previous survey, the majority of young people support actions that protect the environment”.
In the second section, participants answered demographic questions, such as age, gender, education, and salary. To ensure that participants can represent the country’s demographic and are familiar with the country’s culture, they answered if they have citizenship or have been living in the country for more than 5 years.
The third part of the section consists of 10 pro-environmental behaviour questions with 5 scale Likert choices, ranging from “never” to “always”. As stated, pro-environmental behavior can be defined as all possible actions aimed at avoiding harm to and/or safeguarding the environment (Steg and Vlek, 2009). The questions are about recycling, water and electricity usage, product preference, and so on. These questions are designed to assess the extent to which individuals engage in these and other environmentally responsible actions. The responses to these questions can help researchers or organizations understand people’s behaviors related to environmental conservation and sustainability. This information can be valuable for designing interventions, policies, or campaigns aimed at promoting pro-environmental behaviors within communities or populations.
The fourth section consists of 17 value questions with a Likert rating scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The 17 questions further consist of 4 values: Biospheric (4), Altruistic (5), Hedonic (3) and Egoistic (5). These values represent different dimensions of human values and can influence individuals’ behavior, attitudes, and decision-making in various aspects of life. Their relative importance can vary from person to person. Understanding these values can provide insights into individuals’ motivations and priorities.
Biospheric values are related to concerns for the environment and the well-being of the planet. People who prioritize biospheric values are often motivated by a desire to protect and preserve nature, conserve resources, and reduce harm to the environment. These values reflect a strong ecological and sustainability orientation.
Altruistic values emphasize the importance of selflessness, empathy, and concern for others. Individuals who hold altruistic values are motivated by a genuine desire to help and support others, often at their own expense. These values promote actions that benefit the welfare and well-being of others.
Hedonic values are associated with the pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment, and personal gratification. People who prioritize hedonic values seek experiences and activities that bring them joy, happiness, and positive emotions. These values emphasize personal well-being and immediate gratification.
Egoistic values are centered on self-interest, personal achievement, and the pursuit of one’s own goals and desires. Individuals who prioritize egoistic values may be more focused on their own success, material wealth, and personal advancement. These values prioritize individual well-being and success.
The last section includes 6 statements from the “Dimensions of Culture Questionnaire”, which assesses participants’ cultural dimensions and compares them to existing results from Hofstede’s 6-D cultural model. It is possible our sample may have different dimensions which must be accounted for in the results. From Hofstede’s 6-D cultural model in Armenia two highest scores are from power distance (85) and uncertainty avoidance (88), meanwhile, the lowest is individualism (22). In Germany, the scores are the opposite: power distance (35), individualism (67), and uncertainty avoidance (65). Understanding these cultural dimensions can be crucial for interpreting participants’ attitudes, behaviors, and responses within their cultural context. It suggests that participants from Armenia and Germany may bring different cultural perspectives to the study, which can influence their perceptions and responses.
2 hours ago
Your research aims to examine the relationship between environmental values and pro-environmental behavior in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. This is an important area of study with real-world implications. Comparing cultures can provide useful insights into universal and culture-specific factors that influence sustainable behaviors.
Your hypotheses seem well-founded based on existing literature. Research has found biospheric values tend to correlate with pro-environmental actions across cultures (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Stern, 2000). However, the strength of this relationship may differ depending on individualistic versus collectivistic orientations (Jugert et al., 2016). And social norms can motivate behavior to a greater degree in collectivistic contexts (Schwartz, 1992).
Your proposed methodology is sound. An online survey with participants from Germany and Armenia allows a cross-cultural design to test your hypotheses. Including demographic questions and cultural value measures provides necessary context. The pro-environmental behavior and value scales have been widely used and demonstrated reliability (De Groot & Steg, 2007; Stern et al., 1999).
A few suggestions – You may want to include a consent form to ensure ethical treatment of participants. Also, consider adding an attention/comprehension check to screen out random responses. Translating materials properly for Armenia is important for validity. Finally, recruiting a larger sample would increase statistical power.
In summary, your research questions address an important topic, and your proposed methodology is well-suited. Implementing some minor adjustments could strengthen the study. I wish you the best in conducting this cross-cultural research on factors influencing sustainable behaviors. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and behavior, 40(3), 330-354.
De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (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.
Jugert, P., Greenaway, K. H., Barth, M., Büchner, R., Eisentraut, S., & Fritsche, I. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12-23.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in human ecology, 6(2), 81-97.
