Date: 18 Nov 2012
Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This study explores value change across cohorts for a multinational population sample. Employing a diffusion-of-innovations approach, we combine competing theories predicting the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and environmentalism: post-materialism and affluence theories, and global environmentalism theory. The diffusion argument suggests that high-SES groups first adopt pro-environmental views, but as time passes by, environmentalism diffuses to lower-SES groups. We test the diffusion argument using a sample of 18 countries for two waves (years 1993 and 2000) from the International Social Survey Project. Cross-classified multilevel modeling allows us to identify a nonlinear interaction between cohort and education, our core measure of SES, in predicting environmental concern, while controlling for age and period. We find support for the diffusion argument and demonstrate that the positive effect of education on environmental concern first increases among older cohorts and then starts to level off until a bend point is reached for individuals born around 1940 and becomes progressively weaker for younger cohorts.
Abramson, P. R. (1997). Postmaterialism and environmentalism: A comment on an analysis and a reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 21–23.
Adeola, F. O. (2004). Environmentalism and risk perception: Empirical analysis of black and white differentials and convergence. Society & Natural Resources, 17, 911–939.CrossRef
Adeola, F. O. (2007). Nativity and environmental risk perception: An empirical study of native-born and foreign-born residents of the USA. Human Ecology Review, 14, 13–25.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brechin, S. R. (1999). Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: Evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 793–809.
Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1994). Global environmentalism: A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 245–269.
Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1997). Beyond postmaterialist values: National versus individual explanations of global environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 16–20.
Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103–124.CrossRef
Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10, 237–256.
Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1974). The structure of support for the environmental movement, 1968–1970. Rural Sociology, 39, 56–69.
Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs: A reconsideration. Environment and Behavior, 10, 433–450.CrossRef
Casterline, J. B. (2001). Diffusion processes and fertility transition: Introduction. In John. B. Casterline (Ed.), Diffusion processes and fertility transition: Selected perspectives (pp. 1–38). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.CrossRef
Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31, 540–549.CrossRef
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441–472.CrossRef
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335–372.CrossRef
Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G., & Gallup, A. (1992). The health of the planet survey: A preliminary report on attitudes toward the environment and economic growth measured by surveys of citizens in 22 nations to date. Princeton, NJ: Gallup International Institute.
Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51, 121–137.CrossRef
Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1997). Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 24–29.
Dunlap, R. E., & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. Sociological Quarterly, 49, 529–563.CrossRef
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 15(2), 210–220.CrossRef
Fischer, C. S. (1978). Urban-to-rural diffusion of opinions in contemporary America. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 151–159.CrossRef
Fischer, C. S., & Hout, M. (2006). Century of difference: How America changed in the last one hundred years. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A., & Schofer, E. (2000). The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 96–116.CrossRef
Frank, D. J., Longhofer, W., & Schofer, E. (2007). Wold Society, NGOs, and environmental policy reform in Asia. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48(4–5), 275–295.CrossRef
Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297–308.CrossRef
Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26, 219–234.CrossRef
Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection—A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39, 392–415.CrossRef
Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2011). The effects of affluence, economic development, and environmental degradation on environmental concern: A multilevel analysis. [Article]. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 74–91.CrossRef
Hamilton, L. C., Colocousis, C. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2010). Place effects on environmental views. Rural Sociology, 75, 326–347.CrossRef
Hunter, L. M., Strife, S., & Twine, W. (2010). Environmental perceptions of rural South African residents: The complex nature of environmental concern. Society & Natural Resources, 23, 525–541.CrossRef
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 57–72.CrossRef
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Abramson, P. R. (1994). Economic-security and value change. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 336–354.CrossRef
Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57, 28–47.CrossRef
Kahn, M. E. (2002). Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 45–62.CrossRef
Kanagy, C. L., Humphrey, C. R., & Firebaugh, G. (1994). Surging environmentalism: Changing public opinion or changing publics? Social Science Quarterly, 75, 804–819.
Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G., & Kim, Y. H. (2002). Values, economics, and proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 256–285.CrossRef
Kidd, Q., & Lee, A.-R. (1997). Postmaterialist values and the environment: A critique and reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 1–15.
Klineberg, S. L., McKeever, M., & Rothenbach, B. (1998). Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 734–753.
Knight, K. W., & Messer, B. L. (2012). Environmental concern in cross-national perspective: The effects of affluence, environmental degradation, and world society. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 521–537.
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K. H., Haberl, H., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2696–2705.CrossRef
Longhofer, W., & Schofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505–533.CrossRef
Lubinski, D., Schmidt, D. B., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). A 20-year stability analysis of the study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood. [Article]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 443–451.CrossRef
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psychology in action—Revised scale for measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30, 787–790.CrossRef
Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2008). Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1312–1335.CrossRef
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011a). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 21(4), 1163–1172.CrossRef
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011b). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.CrossRef
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. [Review]. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.CrossRef
Meyer, R., & Liebe, U. (2010). Are the affluent prepared to pay for the planet? Explaining willingness to pay for public and quasi-private environmental goods in Switzerland. Population and Environment, 32, 42–65.CrossRef
Mohai, P., & Twight, B. W. (1987). Age and environmentalism: An elaboration of the Buttel model using national survey evidence. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 798–815.
Montgomery, M. R., & Casterline, J. B. (1993). The diffusion of fertility control in Taiwan: Evidence from pooled cross-section time-series models. Population Studies, 47, 457–479.CrossRef
Morrison, D. E. (1986). How and why environmental consciousness has trickled down. In A. Schnaiberg, N. Watts, & K. Zimmermann (Eds.), Distributional conflicts in environmental-resource policy (pp. 187–220). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mostafa, M. M. (2011). Wealth, post-materialism and consumer’s pro-environmental intentions: A multilevel analysis across 25 nations. Sustainable Development. doi:10.1002/sd.517.
Nam, C. B., & Powers, M. G. (1965). Variations in socioeconomic structure by race, residence, and the life-cycle. American Sociological Review, 30(1), 97–103.CrossRef
Nam, C. B., & Terrie, W. E. (1982). Measurement of socioeconomic status from United States census data. In M. G. Powers (Ed.), Measures of socioeconomic status (pp. 29–42). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Oakes, J. M., & Rossi, P. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine, 56(4), 769–784.CrossRef
Pampel, F. C. (2011). Support for nuclear energy in the context of climate change: Evidence from the European Union. Organization & Environment, 24(3), 249–268.CrossRef
Pampel, F. C., & Hunter, L. M. (2012). Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending. American Journal of Sociology, 118(2), 420–448.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71, 191–210.CrossRef
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.CrossRef
Schofer, E., & Hironaka, A. (2005). The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Social Forces, 84(1), 25–47.CrossRef
Shandra, J. M., Shor, E., & London, B. (2009). World polity, unequal ecological exchange, and organic water pollution: A cross-national analysis of developing nations. Human Ecology Review, 16(1), 53–63.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRef
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.CrossRef
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.CrossRef
Uyeki, E. S., & Holland, L. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 646–662.CrossRef
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651–676.CrossRef
Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (Edited and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.CrossRef
Whittaker, M., Segura, G. M., & Bowler, S. (2005). Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: Is “environmentalism” still a white phenomenon? Political Research Quarterly, 58, 435–447.
Wilson, J. A., & Gove, W. R. (1999). The intercohort decline in verbal ability: Does it exist? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 253–266.CrossRef
Winkleby, M. A., Jatulis, D. E., Frank, E., & Fortmann, S. P. (1992). Socioeconomic-status and health—How education, income, and occupation contribute to risk-factors for cardiovascular-disease. American Journal of Public Health, 82(6), 816–820.CrossRef
Xiao, C. Y., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A US-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 471–493.CrossRef
Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2006). A mixed models approach to the age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 75–97.CrossRef
- Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis
Population and Environment
Volume 35, Issue 1 , pp 1-25
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Environmental concern
- Affluence hypothesis
- Post-materialist hypothesis
- Cohort change
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institute of Behavioral Science, CU Population Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, UCB 483, C435B, 4th Floor, 1440 15th Street, Boulder, CO, 80302, USA
- 2. Institute of Behavioral Science, CU Population Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1440 15th Street, Boulder, CO, 80302, USA