Climatic Change

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 423–438 | Cite as

Collective responsibility framing also leads to mitigation behavior in East Asia: a replication study in Taiwan

  • Joseph P. Lavallee
  • Bruno Di GiustoEmail author
  • Tai-Yi Yu


Mitigating climate change will require the participation of citizens and consumers. A recent study in Climatic Change by Obradovich and Guenther reported that framing responsibility for climate change in terms of collective—as opposed to personal—behaviors generated greater donations to environmental groups as well as higher self-reported levels of willingness to adopt environmentally-friendly behaviors. As East Asia is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases globally, these findings are or clear relevance to the region. Nonetheless, recent findings in cultural psychology suggest that this framing intervention may not have the same results in an East Asian cultural context. We therefore sought to determine whether these findings could be replicated in East Asia. For this study, 2085 university students in Taiwan were randomly assigned to receive either a collective responsibility priming task, a personal responsibility priming task, or a daily routine priming task (control). They were then given the opportunity to donate to a climate-related cause and asked to report on their likelihood of changing their personal behaviors to reduce carbon emissions. Participants in the collective and personal conditions donated significantly more than those in the control condition and those in the personal responsibility condition reported significantly lower probabilities of changing their behaviors than those in both the control and collective responsibility conditions. Our study provides a partial replication with a different demographic group and in a different cultural setting, strengthening the argument for collective responsibility framing and setting the stage for research into practical implementations.



We are deeply grateful for the constructive comments and suggestions offered by the anonymous reviewers of the earlier versions of this manuscript.

Funding information

Support for this study was from Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (grant number 104-2410-H-130-020).

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2402_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37 kb).


  1. Arnett JJ (2008) The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. Am Psychol 63(7):602–614. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:'s mechanical Turk. Polit Anal 20(3):351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang.
  4. Bissing-Olson MJ, Fielding KS, Iyer A (2016) Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. J Environ Psychol 45:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanken I, van de Ven N, Zeelenberg M, Meijers MH (2014) Three attempts to replicate the moral licensing effect. Soc Psychol 45(3):232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden TA, Marland G, and Andres RJ (2017) National CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751–2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi
  7. Brick C, Lai CK (2018) Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences. J Environ Psychol 58:8–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon's mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C (2015) The climate change performance index: results 2016. Germanwatch, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C, Hohne N (2017) The climate change performance index: results 2018. Germanwatch, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen C, Lee SY, Stevenson HW (1995) Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among east Asian and north American students. Psychol Sci 6:170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper H, Patall EA (2009) The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychol Methods 14(2):165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Giusto B, Lavallee JP, Yu TY (2018) Towards an east Asian model of climate change awareness: a questionnaire study among university students in Taiwan. PLoS One 13(10):e0206298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Economy Watch (2016) Implied PPP Conversion Rate Data for Year 2016, All Countries. Retrieved from
  15. EIA (2013) International Energy Outlook 2013. US Energy Information Administration (EIA) Google Scholar
  16. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33(2–3):61–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IBM Corp Released. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 20.0. Armonk: IBM CorpGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC, 2018: Summary for policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed Dec 2018
  19. Johnson T, Kulesa P, Cho YI, Shavitt S (2005) The relation between culture and response styles: evidence from 19 countries. J Cross-Cult Psychol 36(2):264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitayama S, Markus HR, Matsumoto H, Norasakkunkit V (1997) Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. J Pers Soc Psychol 72(6):1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitayama S, Mesquita B, Karasawa M (2006) Cultural affordances and emotional experience: socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(5):890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitayama S, Park J (2013) Culture and the self: implications for consumer behavior. In: Ruvio AA, Belk RW (eds) The Routledge companion to identity and consumption. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee JW, Jones PS, Mineyama Y, Zhang XE (2002) Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Res Nurs Health 25(4):295–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li, N, Su, LY (2018) Message framing and climate change communication: a meta-analytical review. J Appl Commun, 102(3), doi:
  25. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 98(2):224–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1994) A collective fear of the collective: implications for selves and theories of selves. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 20(5):568–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mascolo MF, Fischer KW, Li J (2003) Dynamic development of component systems in emotions: pride, shame and guilt in China and the United States. In: Davidson RJ, Schere KR, Goldsmith HH (eds) Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 375–408Google Scholar
  28. McNeill BJ, Pauker SG, Sox H, Tversky A (1982) On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 306(2):1259–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mesquita B, Karasawa M (2004) Self-conscious emotions as dynamic cultural processes. Psychol Inq 15(2):161–166Google Scholar
  31. Obradovich N, Guenther SM (2016) Collective responsibility amplifies mitigation behaviors. Clim Chang 137(1–2):307–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G (2010) Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. Bmj 340:c221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria URL Google Scholar
  34. Schneider CR, Zaval L, Weber EU, Markowitz EM (2017) The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS One 12(11):e0188781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simonsohn U (2015) Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol Sci 26(5):559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stipek D (1998) Differences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances evoking pride, shame, and guilt. J Cross-Cult Psychol 29(5):616–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tauber S, van Zomeren M, Kutlaca M (2015) Should the moral core of climate issues be emphasized or downplayed in public discourse? Three ways to successfully manage the double-edged sword of moral communication. Clim Chang 130(3):453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas D, Radji S, Benedetti A (2014) Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta-analysis with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 14(1):79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tracy JL, Robins RW (2004) Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: a theoretical model. Psychol Inq 15(2):103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Triandis HC, Carnevale P, Gelfand M, Robert C, Wasti SA, Probst T, Kashima ES, Dragonas T, Chan D, Chen XP, Kim U (2001) Culture and deception in business negotiations: a multilevel analysis. Int J Cross-cult Manag 4(1):73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117(2):440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP (2014) Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Chang 29:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNEP (2018) The emissions gap report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi Accessed Dec 2018
  45. Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sainz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2018) Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country University students. J Clean Prod 176:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wachholz S, Artz N, Chene D (2014) Warming to the idea: university students' knowledge and attitudes about climate change. Int J Sust Higher Ed 15(2):128–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wallbott HG, Scherer KR (1995) Cultural determinants in experiencing shame and guilt. In: Tangney JP, Fischer KW (eds) Self-conscious emotions. The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. Guilford, New York, pp 465–487Google Scholar
  48. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Journal of the Econometric Society, Econometrica, pp 817–838Google Scholar
  49. Xiao C, McCright AM (2015) Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ Behav 47(1):17e37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zeileis A (2004) Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. J Stat Softw 11(10):1–17 URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Business and Trade ProgramMing Chuan University International CollegeTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Journalism and Mass Communication ProgramMing Chuan University International CollegeTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Risk Management and InsuranceMing Chuan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations