Population and Environment

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 1–25 | Cite as

Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis

Original Paper


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.


Diffusion Environmental concern Multilevel ISSP Affluence hypothesis Post-materialist hypothesis Cohort change 


  1. Abramson, P. R. (1997). Postmaterialism and environmentalism: A comment on an analysis and a reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 21–23.Google Scholar
  2. Adeola, F. O. (2004). Environmentalism and risk perception: Empirical analysis of black and white differentials and convergence. Society & Natural Resources, 17, 911–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1994). Global environmentalism: A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 245–269.Google Scholar
  7. Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1997). Beyond postmaterialist values: National versus individual explanations of global environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 16–20.Google Scholar
  8. Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10, 237–256.Google Scholar
  10. Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1974). The structure of support for the environmental movement, 1968–1970. Rural Sociology, 39, 56–69.Google Scholar
  11. Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs: A reconsideration. Environment and Behavior, 10, 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31, 540–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1997). Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 24–29.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, C. S. (1978). Urban-to-rural diffusion of opinions in contemporary America. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, C. S., & Hout, M. (2006). Century of difference: How America changed in the last one hundred years. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection—A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39, 392–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton, L. C., Colocousis, C. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2010). Place effects on environmental views. Rural Sociology, 75, 326–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Inglehart, R., & Abramson, P. R. (1994). Economic-security and value change. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57, 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahn, M. E. (2002). Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kanagy, C. L., Humphrey, C. R., & Firebaugh, G. (1994). Surging environmentalism: Changing public opinion or changing publics? Social Science Quarterly, 75, 804–819.Google Scholar
  39. Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G., & Kim, Y. H. (2002). Values, economics, and proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 256–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kidd, Q., & Lee, A.-R. (1997). Postmaterialist values and the environment: A critique and reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 1–15.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Longhofer, W., & Schofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2008). Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1312–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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.
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pampel, F. C., & Hunter, L. M. (2012). Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending. American Journal of Sociology, 118(2), 420–448.Google Scholar
  62. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schofer, E., & Hironaka, A. (2005). The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Social Forces, 84(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Uyeki, E. S., & Holland, L. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 646–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, J. A., & Gove, W. R. (1999). The intercohort decline in verbal ability: Does it exist? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Behavioral Science, CU Population CenterUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Behavioral Science, CU Population CenterUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations