Abstract
Research has shown that an individual's cognitive flexibility predicts their pro-environmental behavior (PEB). However, the cross-country variations in this relationship are not yet clear. Using an international dataset from PISA 2018, this study examined the relationship between cognitive flexibility and PEB and the role of cultural factors in the above relationship among 368,045 adolescents from 60 societies. The results showed that adolescents' cognitive flexibility positively and significantly predicted their PEB. However, the observed cognitive flexibility-PEB relationship does not operate in a sociocultural vacuum. The study identified individualism and uncertainty avoidance weakened adolescents' cognitive flexibility-PEB association; whereas cultural tightness strengthened this association. Therefore, the findings of this study extend our understanding by illuminating not just the role of individual cognitive processes, such as cognitive flexibility, in shaping adolescents' PEB, but also emphasizing the critical interplay between individual cognitive capabilities and the overarching sociocultural context. The nuanced interdependence between these factors provides rich ground for future research in the realm of cognitive and environmental psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, I., Sanchez-Lopez, M., Martínez-Hortelano, J. A., & Martinez-Vizcaino, V. (2017). The effect of physical activity interventions on children’s cognition and metacognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(9), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.06.012
Baez, S., Rattazzi, A., Gonzalez-Gadea, M. L., Torralva, T., Vigliecca, N. S., Decety, J., … & Ibanez, A. (2012). Integrating intention and context: assessing social cognition in adults with Asperger syndrome. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00302
Bock, A. M., Gallaway, K. C., & Hund, A. M. (2015). Specifying links between executive functioning and theory of mind during middle childhood: Cognitive flexibility predicts social understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(3), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.888350
Chwialkowska, A., Bhatti, W. A., & Glowik, M. (2020). The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122305
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Eribaum.
Culiberg, B., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2016). Going green to fit in–understanding the impact of social norms on pro-environmental behaviour, a cross-cultural approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12241
Davidovic, D., Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2020). The contingent effects of environmental concern and ideology: Institutional context and people’s willingness to pay environmental taxes. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 674–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1606882
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
FeldmanHall, O., & Chang, L. J. (2018). Social learning: Emotions aid in optimizing goal-directed social behavior. In R. Morris, A. Bornstein, & A. Shenhav (Eds.), Goal-directed Decision Making (pp. 309–330). Academic Press.
Flannery, M., & Jacques, S. (2009). The executive and the environmentalist: do executive function skills help to predict pro-environmental behavior? Library and Archives Canada= Bibliothèque et Archives Canada.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … & Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
Grønhøj, A., & Hubert, M. (2022). Are we a growing a green generation? Exploring young people’s pro-environmental orientation over time. Journal of Marketing Management, 38(9–10), 844–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.2005664
Grønhøj, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2012). Action speaks louder than words: The effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents’ pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.001
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Human Development Index. (2015). Public data explorer. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index
Husted, B. W. (2000). The impact of national culture on software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006250203828
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Kotabe, H. P., & Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 618–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615593382
Lan, X. (2022). Perceived parenting styles, cognitive flexibility, and prosocial behavior in Chinese Youth with an immigrant background: A three-group comparison. Current Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03140-9
Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Cognitive flexibility and pro–environmental behaviour: A multimethod approach. European Journal of Personality, 33(4), 488–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2204
Legare, C. H., Dale, M. T., Kim, S. Y., & Deák, G. O. (2018). Cultural variation in cognitive flexibility reveals diversity in the development of executive functions. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34756-2
Lu, J. G., Martin, A. E., Usova, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Creativity and humor across cultures: Where Aha meets Haha. In S. R. Luria, J. Baer, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and humor (pp. 183–203). Academic Press.
Lu, H., Zhang, W., Diao, B., Liu, Y., Chen, H., Long, R., & Cai, S. (2021). The progress and trend of pro-environmental behavior research: a bibliometrics-based visualization analysis. Current Psychology, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01809-1
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., … & Saltzman, A. (2012). Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness, 3(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0094-5
Meinhold, J. L., & Malkus, A. J. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors: Can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269665
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 technical report. PISA, OECD Publishing.
Ogunbode, C. A., Doran, R., Hanss, D., Ojala, M., Salmela-Aro, K., van den Broek, K. L., … & Karasu, M. (2022). Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887
Oh, S., & Lewis, C. (2008). Korean preschoolers’ advanced inhibitory control and its relation to other executive skills and mental state understanding. Child Development, 79(1), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01112.x
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012
Otto, S., Pensini, P., Zabel, S., Diaz-Siefer, P., Burnham, E., Navarro-Villarroel, C., & Neaman, A. (2021). The prosocial origin of sustainable behavior: A case study in the ecological domain. Global Environmental Change, 69, 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102312
Parboteeah, K. P., Addae, H. M., & Cullen, J. B. (2012). Propensity to support sustainability initiatives: A cross-national model. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0979-6
Pisano, I., & Lubell, M. (2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515600494
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
Tam, K. P., & Chan, H. 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
Tam, K. P., & Chan, H. W. (2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change, 48, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.001
Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009
World Bank. (2020). World DataBank. Available October 1, 2022, from http://databank.worldbank.org
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509335163
Xia, W., & Li, L. M. W. (2022). Multilevel Evidence for the Parent-Adolescent Dyadic Effect of Familiarity With Climate Change on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in 14 Societies: Moderating Effects of Societal Power Distance and Individualism. Environment and Behavior, 54(7–8), 1097–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221129550
Yang, M. X., Tang, X., Cheung, M. L., & Zhang, Y. (2021). An institutional perspective on consumers’ environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavioral intention: Evidence from 39 countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2638
Zheng, W., Akaliyski, P., Ma, C., & Xu, Y. (2024). Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: Individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112455
Zheng, W. (2023a). Cultural religiosity moderates the relationship between trust and altruism: a study in 64 countries. Current Psychology, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04333-6
Zheng, W. (2023b). Multilevel evidence for institutional trust and vaccine confidence in 134 countries: moderating effects of cultural religiosity and individualism. Current Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05067-1
Funding
This study was not funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics statement
The data used in this study were obtained from publicly available databases and had no ethical implications.
Informed consent
Did not involve informed consent.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zheng, W. A cross-cultural perspective on adolescents' cognitive flexibility and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Curr Psychol 43, 14686–14694 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05484-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05484-2