Search

Despite extensive works examining the influence of personal values on environmental engagements, scarce research has examined the influence of group values that are perceived as important in the society. To address this lacuna and recent calls for more cross-cultural environmental research, we investigated whether and how culture, via collectivistic orientation, influences the roles of personal values and perceived group values, namely egoistic and biospheric values, in motivating environmental engagements in a Western (the U.S.; N = 469) and an Asian (Singapore; N = 410) country. To highlight a few findings, the study showed that personal values and perceived group values differentially predicted environmental engagements. Counter to our hypotheses, biospheric group values discouraged environmental volunteerism and were not related to other environmental engagement measures. Interestingly, culturally shaped collectivistic orientation attenuated biospheric group values' negative relationship and strengthened egoistic group values’ positive relationship with public behavioral intentions. Collectivistic orientation also strengthened the positive influence of personal egoistic values, but not personal biospheric values, on public behavioral intentions and policy support. We discuss how these findings advance knowledge regarding the ways in which personal and perceived group values, coupled with culturally motivated collectivistic orientation, would encourage pro-environmental actions. © 2022

Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it., Funding Agencies|NSF Division of Social and Economic Sciences [2029183]

People believe they should consider how their behavior might negatively impact other people, Yet their behavior often increases others' health risks. This creates challenges for managing public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined a procedure wherein people reflect on their personal criteria regarding how their behavior impacts others' health risks. We expected structured reflection to increase people's intentions and decisions to reduce others' health risks. Structured reflection increases attention to others' health risks and the correspondence between people's personal criteria and behavioral intentions. In four experiments during COVID-19, people (N = 12,995) reported their personal criteria about how much specific attributes, including the impact on others' health risks, should influence their behavior. Compared with control conditions, people who engaged in structured reflection reported greater intentions to reduce business capacity (experiment 1) and avoid large social gatherings (experiments 2 and 3). They also donated more to provide vaccines to refugees (experiment 4). These effects emerged across seven countries that varied in collectivism and COVID-19 case rates (experiments 1 and 2). Structured reflection was distinct from instructions to carefully deliberate (experiment 3). Structured reflection increased the correlation between personal criteria and behavioral intentions (experiments 1 and 3). And structured reflection increased donations more among people who scored lower in cognitive reflection compared with those who scored higher in cognitive reflection (experiment 4). These findings suggest that structured reflection can effectively increase behaviors to reduce public health risks., Funding agencies: National Science Foundationgrants SES: 2029183 to L.V.B. and 1757315 to P.S