Next Article in Journal
Breaking Barriers: Financial and Operational Strategies for Direct Operations in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of the Mobility Package on the Development of Sustainability in Logistics Companies: The Case of Lithuania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156948
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Higher Status, More Actions but Less Sacrifice: The SES Paradox in Pro-Environmental Behaviors

by
Lijuan Fan
1 and
Ni An
2,*
1
School of Humanities and Social Science, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
2
Teaching Department of Ideological and Political Theory Courses, Xiamen Institute of Technology, Xiamen 361021, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6948; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156948 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 25 July 2025 / Accepted: 26 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Resident Participation and Sustainable Urban Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Identifying predictors of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) can not only figure out who concerns about the environment most but also inform possible pathways that advance or inhabit such prosocial actions. Most past studies and theories focus on factors that reside within personal characteristics or sociopsychological mechanisms rather than taking a holistic view that integrates these two elements into a framework. This study investigates how socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with PEBs, integrating both structural and psychological mechanisms. Drawing on the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) theoretical framework, this paper examines the paradox whereby individuals with higher SES exhibit more frequent environmental actions yet demonstrate lower willingness to pay (WTP)—a form of economic sacrifice. Using nationally representative data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), our structural equation modeling reveals that adulthood SES positively correlates with environmental values and behaviors but negatively correlates with WTP. This challenges the traditional linear assumption that greater willingness necessarily leads to greater action. Additionally, while childhood SES predicts adult SES, it shows no direct effect on environmental engagement. These findings highlight multidimensional pathways by which SES shape environmental actions, necessitating differentiated policy approaches to build a sustainable world.

1. Introduction

Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have severely disrupted the natural environment, leading to global crises such as climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. These threats demand urgent mitigation and have prompted growing interests across disciplines in the behavioral drivers of environmental degradation. Understanding what motivates individuals to adopt PEBs is therefore essential to designing effective responses to today’s ecological challenges and promoting long-term sustainability. One of the most effective ways identified by researchers is to advocate individuals to conduct PEBs, such as green consumption [1,2], adopting eco-friendly lifestyles such as choosing organic food, using public transportation, and engaging in recycling to minimize environmental impacts [3].
Currently, PEBs remain the most widely and systematically studied subject within the existing environmental sociology research. Over the last 40 years, many sociologists and psychologists have explored the macro- and micro-level factors of PEBs. On a micro level, sociodemographic attributes of individuals, such as age, gender, education, and income are important determinants of PEBs [4,5,6,7]. On the macro-level, researchers focus on the influence of country-level variables, such as economic development, income inequality, and unemployment on environmental attitude, concern, and behavior [8,9,10]. Some scholars have proposed several sociopsychological models to explain the differences in environmental concern and behavior, such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [11], norm-activation-model (NAM) [12], and value-attitude-behavior (VAB) [13]. These models have been widely applied in environmental research to analyze various forms of PEBs [4,14,15,16].
Although extended research has sought to identify predictors that underline environmental concern and PEBs, explaining individual differences is still a controversial issue in environmental research. The studies about PEBs tend to explore the sociodemographic attributes of environmental attitudes and behaviors, while psychologists focus only on the psychological mechanism in environmental attitudes and behaviors. However, much of this research is limited by narrow focus on factors within individuals rather than within their social context [17]. These paradigms ignore the fact that an individual’s attitude and behavior are contextualized and constrained by social structure. With this in mind, we herein draw on the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) [18] model to explore the intricate correlations between contextual factors, psychological organisms, and prosocial behavior. The SOR theory is ubiquitous in the environmental literature [19,20,21]. Specifically, in this study, we conceptualized personal socioeconomic status as stimulus (S) that contextualizes an individual’s environmental value and willingness to pay for the environment, which functions as the organism (O). PEBs are defined as the response (R) that is influenced by socioeconomic status, environmental value, and WTP.
Our work makes three possible contributions to environmental sociology. First, large quantities of studies about environmental concerns and PEBs use regional data collected by researchers themselves. These studies are basically based on small samples. For example, Han explores the influence of attitude, ascribed responsibility, and social norms on environmentally responsible buying behavior, he conducts an online survey using an online market research company’s system and receives only 105 respondents [22]. In this study, we contribute to the broad literature about the relationships between socioeconomic status and environmental behaviors using a national dataset to examine of environment-related practices at the national level. Second, research about environmental engagement and social class is mainly backgrounded by Western countries. However, scholars contend that these countries lack strong status consciousness [23]. The situation is different in China. China is a country marked by widespread inequality and social stratification [24]. Studies about the relationship between socioeconomic status and PEBs in developing countries, such as China, are scarce. Hence, this study aims to fill in this gap. Third, most studies in environmental research tend to treat socioeconomic status as a background variable [17,25], different from the prior research that focuses only personal level or sociopsychological mechanisms, this study integrates these two factors based on the SOR model to see how social contextual factors influence the psychological mechanisms of environmental attitude or value, which in turn influence the ultimate PEBs.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. The Causes for Differences in PEBs

PEBs are concepts that ascribe to individuals’ responsibilities for addressing environmental problems through conducting environmentally friendly behavior, including resource recycling, using clean and renewable energy, and consuming products without negative environmental impact [26]. PEBs are considered to be vital in environmental protection since they directly reduce the damaged actions by human beings. PEBs explicitly and directly reflect an individual’s concern for the environment, and an individual is impossible to conduct any PEBs unless he/she shows their contention for the environment. In other words, environmental concern is the antecedent of PEBs. Individuals differ with respect to environmental concerns and behaviors, and prior research has provided two useful hypotheses that explain such differences among individuals.
One of the most influential explanations is the post-materialism hypothesis proposed by Inglehart, which links environmental concern to value change in affluent societies [27]. Inglehart argues that as societies achieve greater material prosperity, individuals become less preoccupied with basic economic survival and increasingly pursue post-materialist goals such as political freedom, self-fulfillment, and environmental protection. Therefore, the reason that people differ in environmental-related practices is attributed to the post-materialistic value. However, when Inglehart tested the hypothesized positive relationship between affluence and environmental concern using data from the World Values Survey (WVS), he found that several developing countries exhibited unexpectedly high levels of environmental concern. To account for this anomaly, he proposed the “objective problems and subjective values” hypothesis. According to this view, citizens in less affluent nations often confront immediate environmental threats—such as air and water pollution or soil degradation—and thus express strong concern driven by tangible local problems rather than post-materialist values. That is to say, the reason that people behave differently in environmental concerns and PEBs lies in the pressing local environmental problems that they are faced with.
Another major theoretical perspective is the affluence hypothesis, proposed by Diekmann and Franzen, which posits that environmental concern and behavior tend to rise with increasing economic resources, as individuals in wealthier societies can afford to prioritize environmental issues [28]. Diekmann and Franzen posit that environmental quality functions not only as a public good but also as a common good that becomes more valued as income increases. Individuals face a trade-off between material consumption and environmental quality. This trade-off is typically illustrated using the Engel curve (Figure 1). As income rises, the budget constraint shifts upward, enabling individuals to allocate more resources toward both general consumption and environmental improvement. Consequently, as societies become wealthier, the aggregate demand for environmental quality is expected to rise, leading to a positive correlation between individual affluence and levels of environmental concern and behavior. More specifically, it is often argued that the relationship between wealth and environmental behaviors is not linear but concave [29]. Thus, as environmental quality improves with wealth, an individual’s marginal willingness to pay for environmental quality might decline again [30].
In the context of environmental economics, it is important to distinguish between individuals’ marginal and total WTP for environmental quality. According to the prosperity hypothesis, total WTP is expected to rise with increasing income, regardless of fluctuations in environmental degradation (see Figure 2). In contrast, marginal WTP is hypothesized to follow an inverted U-shaped curve: it increases during early stages of economic growth as pollution worsens, but declines once pollution is controlled. Notably, this inverted U-shape applies primarily to local environmental quality, where the effects are more directly perceived.
So far, we have focused on two distinct hypotheses on environmental awareness and behavior. However, the differences in PEBs also depend on various other factors that have received little attention so far. Next to the wealth itself, the social stratification that is brought about by the unequal distribution of wealth might influence environmental concerns and the behavior of the citizens. Social stratification constitutes a social context that stimulates individuals’ psychological organisms and behavior. In light of this, we explore the relationships between socioeconomic status, environmental attitude, and PEBs within the theoretical framework of SOR.

2.2. The SOR Model

This study adopts the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) model as our conceptual framework. The SOR model posits that external stimuli influence individuals’ internal states—such as consciousness, cognition, or attitudes—which in turn shape their intentions and behaviors. It has been widely applied in pro-environmental research to explain how structural or contextual factors trigger psychological responses that lead to environmentally relevant actions [20]. In this model, the stimulus variable (S) is the major driving factor related to subsequent behavior, i.e., PEBs. The stimuli are diverse context inputs that function as external influencing elements. The term organism (O) refers to a person’s internal states (e.g., values or attitude) that exist between stimulation and subsequent behaviors. Response (R) refers to the completed consequences of activities.
The SOR model has been previously applied to examine the antecedents of PEBs, including energy conservation, sustainable consumption, and other forms of green behavior. Tang et al., for example, use the SOR model in their research to demonstrate that social norms (the stimulus) influence employee’s perceived peer pressure (the organism), which has a large beneficial impact on their energy-saving acts (the response) [31]. Xu et al. expand the SOR model to illustrate that individuals’ EV driving experiences (the stimulus) influence their purchase behaviors towards EVs (the response) via EV-related emotions and cognitions (the organisms) [32]. In a study by Kwon and Boger, the SOR model is used to explore the influence of individuals’ brand experience (the stimulus) on ingenuity (the organism) and PEBs (the response) [33].
While the SOR model has been widely used in pro-environmental behavior research, it is still necessary to further justify the conceptualization of SES as a “stimulus”. In the field of sociology, SES is not only an individual attribute but a structurally embedded factor that shapes orientation, value systems, and behavioral outcomes [9,34]. Individuals’ perceptions of their position within a stratified society can influence their responses to environmental issues, thereby functioning as an external stimulus that activates internal psychological mechanisms [35]. Compared with the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and social cognitive theory (SCT), which focus primarily on individual volition and self-efficacy, the SOR model allows for the integration of broader social-contextual variables, especially the income inequality has continuously risen worldwide [36].
In light of this, our conceptual framework to ascertain the direct relationship between socioeconomic status and PEBs as well as the intermediary mechanisms (i.e., environmental value and WTP) makes sense when explained by the SOR model. Notably, we also take childhood socioeconomic status into account because social stratification constitutes a social context that influences individuals over a long period [34]. We assume that socioeconomic status acts as a stimulant because it represents a significant sociocultural element that profoundly influences individuals in how they live their daily lives.

2.3. Environmental Value, WTP, and PEBs

Environmental value has become human consciousness that reflects individuals’ recognition, value judgment, and belief in minimizing harm to the environment [37]. Individuals with strong environmental values tend to show greater concern for environmental protection and are more likely to engage in PEBs [38]. This concern may shape the individual’s attitude toward environmental issues. In the environmental context, there is another dimension that reflects individuals’ perceived costs and benefits in conducting PEBs, namely, willingness to pay. As Dunlap et al. define it, environmental concern refers to “the degree to which people are aware of environmental problems, support efforts to address them, and express a willingness to contribute personally to their solution.” [39]. Thus, WTP reflects one of the most realistic facets that measures how willing a person is to prioritize the benefit of the environment over their personal gains and accept the loss or expenses of immediate costs, self-interests, and time or effort [40].
The environmental value and WTP have long been regarded as significant drivers of environmentally responsible behaviors. For example, Gadenne et al. find that individuals with higher levels of environmental concern are more likely to hold positive beliefs about environmental protection and exhibit stronger intentions to reduce environmental harm [41]. Rahman and Renolds find that travelers’ behaviors in choosing a green hotel are a significant function of their willingness to pay for the environment [42]. Han and Hyun empirically demonstrate that an individual’s WTP for the environment is a powerful force for enhancing PEBs [22]. The study by Iwata shows that those showing a high WTP for the environment are likely to engage in ecological behavior [43]. Given this, we hypothesize that
Hypothesis 1. 
Environmental value significantly influences an individual’s PEBs.
Hypothesis 2. 
WTP for the environment significantly influences PEBs.
Social stratification is a fundamental characteristic of society, reflecting disparities in power, economic status, cultural capital, and access to various social resources [44,45,46]. Individuals positioned in different social hierarchies differ largely in cognition, emotion, and behavior [47]. Prior research has concluded that socioeconomic status is an important factor in shaping thinking style, moral judgment, and ethical or prosocial behavior [48,49,50]. One theoretical perspective explaining the influence of socioeconomic status on cognition and behavior is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. According to this theory, once individuals fulfill their basic material needs, they tend to seek higher-order needs, including self-actualization and concern for environmental quality [51].
PEBs are prosocial actions regarding individuals intend for others and the natural environment [52], and conduct PEBs requires personal sacrifice of their interests (e.g., time loss, paying higher prices). Higher-class individuals possess most of the resources in society, and they have more money, time, and capability to do desirable things (e.g., organic food) [53]. In the field of consumption research, environmental studies suggest that high-status consumption increasingly reflects an emerging ecological orientation—one that reconfigures elite tastes around sustainability and environmental responsibility [54]. Griskevicius et al. argue that “a key component of harnessing the power of status motives to benefit social welfare necessitates that the prosocial acts be visible to others, whereby such acts can influence the well-doer’s reputation”. In an experimental study, they find that activating status motives increases individuals’ preference for green products over more luxurious but non-green alternatives [55]. Other studies have shown that social class is closely linked to PEBs that serve as signals of higher social status—an effect often described as “green to be seen” [56]. Sexton and Sexton identify a statistically significant “conspicuous conservation effect” in vehicle purchases and willingness to pay for environmentally friendly signals. They attribute this behavior to a status-driven preference for signaling austerity over ostentation [57]. Similarly, Berger finds that individuals seeking to reaffirm their social status tend to prefer socially visible forms of green consumption that enhance their perceived standing in the eyes of others [58]. In this way, individuals gain psychological benefits by displaying that they can afford the extra expenditures of environmentally friendly products [59]. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3. 
Individual’s socioeconomic status significantly influences environmental value.
Hypothesis 4. 
An Individual’s socioeconomic status significantly influences WTP for the environment.
Hypothesis 5. 
Individual’s socioeconomic status significantly influences PEBs.
Previous studies have shown that there are significant differences in environmental consciousness and PEBs among different socioeconomic status groups [55]. However, most of the previous studies examine the effect of a particular socioeconomic status indicator such as education, income, or occupational prestige on environmental consciousness and PEBs at the individual level. The research about the influence of childhood socioeconomic status on PEBs is scarce. Past research has shown that early socioeconomic status experience during childhood has a diversity impact on an individual’s behavioral and psychological development [60,61]. Logically, we posit that childhood socioeconomic status will not only influence adulthood socioeconomic status but also will shape the attitude towards the environment under the influence of their parents. Thus, we hypothesize that
Hypothesis 6. 
Childhood socioeconomic status significantly influences adulthood socioeconomic status.
Hypothesis 7. 
Childhood socioeconomic status significantly influences environmental value.
Hypothesis 8. 
Childhood socioeconomic status significantly influences willingness to pay for the environment.
Hypothesis 9. 
Childhood socioeconomic status significantly influences PEBs.
Figure 3 depicts the relationships between the studied variables and the associated hypotheses.

3. Data, Variables and Research Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data

To explore the relationships between socioeconomic status and environmental-related practices, this study uses data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) which was conducted in 2021. The Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) is a nationwide, longitudinal academic project that collects data from individuals aged 18 to 65 on a wide range of topics, including family structure, education, employment, health, and social attitudes. Its aim is to capture the social characteristics and evolving trends within Chinese society and to inform both theoretical and policy-oriented research. Notably, CGSS is currently the only national-level dataset in China that includes comprehensive measures of respondents’ environmental values, attitudes, and behaviors. In the 2021 CGSS, approximately 33.6% of the total respondents (N = 8148) were randomly assigned to complete the environmental module, resulting in a subsample of 2741 individuals. It is noted that the public dataset does not provide detailed documentation regarding the specific randomization or selection mechanism by which this environmental subsample was generated. This lack of transparency is a common constraint when using secondary data sources and poses challenges in evaluating potential selection biases. After deleting the core missing values, the final sample of this study is 2703.

3.2. Measurements

The measurement items in the present study were adopted from previous environmental studies. Multiple items were used to evaluate the study constructs. In particular, six items including “Classifying household waste”, “Recycling household products”, “Communications with other residents”, “Volunteering in environmental practices”, “Paying higher taxes”, and “Negotiating with administration, environmental NGOs, and the professionals”, are measured as the construct of PEBs [3,62]. All the answers to the questions are marked with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always).
In this study, environmental value was measured using the Chinese version of the New Ecological Paradigm (CNEP) scale, which was revised and validated by Hong to better reflect the cultural and linguistic characteristics of Chinese respondents. Compared to the original NEP, the CNEP demonstrates improved reliability and construct validity in the Chinese context. Seven items for environmental value were adopted from the 10-item CNEP scale revised by Chinese scholar Hong Dayong, which originated from the NEP scale proposed by Dunlap and Jones [63]. The CNEP scale has been proven to be more applicable in China [28]. Though self-reported willingness to pay for the environment is not an exhaustive measure of overall environmental concern, it captures an important dimension. Past research has indicated that the willingness to pay is an important factor that influences PEBs [53]. Especially regarding its reflection of the most important intentions to forgo personal interests to protect the environment [64]. In this way, four items were adopted to measure an individual’s willingness to pay for the environment (e.g., “To what extent would you like to pay a higher price for the environment”).
Adulthood socioeconomic status was assessed using education and occupational prestige, with the latter derived from the International Socioeconomic Index (ISEI). The ISEI score was computed based on the CGSS coding system, which follows the ISCO-88 classification standard and has been widely applied in Chinese sociological surveys. This ensures comparability while maintaining contextual relevance. At last, childhood socioeconomic status was measured by parents’ educational and occupational prestige when the respondents were 14 years old. In this study, we excluded the father’s occupational prestige due to the low factor loading.

3.3. Analytical Methods

A two-step analytical approach was employed to examine the relationships among the studied variables. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the validity of the measurement model. Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to evaluate the proposed theoretical framework and test the research hypotheses. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and Mplus Version 8. Maximum likelihood estimation was used throughout the analysis.

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Results of the CFA comprising studied constructs and their observed variables revealed that the model appropriately fitted to the data (χ2 = 948.660, df = 367, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.584, RMSEA = 0.069, SRMR = 0.68, CFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.928). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 1. A composite reliability (CR) was tested. The results showed that all variables exceeded the suggested cutoff of 0.70 (PEBs (P) = 0.891, childhood socioeconomic status (C) = 0.799, adulthood socioeconomic status (S) = 0.787, environmental value (N) = 0.852, willingness to pay for the environment (W) = 0.765). Afterwards, the convergent validity was tested. The average variance extracted (AVE) values all exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.50 (P = 0.715, C = 0.648, S = 0.613, N = 0.706, W = 0.605). At last, the discriminant validity was tested. The results showed that all the values of the studied variables exceeded the correlation (squared) between variables. Therefore, convergent and discriminant validity was evident. To improve model robustness, we included age and gender as control variables in the structural equation modeling. Although their effects were not the primary focus, both variables showed statistically significant but small effects on PEBs. Additionally, we report further model fit indices beyond RMSEA and CFI, including GFI = 0.918 and AGFI = 0.901, both exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.90, indicating acceptable model fit.

4.2. Structural Equation Modeling

The structure equation modeling with a maximum likelihood estimation approach was conducted. The results revealed that the model contained a satisfactory fit to the data (χ2 = 285.660, df = 143, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.753, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.42, CFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.932). Thus, the proposed research framework was tested. As reported in Table 2, the results showed that environmental value positively and significantly correlated with PEBs (β = 0.226, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. However, it was surprising to find that WTP for the environment significantly and negatively correlated with PEBs (β = −0.399, p < 0.001), namely, those people who claimed that they have a higher WTP for the environment conduct less PEBs actually. Though negative, the statistics were significant and Hypothesis 2 was supported by our results.
As a stimulus that contextualized the attitude and behavior, adulthood socioeconomic status significantly correlated with environment-related practices. In particular, adulthood socioeconomic status exerted a significant and positive correlation on environmental value and PEBs (β = 0.453, p < 0.001, β = 0.264, p < 0.001, respectively), thus Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 5 were supported by the results. However, adulthood socioeconomic status significantly and negatively correlated with WTP for the environment (β = −0.189, p < 0.001), indicating that people with higher socioeconomic status tend to be less willing to sacrifice their personal interests to protect the environment. Hypothesis 4 was supported. Childhood socioeconomic status is the most important factor correlates with adulthood socioeconomic status (β = 0.585, p < 0.001), and Hypothesis 6 was supported. While childhood socioeconomic status was found no significant correlation with environmental-related practices, Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were not supported by the results.
The indirect effects of adulthood socioeconomic status on PEBs via environmental value and WTP for the environment were examined. As reported in Table 2, adulthood socioeconomic status significantly correlated with PEBs (β = 0.264, p < 0.001), environmental value (β = 0.453, p < 0.001), and WTP (β = −0.189, p < 0.001). Environmental value (β = 0.226, p < 0.001) and WTP (β = −0.339, p < 0.001) significantly correlated with PEBs. Subsequently, the total impact of adulthood socioeconomic status was assessed. Environmental value and WTP partially mediated the influence of adulthood socioeconomic status on PEBs (β of S to N to P = 0.102, p < 0.001; β of S to W to P = 0.075, p < 0.05, respectively). Thus, the proposed SOR model was supported by the results. Adulthood socioeconomic status serves as an important external stimulus that influences PEBs through environmental value and WTP. It was noted that the two psychological mechanisms were different in the pathways. The influence of adulthood socioeconomic status on PEBs was enhanced by the environmental value; however, the WTP inhabited the pro-environmental value in our study.

5. Discussion

In the present research, we examine the relationships between socioeconomic status and environment-related practices within the framework of the SOR model. In particular, we regard childhood and adulthood socioeconomic status as important stimuli that contextualize individuals’ attitudes and behavior. PEBs that an individual conducts are treated as responses in the SOR model. Environmental value and WTP are treated as psychological mechanisms that actively mediate the effect between stimulus and response. It is worth noting that WTP, while positioned as a psychological mediator (organism) in our SOR framework, may also embody characteristics of behavioral intention. Conceptually, WTP reflects an individual’s stated readiness to incur personal costs for environmental benefit—such as paying higher prices or taxes—and thus shares features with intention-based constructs in theories like the theory of planned behavior [11]. In this sense, WTP may be considered a hybrid variable that straddles the boundary between internal state and behavioral readiness. In our study, we empirically find that adulthood socioeconomic status is an important external stimulus that influences environment-related practices. Environmental value and WTP, which serve as psychological mechanisms, actively mediate the relationships between adulthood socioeconomic status and PEBs. Thus, the proposed research framework is suitable for analyzing the influence of socioeconomic status on PEBs.
The conclusions that we draw on in this study partially support our hypotheses. First, environmental value and WTP for the environment significantly influence PEBs. Specifically, environmental value positively and significantly influences PEBs. The result is highly consistent with previous studies that address the importance of environmental consciousness before PEBs happen [63]. According to environmental-concern related research, environmental consciousness is an important antecedent of PEBs. If individuals are without consciousness towards the environment, he or she is impossible to conduct any PEBs to protect the environment.
One of the most surprising findings of our study is the negative association between WTP for the environment and actual PEBs. This contradicts the common assumption in environmental psychology that WTP reflects deeper commitment, but the result is not isolated. In environmental studies, most scholars conclude that WTP for the environment is one of the most important predictors of PEBs [22,28], some research finds the insignificant correlation between WTP and PEBs [25], this negative correlation can be explained by attitude–behavior gap theory, which has documented the frequent disjunction between what people express and what they do [56]. In China, this gap may be amplified by cultural values such as collectivism and face-saving. Expressing WTP may serve more as a normative or reputational signal rather than an accurate predictor of personal sacrifice. Another possible reason is that, our WTP measure emphasizes financial willingness (e.g., paying more for green products or taxes), which may not fully capture non-monetary commitments. Thus, higher-SES individuals may prefer low-cost, symbolic behaviors (e.g., sorting garbage, volunteering) that still reinforce their social identity without incurring financial loss.
Our study also shows that higher SES are more likely to engage in visible PEBs but show less willingness to make private economic sacrifices. This contradiction aligns with the theory of conspicuous conservation, which suggests that environmental behaviors among the affluent are often motivated by the desire to signal social status. Sexton and Sexton empirically demonstrated this “Prius Halo Effect,” where consumers are willing to pay a premium for environmentally friendly vehicles not solely for ecological reasons, but to gain symbolic social capital [57]. Similarly, Berger argued that pro-environmental acts such as buying organic food, installing solar panels, or joining environmental NGOs may serve as markers of cultural capital and moral superiority, especially in stratified societies [58]. This phenomenon is often conceptualized as “Green to be Seen” [53], wherein green behaviors are more likely to be performed when they are observable by others and can contribute to one’s social reputation. In contrast, private, less visible sacrifices—such as paying higher environmental taxes or donating to ecological causes—do not yield the same symbolic benefits, and thus may be deprioritized by high-SES individuals. This divergence helps explain our paradoxical finding: high-SES respondents in China report more frequent PEBs (e.g., recycling, volunteering), yet simultaneously exhibit lower WTP for environmental causes. These findings highlight the importance of social signaling in motivating ecological engagement and suggest that visibility and performativity may be key dimensions shaping the environmental behavior of elite groups.
In our study, adulthood socioeconomic status is one of the important contextual predictors of environment-related practices. In particular, adulthood socioeconomic status positively and significantly influences PEBs. The result is consistent with the post-materialism hypothesis, and affluence hypothesis, which indicates that people with higher socioeconomic status tend to concern more about the environment. Quite a lot of studies have argued that people with environmental concerns tend to be wealthier, well-educated, and with higher occupational prestige [64]. However, while childhood SES significantly predicts adulthood SES, it does not directly influence pro-environmental attitudes or behaviors in our model. This null result appears counterintuitive given extensive literature on intergenerational value transmission. One possible explanation lies in China’s rapid economic and social transformations over the past few decades. These shifts may have disrupted the continuity between early-life conditions and adult environmental orientations, especially for younger cohorts experiencing upward mobility. Additionally, measuring childhood SES at age 14 may not sufficiently capture earlier developmental influences or the cumulative nature of disadvantage. We recommend that future studies adopt a life-course approach that includes multiple temporal anchors and consider how class mobility mediates long-term value formation.
Given that environmental degradation has been unstoppable since the development of society, promoting individuals’ PEBs, which directly reduces environmental deterioration, is one of the essential antecedents in the effort to develop a green society. And quite a lot of research has investigated the social and psychological factors of PEBs. Nevertheless, little research in environmental research has incorporated social and psychological factors within the theory of social stratification. Thus, we draw on the SOR model to empirically examine the relationships between socioeconomic status, environmental value, WTP, and PEBs. We also consider childhood socioeconomic status. As a result, this study is differentiated from prior research, and it presents empirical evidence that people positioned in higher status tend to value the environment and thus conduct more PEBs. However, still several methodological limitations should be concerned in this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of the CGSS dataset limits our ability to draw causal inferences between SES, psychological constructs, and behaviors. Second, reliance on self-reported behavior raises concerns about social desirability bias—particularly salient in China, where environmental concern is increasingly politicized. Third, our findings are rooted in the specific sociopolitical and cultural context of contemporary China, characterized by strong government-led environmental campaigns and hierarchical status structures. Thus, caution is advised in extending these conclusions to societies with weaker state authority or different cultural norms.

6. Implications

Our study has two key theoretical implications. First, our findings challenge the widely held assumption of a consistent link between environmental concern and behavior by demonstrating a negative association between WTP and actual PEBs. This contradiction highlights the complexity of the “attitude-behavior” gap and suggests that WTP—especially when operationalized as financial sacrifice—may not always reflect behavioral commitment, particularly among high-SES individuals.
Second, we articulate the dual-pathway mechanism through which SES influences PEBs. On the one hand, higher SES promotes environmental values through increased education and socialization; on the other hand, it suppresses willingness to make economic sacrifices, likely due to alternative symbolic behavior channels or cost–benefit calculations. These findings contribute to advancing SOR-based environmental theory by disentangling heterogeneous psychological mediators and challenging linear behavioral assumptions.
Our findings suggest that pro-environmental engagement strategies should be tailored by socioeconomic group. For higher-SES individuals, behavioral nudges that appeal to status signaling—such as public recognition for green choices—may prove effective in bridging the attitude–action gap. For lower-SES individuals, reducing the financial cost of green behavior through subsidies or community programs may encourage participation. Moreover, policymakers should rethink the utility of WTP as a behavioral predictor and instead focus on visible, routine-based behaviors as policy targets. For companies, green marketing strategies should differentiate messaging: elite-targeted campaigns may highlight exclusivity and identity alignment, while broader campaigns should stress affordability and collective benefit.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.F.; data curation, L.F. and N.A.; methodology, L.F.; writing—original draft, L.F.; writing—review and editing, L.F. and N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the key project of the National Social Science Foundation “A Study on the Changes and Motivation Mechanisms of Environmental Concerns among Chinese Urban Residents in the Past 20 Years” (No. 23ASH010).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Xi’an Jiaotong University (protocol code XJTU2025042205, date of approval: 22 April 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents involved in our study.

Data Availability Statement

The relevant permission was obtained and all data in the paper are copyright free.

Acknowledgments

We thank all collaborators for their help in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tezer, A.; Bodur, H.O. The greenconsumption effect: How using green products improves consumption experience. J. Consum. Res. 2020, 47, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yan, L.; Keh, H.T.; Wang, X. Powering Sustainable Consumption: The Roles of Green Consumption Values and Power Distance Belief: L. Yan et al. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 169, 499–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tsai, C.; Li, X.; Wu, W. Explaining citizens’ pro-environmental behaviours in public and private spheres: The mediating role of willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2021, 80, 510–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sun, Y.; Liu, N.; Zhao, M. Factors and mechanisms affecting green consumption in China: A multilevel analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, S.; Zhou, H.; Hua, G.; Wu, Q. What is the relationship among environmental pollution, environmental behavior, and public health in China? A study based on CGSS. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 20299–20312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in concerns for the environment among the Chinese public: An update. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhuang, W.; Luo, X.; Riaz, M.U. On the factors influencing green purchase intention: A meta-analysis approach. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 644020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Diekmann, A.; Franzen, A. The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Piff, P.K.; Kraus, M.W.; Côté, S.; Cheng, B.H.; Keltner, D. Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 99, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Knight, K.W.; Messer, B.L. Environmental concern in cross-national perspective: The effects of affluence, environmental degradation, and World Society. Soc. Sci. Q. 2012, 93, 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. ISBN 0065-2601. [Google Scholar]
  13. Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheung, M.F.; To, W.M. An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patel, J.D.; Trivedi, R.H.; Yagnik, A. Self-identity and internal environmental locus of control: Comparing their influences on green purchase intentions in high-context versus low-context cultures. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 102003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Bates, M.P. Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behaviour: Waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bradley, G.L.; Deshpande, S.; Paas, K.H. The personal and the social: Twin contributors to climate action. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 93, 102194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  19. Han, M.S.; Hampson, D.P.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H. Consumer confidence and green purchase intention: An application of the stimulus-organism-response model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Luo, B.; Sun, Y.; Shen, J.; Xia, L. How does green advertising skepticism on social media affect consumer intention to purchase green products? J. Consum. Behav. 2020, 19, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sohaib, M.; Wang, Y.; Iqbal, K.; Han, H. Nature-based solutions, mental health, well-being, price fairness, attitude, loyalty, and evangelism for green brands in the hotel context. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 101, 103126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, H. Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): A new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2815–2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Clark, T.N.; Lipset, S.M. Are social classes dying? Int. Sociol. 1991, 6, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bian, Y. Chinese social stratification and social mobility. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002, 28, 91–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, Y.; Dong, Y.; Wang, R.; Jiang, J. Can organizations shape eco-friendly employees? Organizational support improves pro-environmental behaviors at work. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 93, 102200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Testa, F.; Pretner, G.; Iovino, R.; Bianchi, G.; Tessitore, S.; Iraldo, F. Drivers to green consumption: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 4826–4880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Inglehart, R. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 0-691-18674-X. [Google Scholar]
  28. Israel, D.; Levinson, A. Willingness to pay for environmental quality: Testable empirical implications of the growth and environment literature. Contrib. Econ. Anal. Policy 2004, 3, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Franzen, A.; Meyer, R. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 26, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tang, Z.; Warkentin, M.; Wu, L. Understanding employees’ energy saving behavior from the perspective of stimulus-organism-responses. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, G.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Zhao, D. Moving towards sustainable purchase behavior: Examining the determinants of consumers’ intentions to adopt electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 22535–22546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kwon, J.; Boger, C.A. Influence of brand experience on customer inspiration and pro-environmental intention. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1154–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kraus, M.W.; Piff, P.K.; Mendoza-Denton, R.; Rheinschmidt, M.L.; Keltner, D. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychol. Rev. 2012, 119, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Y. The decoupling of socioeconomic status, postmaterialism, and environmental concern in an unequal world: A cross-national intercohort analysis. Soc. Forces 2025, 104, 294–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roberts, A.; Mangold, S. The inequality trap & willingness-to-pay for environmental protections: The contextual effect of income inequality on affluence & trust. Sociol. Q. 2023, 64, 91–122. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, H.Y.; Chung, J. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ritter, Á.M.; Borchardt, M.; Vaccaro, G.L.; Pereira, G.M.; Almeida, F. Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liere, K.D.V.; Dunlap, R.E. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin. Q. 1980, 44, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Davis, J.L.; Le, B.; Coy, A.E. Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gadenne, D.; Sharma, B.; Kerr, D.; Smith, T. The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7684–7694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rahman, I.; Reynolds, D. Predicting green hotel behavioral intentions using a theory of environmental commitment and sacrifice for the environment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 52, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iwata, O. Coping style and three psychological measures associated with environmentally responsible behavior. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2002, 30, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bissing-Olson, M.J.; Fielding, K.S.; Iyer, A. Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Holt, D.B. Does cultural capital structure American consumption? J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stephens, N.M.; Cameron, J.S.; Townsend, S.S. Lower social class does not (always) mean greater interdependence: Women in poverty have fewer social resources than working-class women. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2014, 45, 1061–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shavitt, S.; Jiang, D.; Cho, H. Stratification and segmentation: Social class in consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2016, 26, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dubois, D.; Rucker, D.D.; Galinsky, A.D. Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 108, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, J. Can a rude waiter make your food less tasty? Social class differences in thinking style and carryover in consumer judgments. J. Consum. Psychol. 2018, 28, 450–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality; Hapers & Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nolan, M.; Schultz, P. Prosocial Behavior and Environmental Action; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R.; Miranda, M.; Orjales, I.; Ginzo-Villamayor, M.J.; Al-Soufi, W.; López-Alonso, M. Consumers’ perception of and attitudes towards organic food in Galicia (Northern Spain). Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carfagna, L.B.; Dubois, E.A.; Fitzmaurice, C.; Ouimette, M.Y.; Schor, J.B.; Willis, M.; Laidley, T. An emerging eco-habitus: The reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. J. Consum. Cult. 2014, 14, 158–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Griskevicius, V.; Tybur, J.M.; Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kennedy, E.H.; Givens, J.E. Eco-habitus or eco-powerlessness? Examining environmental concern across social class. Sociol. Perspect. 2019, 62, 646–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sexton, S.E.; Sexton, A.L. Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2014, 67, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Berger, J. Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. J. Consum. Behav. 2019, 18, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Han, S.; Lee, Y. Analysis of the impacts of social class and lifestyle on consumption of organic foods in South Korea. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Barr, P.B.; Silberg, J.; Dick, D.M.; Maes, H.H. Childhood socioeconomic status and longitudinal patterns of alcohol problems: Variation across etiological pathways in genetic risk. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 209, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Zhou, T.; Harris, R.; Manley, D. Childhood socioeconomic status and late-adulthood health outcomes in china: A life-course perspective. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2023, 16, 511–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dunlap, R.E.; Mertig, A.G. Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism. Soc. Sci. Q. 1997, 78, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  61. Xiao, C.; Dunlap, R.E.; Hong, D. The Nature and Bases of Environmental Concern among Chinese Citizens The Nature and Bases of Environmental Concern among Chinese Citizens. Soc. Sci. Q. 2013, 94, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, L.; Fukuda, H.; Liu, Z. Households’ willingness to pay for green roof for mitigating heat island effects in Beijing (China). Build. Environ. 2019, 150, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hardisty, D.J.; Weber, E.U. Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2009, 138, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Smith, T.A.; Huang, C.L.; Lin, B.-H. Does price or income affect organic choice? Analysis of US fresh produce users. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06948 g001
Figure 1. Wealth (Income) and willingness to pay.
Figure 1. Wealth (Income) and willingness to pay.
Sustainability 17 06948 g001
Sustainability 17 06948 g002
Figure 2. The environmental Kuznets curve and environmental concern.
Figure 2. The environmental Kuznets curve and environmental concern.
Sustainability 17 06948 g002
Sustainability 17 06948 g003
Figure 3. The research framework.
Figure 3. The research framework.
Sustainability 17 06948 g003
Table 1. Composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the studied variables.
Table 1. Composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the studied variables.
ConstructStandardized Factor LoadingComposite ReliabilityConvergent ValidityDiscriminant Validity
CRAVEPCSNW
P0.608~0.7760.8910.7150.846
C0.526~0.8340.7990.648−0.1710.805
S0.528~0.8930.7870.6130.3830.5860.783
N0.536~0.6310.8520.7060.2390.2830.4520.840
W0.570~0.8390.7650.605−0.420−0.171−0.272−0.1090.778
Note: Goodness-of-fit statistics for the CFA model: χ2 = 948.660, df = 367, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.584, RMSEA = 0.069, SRMR = 0.68, CFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.928. The Bold value is the square root of the AVE.
Table 2. Results of the structural equation modeling and hypotheses testing.
Table 2. Results of the structural equation modeling and hypotheses testing.
ID VariablesDV VariablesEst.S.E.Est./S.E.pHypotheses
Hypothesis 1N→P0.2260.0278.255***Supported
Hypothesis 2W→P−0.3990.020−19.693***Supported
Hypothesis 3S→N0.4530.03512.984***Supported
Hypothesis 4S→W−0.1890.032−5.839***Supported
Hypothesis 5S→P0.2640.0337.789***Supported
Hypothesis 6C→S0.5850.02227.038***Supported
Hypothesis 7C→N0.0180.0360.5110.609Not supported
Hypothesis 8C→W−0.0360.032−1.1270.260Not supported
Hypothesis 9C→P−0.0460.030−1.5580.119Not supported
Total variance explained for the proposed framework (R2):
R2 of P = 0.359, R2 of W = 0.215
R2 of N = 0.107, R2 of S = 0.229		Total influence on P:
β of S = 0.264 ***
β of N = 0.226 ***
β of W = −0.339 ***		Indirect influence:
β of S to N to P = 0.102 ***

β of S to W to P = 0.075 *
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, L.; An, N. Higher Status, More Actions but Less Sacrifice: The SES Paradox in Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156948

AMA Style

Fan L, An N. Higher Status, More Actions but Less Sacrifice: The SES Paradox in Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156948

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Lijuan, and Ni An. 2025. "Higher Status, More Actions but Less Sacrifice: The SES Paradox in Pro-Environmental Behaviors" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156948

APA Style

Fan, L., & An, N. (2025). Higher Status, More Actions but Less Sacrifice: The SES Paradox in Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability, 17(15), 6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156948

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop