Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the article “Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background.” The manuscript addresses an important and timely question: while pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is widely recognized as essential in responding to ecological crises, cultural determinants remain underexplored. This study examines the role of cultural tightness–looseness in shaping PEB, considering the mediating effects of ascription of responsibility and personal norm, and the moderating role of perceived environmental threats. Study 1 (1a measurement, 1b manipulation) demonstrates that tight cultures foster PEB, while Study 2 tests a moderated mediation model, confirming the significance of responsibility attribution and personal norms, with environmental threats amplifying the direct relationship. The findings suggest both theoretical and practical value—indicating potential evolutionary benefits of cultural tightness and implications for designing communication strategies to strengthen PEB under conditions of ecological threat.

Overall, the article is well-structured and makes a valuable contribution. I have noted a few minor issues that could be improved, but these do not undermine the overall quality of the work. My comments are therefore limited to minor revisions only, for the authors’ consideration.

 

Minor Revisions and Considerations

• Development of hypotheses: The transition from the theoretical background to the hypotheses could be made smoother. At present, the hypotheses appear somewhat abruptly at the end of the paragraph. It may be helpful to explain more explicitly how they emerge from the preceding discussion, which would improve the overall flow of the argument.
• Gender imbalance in Study 1 - There seems to be a pronounced imbalance between female and male participants in Study 1 (both 1a and 1b). It might be useful to briefly acknowledge this in the methodology or results, and to comment on whether and how this imbalance could have influenced the findings. Including such a note in the discussion as a potential limitation would strengthen the study.
• Demographic predictors and gender issue - the manuscript states: “Results showed that demographic variables such as gender, age, as well as value factor (biospherism), significantly predicted PEB. Most importantly, after controlling for these factors, cultural tightness significantly positively predicted PEB (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), which implied that the tighter the culture, the higher the level of PEB.” Since gender is mentioned as a significant predictor, it may be worth clarifying how the imbalance in the sample relates to this finding. A short note here would add precision and transparency.
• the statement: “Cultural tightness can also indirectly influence PEB through ascription of responsibility and personal norm…” (page 8, line 297) would benefit from clarification. It would be useful to indicate whether this is a conclusion supported by existing literature or whether it arises directly from the present study’s findings. Making this distinction clear will help strengthen the manuscript’s rigour.

Author Response

Overall, the article is well-structured and makes a valuable contribution. I have noted a few minor issues that could be improved, but these do not undermine the overall quality of the work. My comments are therefore limited to minor revisions only, for the authors’ consideration.

We sincerely thank you for your positive assessment of our work and for your constructive feedback. In response to your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript to enhance its overall quality. Specifically, we have restructured the presentation of our hypotheses in the Introduction to improve logical flow and clarity. Additionally, we have acknowledged and discussed the potential implications of gender imbalance in our sample within the Discussion sections. We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your insightful comments, which have been invaluable in guiding our revisions. Thank you once again for your time and thoughtful input.

 

Comment 1

Development of hypotheses: The transition from the theoretical background to the hypotheses could be made smoother. At present, the hypotheses appear somewhat abruptly at the end of the paragraph. It may be helpful to explain more explicitly how they emerge from the preceding discussion, which would improve the overall flow of the argument.

Response 1: We thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the presentation of our hypotheses could be more naturally introduced. In response, we have revised the final paragraphs of sections 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 to frame each hypothesis as a direct outcome of the preceding theoretical discussion, which we believe enhances the overall fluency.

 

Comment 2

Gender imbalance in Study 1 - There seems to be a pronounced imbalance between female and male participants in Study 1 (both 1a and 1b). It might be useful to briefly acknowledge this in the methodology or results, and to comment on whether and how this imbalance could have influenced the findings. Including such a note in the discussion as a potential limitation would strengthen the study.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Since this study was conducted via an online platform, it was challenging to ensure a fully balanced gender distribution in the sample. It is worth noting that gender, as a factor well-established in the literature to significantly influence PEB (Briscoe et al., 2019), was included in our study primarily as a control variable rather than as a focus of investigation. In response to your comment, we have acknowledged the issue of sample imbalance in the "Limitations and future directions" section and have explicitly addressed the potential constraints it may impose on the generalizability of our findings. We truly appreciate your insightful input, which has helped improve the transparency and rigor of our manuscript.

Reference

Briscoe, M. D., Givens, J. E., Hazboun, S. O., & Krannich, R. S. (2019). At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environmental Sociology, 5(4), 374−392. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2019.1628333.

 

Comment 3

Demographic predictors and gender issue - the manuscript states: “Results showed that demographic variables such as gender, age, as well as value factor (biospherism), significantly predicted PEB. Most importantly, after controlling for these factors, cultural tightness significantly positively predicted PEB (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), which implied that the tighter the culture, the higher the level of PEB.” Since gender is mentioned as a significant predictor, it may be worth clarifying how the imbalance in the sample relates to this finding. A short note here would add precision and transparency.

Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate the opportunity to further clarify our approach regarding sample composition.

We recognize that this point connects to the earlier comment about gender balance. In line with our research focus, gender was included as a control variable rather than a central construct, as its predictive effect on PEB was minimal compared to cultural tightness—our primary variable of interest. To enhance transparency, we have now: Clearly reported the gender distribution in the Participants section; Added a dedicated discussion of this limitation in the Limitations section. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns regarding sample representation.

 

Comment 4

the statement: “Cultural tightness can also indirectly influence PEB through ascription of responsibility and personal norm…” (page 8, line 297) would benefit from clarification. It would be useful to indicate whether this is a conclusion supported by existing literature or whether it arises directly from the present study’s findings. Making this distinction clear will help strengthen the manuscript’s rigour.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We would like to clarify that the entire paragraph (Lines 294–299 in the original manuscript) describes the moderated mediation effects identified in our study. Therefore, the sentence “Cultural tightness can also indirectly influence PEB through ascription of responsibility and personal norm…” was intended as a direct presentation of the findings. In the interest of enhancing methodological precision, we have revised the sentence as follows: “In addition, the results suggested that cultural tightness can also indirectly predict PEB through ascription of responsibility and personal norm……”. This adjustment more explicitly frames the statement as an interpretation of the results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found the topic very relevant, and the paper was overall well-written. The study provides valuable insights into the relationship between cultural tightness and looseness and pro-environmental behavior (PEB), especially by highlighting the mediating role of responsibility attribution and personal norms, as well as the moderating role of environmental threats.

#Introduction

• The introduction is robust. The arguments are logically constructed, based on established theoretical frameworks (e.g., norm-activation model), and the hypotheses are clearly formulated. One point that could be clarified is the assumed measurement accuracy of the "tightness-looseness" construct. Is it conceptualized dichotomously or continuously? Considering that you are using both a cross-sectional and experimental approach, it would be helpful to briefly discuss how cultural tightness-looseness has been measured or manipulated in previous empirical work.

#Study 1

Regarding Study 1a, several clarifications would improve the manuscript:

• In describing the sample, you note that 28.5% of the participants were female (line 155). What about the remaining 71.5%? Were they exclusively male?
• How much financial compensation did the participants receive (in local currency)?
• Please specify the regression models used and name Model 1 (control variables only) and Model 2 (including cultural tightness).
• Table 1 shows that biospherism is a stronger predictor of PEB than cultural tightness (Model 2). What theoretical explanation could apply to this result

The experimental design of Study 1b is promising, but some methodological details need further clarification:

• Were participants provided with financial compensation? If so, what was the amount?
• Were the participants aware of the true purpose of the study before their participation?
• What was the format of the narrative presentation (survey text only or audiovisual elements)?
• Was a distractor task used between the content of the manipulation and the measurement of the dependent variable?
• What was the reliability coefficient for the six items used to test the effectiveness of the manipulation?
• What was the average participation time?

#About the results:

• How were the conditions coded?
• Did some participants fail the manipulation check?
• Were there any outliers, and if so, how were they treated?
• Figure 1 should be revised to clarify the scale of the dependent variable. In the current presentation it suggests values above 50, which is not compatible with the maximum possible score (10 items × 5 points = 50).
• Were any covariates statistically significant?
• In Study 2, which tests moderated serial mediation, I recommend caution in interpreting the results. The description occasionally implies causal inferences (e.g., the use of the term influence in lines 288, 296, 299, 306), which is problematic given the cross-sectional design.
• Furthermore, although Table 3 breaks down the effects of the moderator, it remains unclear which indirect effects are statistically significant at the hypothesized level of environmental threat. It would also be helpful to clarify whether the covariates considered in the previous study were included here, and if so, to provide more information about their results.

#Discussion

Finally, the discussion is the strongest section of the manuscript. It provides a coherent synthesis of the findings. My only suggestion is to expand the role of covariates, particularly about the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB when biospherism is included.

Overall, this is a valuable and well-developed contribution. Consideration of the above points will help to strengthen the manuscript and improve its clarity and rigor.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for your encouraging feedback on our manuscript and the thoughtful suggestions you have provided to enhance its quality. In response to your comments, we have enriched the descriptions of our participant samples and study procedures to improve methodological clarity. We have also carefully revised the sections pertaining to control variables in accordance with your recommendations. Your expertise and insightful observations have significantly contributed to the refinement of our work, and we extend our sincere appreciation for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

 

#Introduction

Comment 1

The introduction is robust. The arguments are logically constructed, based on established theoretical frameworks (e.g., norm-activation model), and the hypotheses are clearly formulated. One point that could be clarified is the assumed measurement accuracy of the "tightness-looseness" construct. Is it conceptualized dichotomously or continuously? Considering that you are using both a cross-sectional and experimental approach, it would be helpful to briefly discuss how cultural tightness-looseness has been measured or manipulated in previous empirical work.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction accordingly to clarify that cultural tightness-looseness is a continuous construct, typically measured by the Cultural Tightness-Looseness Scale. As suggested, we have added the following sentence: “It is commonly operationalized using the Cultural Tightness-Looseness Scale, where a higher score denotes a tighter culture.” (Line 65-66).

 

#Study 1

Comment 2

Regarding Study 1a, several clarifications would improve the manuscript:

In describing the sample, you note that 28.5% of the participants were female (line 155). What about the remaining 71.5%? Were they exclusively male?

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback regarding sample clarity. To clarify the gender distribution in our sample, we have updated the sample description to: "Among participants, 28.5% were female, with the remainder (71.5%) being male, and 92.2% had a college degree or above."

 

Comment 3

How much financial compensation did the participants receive (in local currency)?

Response 3: We appreciate you highlighting this detail. The method section now includes: "Participants gave their informed consent prior to participation and received remuner-ation (CNY 2) upon completion. "

 

Comment 4

Please specify the regression models used and name Model 1 (control variables only) and Model 2 (including cultural tightness).

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We have now clarified the type of regression model and variable entry method in the Statistical Analysis section of Study 1. Additionally, we have labeled Model 1 and Model 2 in the note beneath Table 1.

 

Comment 5

Table 1 shows that biospherism is a stronger predictor of PEB than cultural tightness (Model 2). What theoretical explanation could apply to this result.

Response 5: Thank you for raising this point. This study aims to examine the role of cultural tightness-looseness on PEB, which necessitates controlling for other variables that may also affect PEB. Accordingly, we controlled for demographic variables, as well as the biospherism—a personal value derived from the Value-Belief-Norm theory (Stern, 2000). This theory posits that biospherism, which reflects a priority for the environment and the biosphere, is a known positive predictor of PEB (Shah & Yang, 2023). Given its specific focus on ecological concerns, it is plausible that biosphere value exhibits a stronger predictive power for PEB than cultural tightness does.

Nevertheless, our key finding remains that cultural tightness still significantly and positively predicts PEB even after controlling for biospherism. This result underscores the important, independent role that perceived strength of social norms (as captured by cultural tightness) play in promoting PEB, above and beyond the effect of environmental values.

Reference

Shah, P., & Yang, J. Z. (2023). It Takes Two to Tango: How Ability and Morality Shape Consumers’ Willingness to Refill and Reuse. Environmental Management, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01828-7.

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.

 

Comment 6

The experimental design of Study 1b is promising, but some methodological details need further clarification:

Were participants provided with financial compensation? If so, what was the amount?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this detail. We have added the following sentence to the Participants section of Study 1b: “On average, the study took 5–7 minutes to complete, and each participant received a compensation of 5 Chinese Yuan upon finishing.”

 

Comment 7

Were the participants aware of the true purpose of the study before their participation?

Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified in the Participants section that participants were not aware of the specific research hypotheses during the study and were only told it was a survey on environmental behavior. The following sentence has been added: "They were unaware of the specific research hypotheses during the study but were fully debriefed upon completion."

 

Comment 8

What was the format of the narrative presentation (survey text only or audiovisual elements)?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing out this detail. We have amended the description to explicitly state that the priming was delivered through a textual narrative, as shown in the revised sentence: " The text-based experimental material explained that the Taiji society was a society 500 years in the future……".

 

Comment 9

Was a distractor task used between the content of the manipulation and the measurement of the dependent variable?

Response 9: Thank you for this comment. Our manipulation approach closely followed the cultural tightness manipulation task originally developed by Jackson et al. (2021). In their paradigm, no distractor task was administered between the cultural priming and the subsequent measures. To maintain fidelity to the established methodology, our study likewise did not include a distractor task, which accounts for its absence in our reporting.

Reference

Jackson, J. C., Caluori, N., Abrams, S., Beckman, E., Gelfand, M., & Gray, K. (2021). Tight cultures and vengeful gods: How culture shapes religious belief. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Genera,. 150(10), 2057-2077. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001033.

 

Comment 10

What was the reliability coefficient for the six items used to test the effectiveness of the manipulation?

Response 10: Thank you for this comment. We have now reported the reliability of the 6-item manipulation check, which showed a Cronbach's α of 0.94, in the Manipulation section.

 

Comment 11

What was the average participation time?

Response 11: Thank you for pointing out this detail. We have added the average participation time (5-7 minutes) to the Participants section of Study 1b.

 

#About the results:

Comment 12

How were the conditions coded?

Response 12: Thank you for this comment. In our analyses, the tight culture group was coded as 1 and the loose culture group as 2. We acknowledge that this specific coding scheme was not explicitly stated in the manuscript, as these numerical values were used solely for categorical distinction in the statistical model and do not imply any order or value.

 

Comment 13

Did some participants fail the manipulation check?

Response 13: Thank you for this question. All participants successfully passed the manipulation check. We have added the following statement to the Participants section to clarify this: " All participants successfully completed the study tasks. "

 

Comment 14

Were there any outliers, and if so, how were they treated?

Response 14: Thank you for your comment. We confirm that no outliers were identified in the data for this study.

 

Comment 15

Figure 1 should be revised to clarify the scale of the dependent variable. In the current presentation it suggests values above 50, which is not compatible with the maximum possible score (10 items × 5 points = 50).

Response 15: Thank you for your attentive review and for raising this point for clarification. We confirm that no observations in our dataset exceeded a PEB total score of 50. To make this criterion visually explicit in the manuscript, we have revised Figure 1 to include a horizontal reference line at the score of 50, which clearly demonstrates that no data points lie above this threshold.

 

Comment 16

Were any covariates statistically significant?

Response 16: Thank you for your interest in the detailed results of our study. Regarding the covariates in Study 1b, the demographic variables—specifically gender, age, education level, and economic income—did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with PEB. Consistent with the findings from Study 1a, however, biosphere values again emerged as a significant predictor of PEB (F(1, 153) = 32.93, p < .001, η² = 0.18).

In preparing the manuscript, we made a deliberate decision to focus the presentation of results on the primary variable of interest—cultural tightness—in order to enhance clarity and conciseness. For this reason, we omitted the non-significant demographic covariates and the confirmatory finding related to biosphere values, which aligned with prior results. We are happy to provide these additional statistical details here and can include them in an appendix or supplementary materials if deemed necessary.

 

Comment 17

In Study 2, which tests moderated serial mediation, I recommend caution in interpreting the results. The description occasionally implies causal inferences (e.g., the use of the term influence in lines 288, 296, 299, 306), which is problematic given the cross-sectional design.

Response 17: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We agree that cross-sectional design cannot establish causality. As suggested, we have replaced "influence" with "predict" in the noted instances (Line 288, 296, 299, 306) to more accurately describe our findings.

 

Comment 18

Furthermore, although Table 3 breaks down the effects of the moderator, it remains unclear which indirect effects are statistically significant at the hypothesized level of environmental threat. It would also be helpful to clarify whether the covariates considered in the previous study were included here, and if so, to provide more information about their results.

Response 18: Thank you for this thoughtful comment and for bringing these reporting omissions to our attention. In response, we have revised the Results section of Study 2 in the following ways: We have now included the moderating effect of environmental threat on the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB. Then, we have also added a statement clarifying that environmental threat did not significantly moderate the indirect pathways. Furthermore, in the section 3.4.3, we have explicitly stated that covariates were included in the analysis. As these variables were not the primary focus of our study, their detailed results were not reported in the interest of clarity and conciseness. We believe these revisions have enhanced the completeness and transparency of our results section, and we thank you again for this valuable feedback.

 

#Discussion

Comment 19

Finally, the discussion is the strongest section of the manuscript. It provides a coherent synthesis of the findings. My only suggestion is to expand the role of covariates, particularly about the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB when biospherism is included.

Response 19: We are truly grateful for your encouraging words regarding the Discussion and for your thoughtful suggestion.

In our study, covariates were included primarily to control for potential confounding influences from factors known to affect PEB, thereby allowing us to isolate the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB. As the roles of demographic variables (e.g., gender (Briscoe et al., 2019), age (Ágoston et al., 2024), education (Patel et al., 2017), income(Grandin et al.,2022)) and biosphere values (Shah, P & Yang, 2023) have been extensively established in prior literature, we did not elaborate on them in detail, in order to maintain focus on our central variable of interest.

That said, we fully recognize the value of your suggestion in enhancing the contextual richness of the Discussion. In response, we have incorporated a discussion regarding biospherism as a covariate, emphasizing how the persistent significance of cultural tightness, even after accounting for such a strong predictor, underscores its unique role in promoting PEB.

Thank you again for your constructive input, which has undoubtedly strengthened our manuscript.

Reference

Ágoston, C., Balázs, B., Mónus, F., & Varga, A. (2024). Age differences and profiles in pro-environmental behavior and eco-emotions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 01650254231222436. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254231222436.

Briscoe, M. D., Givens, J. E., Hazboun, S. O., & Krannich, R. S. (2019). At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environmental Sociology, 5(4), 374−392. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2019.1628333.

Grandin, A., Guillou, L., Sater, R. A., Foucault, M., & Chevallier, C. (2022). Socioeconomic status, time preferences and pro-environmentalism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101720.

Patel, J., Modi, A., & Paul, J. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 189−214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041748.

Shah, P., & Yang, J. Z. (2023). It Takes Two to Tango: How Ability and Morality Shape Consumers’ Willingness to Refill and Reuse. Environmental Management, 1−12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01828-7.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), 

Your manuscript is very interesting and may be a starting point for other research in the field, however below are a few improvement suggestions:

• The Introduction section should include some basic information about the manuscript and clearly identify a gap in the literature, followed by the aim of the manuscript and the specific objectives. I would highly recommend adding subsection 1.4. before subsection 1.1. and make a  connection with the rest of the introduction by adding the gap in the literature paragraph. Maybe it would also help in presenting the actual context in China regarding the PEB.
• Starting with subsection 1.1. you can rename the section Theoretical background because it is full of supporting information for the hypotheses
• Although there are 2 case studies, after the measurement subsection of each study, please include a subsection about Statistical Analysis, what statistical software was used and what statistical tests. It would be highly appreciated if you could make a connection between hypotheses and what tests were used to assess the approval or rejection of them. 
• A conclusion section should be added with the most important conclusions of the research. 
• for the Two level ANOVA, was the distribution of the variables tested with Normality Tests? If yes, a sentence would be useful to motivate the selection of the ANOVA test for parametric (normal) distributions.
• Although the references are very-well selected, I would recommend two other references, especially for line 392 of the manuscript. Maybe you find them useful:
• Gheorghe, I.R., Purcărea, V.L. and Gheorghe, C.M., 2023. Antecedents of Consumer Intentions towards Ewaste Recycling. A Perspective on the Toy Industry from Romania. Amfiteatru Economic, 25(62), pp. 163-179. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2023/62/163
• Gheorghe, I.R., Purcărea, V.L. and Gheorghe, C.M., 2019. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Bioeconomy: Reflections on Single-Bottled Water Consumption. Amfiteatru Economic, 21(50), pp. 105-120. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2019/50/105

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your specific guidance on enhancing the logical flow of the introduction, improving the clarity of statistical reporting, and strengthening the discussion has been invaluable in refining our work. In response to your comments, we have revised the introduction to improve its logical flow, added dedicated statistical analysis subsections in each method part to clarify the software, analytical approaches, and hypotheses tested, and included a Conclusion section at the end of the manuscript. We hope these revisions have enhanced the overall quality of our manuscript and look forward to any further guidance you may provide. Thank you once again for your time and insightful input.

 

Comment 1

The Introduction section should include some basic information about the manuscript and clearly identify a gap in the literature, followed by the aim of the manuscript and the specific objectives. I would highly recommend adding subsection 1.4. before subsection 1.1. and make a connection with the rest of the introduction by adding the gap in the literature paragraph. Maybe it would also help in presenting the actual context in China regarding the PEB.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to improve the logical flow of our introduction based on your valuable feedback.

In accordance with your suggestions, we have comprehensively restructured the Introduction to enhance its coherence. The revised version of Section 1.1 ("Advances and Limitations in Pro-environmental Behavior Research") now begins by establishing the significance of pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and clarifying its definition. Building upon this foundation, we then discuss the existing research that has primarily concentrated on individual-level influencing factors. Following this overview, we have refined the narrative to more smoothly transition into the identified research gap, specifically the relative neglect of macro-level cultural influences. This improved logical progression serves to effectively underscore the novelty and necessity of our study, which introduces cultural tightness-looseness as a key explanatory variable. We hope that the current version meets with your approval and thank you once again for your insightful comments.

 

Comment 2

Starting with subsection 1.1. you can rename the section Theoretical background because it is full of supporting information for the hypotheses

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments regarding the structure of our manuscript. In the revised version, we have reorganized the introduction to enhance its logical coherence. The opening section (1.1. Advances and Limitations in Pro-environmental Behavior Research) now reviews advances and limitations in existing PEB research, naturally leading to the introduction of cultural tightness-looseness as a key theoretical framework. Subsequently, section 1.2 (Cultural tightness-looseness and PEB) elaborates on the specific mechanisms linking cultural tightness-looseness to PEB, including the direct relationship (1.2.1), the mediating roles of responsibility ascription and personal norms (1.2.2), and the moderating effect of environmental threat (1.2.3). The introduction concludes by clearly presenting the research objectives and study overview in section 1.3. We believe these adjustments have significantly strengthened the theoretical foundation and narrative flow of our manuscript.

 

Comment 3

Although there are 2 case studies, after the measurement subsection of each study, please include a subsection about Statistical Analysis, what statistical software was used and what statistical tests. It would be highly appreciated if you could make a connection between hypotheses and what tests were used to assess the approval or rejection of them.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have carefully revised the manuscript and added a dedicated "Statistical Analysis" section following the Measurement section in each study. These new subsections clearly specify the statistical software employed, the specific analytical methods used, and how each method relates to the testing of our hypotheses. We believe these additions significantly improve the transparency and methodological clarity of our research.

 

Comment 4

A conclusion section should be added with the most important conclusions of the research.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included a "Conclusion" section at the end of the manuscript, which states: "In conclusion, this study empirically demonstrates that cultural tightness, especially in high-threat contexts, motivates pro-environmental behavior. In addition, it can predict PEB by activating the core NAM sequence of ascription of responsibility and personal norms. This finding provides a foundation for theoretically extending the Norm Acti-vation Model while also informing practical initiatives.". We appreciate your helpful feedback.

 

Comment 5

for the Two level ANOVA, was the distribution of the variables tested with Normality Tests? If yes, a sentence would be useful to motivate the selection of the ANOVA test for parametric (normal) distributions.

Response 5: Thank you for raising this important methodological point. In the present study, we did not conduct normality tests prior to performing the two-level ANOVA. This approach aligns with the statistical guideline that when group sample sizes are sufficiently large (generally >30) and the design is balanced (equal sample sizes in each group), the conditions for applying ANOVA are generally considered satisfied, as the Central Limit Theorem ensures that the sampling distribution of the mean will approximate normality (Sawyer, 2009). In this study, each group contained 80 participants, exceeding the common sample size threshold, and the group sizes were perfectly balanced between the tight and loose culture conditions. We therefore consider the use of ANOVA to be appropriate in this context. We sincerely appreciate your comment, which has provided us with an opportunity to clarify our analytical rationale.

Reference

Sawyer, S. F. (2009). Analysis of variance: the fundamental concepts. Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, 17(2), 27E-38E. https://doi.org/10.1179/jmt.2009.17.2.27E.

 

Comment 6

Although the references are very-well selected, I would recommend two other references, especially for line 392 of the manuscript. Maybe you find them useful:

Gheorghe, I.R., Purcărea, V.L. and Gheorghe, C.M., 2023. Antecedents of Consumer Intentions towards Ewaste Recycling. A Perspective on the Toy Industry from Romania. Amfiteatru Economic, 25(62), pp. 163-179. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2023/62/163

Gheorghe, I.R., Purcărea, V.L. and Gheorghe, C.M., 2019. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Bioeconomy: Reflections on Single-Bottled Water Consumption. Amfiteatru Economic, 21(50), pp. 105-120. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2019/50/105

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful recommendation of these two references as a means to enhance the quality of our Discussion section. We have carefully studied both suggested articles.

The study by Gheorghe et al. (2023) examines factors influencing the intention to recycle toys, highlighting the roles of attitude, self-efficacy, and social norms, while Gheorghe et al. (2019) identifies variables such as safety and hygiene, personal benefit, locus of control, and personal responsibility affecting single-bottled water consumption. Both works offer valuable insights into predictors of PEB within the theory of planned behavior framework.

However, after thorough consideration, we found it challenging to integrate these references into line 392 of our manuscript. In that paragraph, we derive practical implications based specifically on our findings—such as combining tight cultural contexts with high environmental threat messaging may promote PEB. The constructs emphasized in the suggested articles (e.g., social norms, self-efficacy, or locus of control) do not directly align with the cultural and threat-based variables central to our argument. Although Gheorghe et al. (2023) mentions social norms, as we noted in line 64 of our manuscript, social norms and cultural tightness represent distinct constructs, with the latter focusing on the strength of norms rather than their content.

We truly appreciate your intention to strengthen our discussion. If you could kindly further specify which particular aspects or findings from these articles could be connected to our manuscript, we would be very grateful and remain open to incorporating them.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates how cultural tightness—defined as the strength of social norms and the severity of sanctions for deviance—affects pro-environmental behavior (PEB), a form of individual action that is increasingly salient in addressing global environmental crises. The authors conceptualize cultural tightness as a cultural attribute that is reinforced under social threat and examine its influence on PEB through three studies conducted with Chinese adults: a measurement study (Study 1a), an experimental manipulation (Study 1b), and a survey study (Study 2). The manuscript makes a notable theoretical contribution by integrating a macro-level cultural factor (tightness) into the Norm Activation Model (NAM), challenging the prevailing focus on individual-level values and attitudes in PEB research. The three-stage design, which combines measurement, experimental, and survey approaches, strengthens causal inference and elucidates the mechanism by which cultural tightness promotes PEB through responsibility attribution and moral norms. Despite these strengths, several issues require further discussion or revision to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and generalizability.

1. Participant Characteristics

All participants were Chinese, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts. The meaning and historical background of tightness can vary substantially across nations and regions; cross-cultural comparative research is therefore essential, but this limitation is not sufficiently addressed. Moreover, PEB was measured exclusively through self-report, raising concerns about social desirability bias. The sample was also highly educated (over 90% with a college degree), which may confound the effects of cultural tightness with education-related differences in norm awareness and environmental attitudes. These issues warrant deeper consideration.

2. Measurement Bias

PEB was assessed solely via self-report scales, which are susceptible to social desirability and memory biases. Incorporating behavioral observations or experimental tasks would strengthen the validity of the findings. The authors should more thoroughly discuss this limitation.

3. Mediating Mechanisms

Responsibility attribution and personal norms accounted for only about half of the total effect of cultural tightness on PEB. Other potential psychological mediators should be explored or at least conceptually discussed.

4. Experimental Manipulation

In Study 1b, cultural tightness was manipulated by asking participants to read a vignette describing a hypothetical society. It remains unclear whether a brief imagination exercise can meaningfully and durably alter deep-seated cultural values. The external validity of this manipulation requires further reflection.

5. Causal Inference in Study 2

Although Study 2 employs mediation analysis, its cross-sectional design prevents strong causal claims. The proposed chain mediation model (cultural tightness → responsibility attribution → personal norms → PEB) assumes temporal precedence that cannot be guaranteed with concurrent measures. Longitudinal or experimental tests of mediation would provide stronger evidence.

6. Omitted Cultural Covariates

Other cultural variables such as collectivism/individualism or authoritarianism were not controlled. The observed effects of tightness might therefore be confounded with these related cultural dimensions. A more detailed discussion of this possibility is needed.

7. Statistical Inference and Reporting

The statistical analyses require greater transparency.　Multiple correlations, regressions, and ANOVAs were conducted across Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, but there is no indication of adjustments for family-wise error rates (e.g., Bonferroni correction) or false discovery rate control.　Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, η²) and confidence intervals are inconsistently reported, making it difficult to assess the practical magnitude of effects.　Potential multicollinearity—such as the relatively high correlation between responsibility attribution and personal norms (r = .54)—is not fully examined.　Although a priori power analyses were conducted, the assumed effect sizes (e.g., η² = .06) may be over- or underestimated, which could affect Type I/II error rates.　Re-analysis or at least a more detailed discussion of these statistical considerations is recommended.

Summary

This manuscript offers a theoretically meaningful and methodologically ambitious investigation into the role of cultural tightness in promoting pro-environmental behavior. Addressing the concerns outlined above—particularly regarding sample generalizability, measurement validity, omitted covariates, and statistical rigor—would considerably strengthen the contribution and robustness of the findings.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, and particularly for your generous acknowledgment of its theoretical and methodological contributions. We sincerely appreciate you highlighting the key areas for improvement regarding sample generalizability, measurement validity, omitted covariates, and statistical rigor. In direct response to your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these important points. We have expanded the Limitations section to provide a more critical discussion of the generalizability of our findings and the implications of omitted cultural variables. Additionally, we have strengthened the Method and Results sections to enhance statistical transparency and rigor. Your insightful comments have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality and robustness of our work. We believe the revised manuscript is substantially stronger as a result of your guidance, and we thank you once again for your time and expertise in reviewing our paper.

 

Comment 1

Participant Characteristics

All participants were Chinese, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts. The meaning and historical background of tightness can vary substantially across nations and regions; cross-cultural comparative research is therefore essential, but this limitation is not sufficiently addressed. Moreover, PEB was measured exclusively through self-report, raising concerns about social desirability bias. The sample was also highly educated (over 90% with a college degree), which may confound the effects of cultural tightness with education-related differences in norm awareness and environmental attitudes. These issues warrant deeper consideration.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your for these insightful and constructive comments regarding the generalizability of our findings, the limitations of self-report measures, and the potential confounding effect of educational background. We fully agree that cross-cultural comparisons, behavioral measures of PEB, and more diverse sampling in terms of educational attainment would significantly strengthen the validity and robustness of the findings. As this study represents an initial, exploratory investigation into the direct relationship between cultural tightness and PEB, some of these important aspects could not be fully addressed within the scope of the current research. However, in direct response to your feedback, we have now explicitly discussed these limitations in greater depth in the revised manuscript. We have also elaborated on how these limitations can be addressed in future research in the corresponding Limitations and future directions section. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the critical reflection in our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in helping us achieve this.

 

Comment 2

Measurement Bias

PEB was assessed solely via self-report scales, which are susceptible to social desirability and memory biases. Incorporating behavioral observations or experimental tasks would strengthen the validity of the findings. The authors should more thoroughly discuss this limitation.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion regarding the measurement of PEB. While our original manuscript briefly acknowledged the limitation of relying on self-report measures, we have now expanded the discussion to address this point more thoroughly, as you recommended. The revised text in the Limitations and future directions section reads as follows:

" a notable limitation of this study lies in its exclusive reliance on self-report measures for assessing PEB, a method susceptible to social desirability bias, memory inaccura-cies, and potential common method variance [8, 65]. Future studies may consider adopting behavioral paradigms that require participants to incur actual costs when performing PEB—such as environmental protection work tasks or large public goods tasks—as more ecologically valid measures of PEB, thereby strengthening the validity of research findings [63]"

Thank you again for your valuable input, which has helped us improve the critical reflection in our manuscript.

 

Comment 3

Mediating Mechanisms

Responsibility attribution and personal norms accounted for only about half of the total effect of cultural tightness on PEB. Other potential psychological mediators should be explored or at least conceptually discussed.

Response 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the mediators from the NAM explain only a portion of the total effect of cultural tightness on PEB, suggesting the involvement of additional psychological mechanisms. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the Discussion section to include a conceptual exploration of other potential mediators. Specifically, we now discuss how prevention focus—a regulatory orientation characterized by safety concerns, adherence to rules, and responsibility fulfillment—may serve as a complementary pathway through which cultural tightness influences PEB. We hope this addition provides meaningful direction for future research aimed at unpacking the underlying mechanisms of this relationship.

 

Comment 4

Experimental Manipulation

In Study 1b, cultural tightness was manipulated by asking participants to read a vignette describing a hypothetical society. It remains unclear whether a brief imagination exercise can meaningfully and durably alter deep-seated cultural values. The external validity of this manipulation requires further reflection.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful comment regarding the validity of our manipulation method in Study 1b. We understand your concern about whether a brief imagination exercise can effectively alter deeply held cultural values.

This paradigm was originally developed by Jackson et al. (2021) for American participants, but it has since been successfully applied in several recent studies using Chinese samples. For example, both Sui et al. (2024) and Leng et al. (2024) have demonstrated that this approach effectively manipulates participants' immediate perceptions of cultural tightness-looseness. Additionally, the manipulation check results in our own study confirm that the manipulation was effective. Based on this evidence, we consider the paradigm to be appropriate for the purposes of this study.

Reference

Jackson, J. C., Caluori, N., Abrams, S., Beckman, E., Gelfand, M., & Gray, K. (2021). Tight cultures and vengeful gods: How culture shapes religious belief. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(10), 2057-2077. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001033.

Leng, J., Wang, C., & Hu, P. (2024). Embodied spatial metaphor of cultural concept from the perspective of cultural tightness–looseness: Cultural compatibility concept is closer to the body. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 27(4), 899-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12646.

Sui, J., Shen, H., & Zhou, X. (2024). Impact of cultural tightness on consumers' preference for anthropomorphic AI services. Psychology and Marketing, 41(11), 2841-2853. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22086.

 

Comment 5

Causal Inference in Study 2

Although Study 2 employs mediation analysis, its cross-sectional design prevents strong causal claims. The proposed chain mediation model (cultural tightness → responsibility attribution → personal norms → PEB) assumes temporal precedence that cannot be guaranteed with concurrent measures. Longitudinal or experimental tests of mediation would provide stronger evidence.

Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment regarding the causal interpretation of our mediation model in Study 2. We fully agree that longitudinal or experimental designs would provide stronger evidence for the proposed causal pathways.

In designing this study, we faced several constraints that led us to adopt a cross-sectional approach. For example, since Study 2 aimed to examine both mediation and moderation effects, testing the full model (cultural tightness × environmental threat) experimentally would have required a large sample size and a complex manipulation procedure. To our knowledge, no established paradigm currently exists for jointly manipulating cultural tightness and environmental threat, making such an experimental design challenging to implement. Additionally, while cultural tightness is relatively stable at the societal level, individuals' perceptions of cultural tightness can be context-dependent (Leung & Morris, 2015) and may not remain stable over time, which poses challenges for longitudinal assessment of the proposed model.

As this study represents an initial exploration of the mediating and moderating mechanisms linking cultural tightness-looseness to PEB, we used a cross-sectional design to provide preliminary evidence. That said, we strongly agree with your suggestion regarding the need for more rigorous causal tests. Accordingly, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the manuscript and emphasized the importance of future research employing experimental or longitudinal methods to validate the proposed model.

Reference

Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2015). Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1028-1050. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.66

 

Comment 6

Omitted Cultural Covariates

Other cultural variables such as collectivism/individualism or authoritarianism were not controlled. The observed effects of tightness might therefore be confounded with these related cultural dimensions. A more detailed discussion of this possibility is needed.

Response 6: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the discussion of this limitation in the manuscript to more thoroughly address the potential confounding influence of other cultural variables. The revised text now reads:

"In addition, although this study controlled for gender, age, and individual values that might influence the PEB [45], it did not account for other relevant cultural variables that may also shape environmental actions. For instance, collectivism-individualism cultural orientations [13] have been linked to differential engagement in PEB, with collectivistic tendencies often associated with stronger PEB. However, authoritarianism, which emphasizes strict adherence to tradition and absolute submission to authority, may suppress PEB [62]. Future research should therefore incorporate these and other cultural dimensions to better isolate the unique contribution of cultural tightness-looseness and rule out potential confounding effects. "

    While this study did not control for related cultural dimensions such as collectivism-individualism or authoritarianism, we note that their potential confounding effects may be limited due to conceptual distinctions from cultural tightness-looseness. For instance, research by Shi et al. (2024) indicates that cultural tightness-looseness is orthogonal to collectivism-individualism—tight cultures are not necessarily higher in collectivism, nor are loose cultures inherently more individualistic. Furthermore, cultural tightness-looseness differs conceptually from authoritarianism. Authoritarianism represents an individual ideological attitude or preference, whereas tightness-looseness reflects perceived strength of social norm enforcement—regardless of one's personal attitudes toward those norms (Syropoulos & Law, 2024). Thus, we believe the observed effects of cultural tightness are reasonably robust. However, we believe that future studies should nevertheless incorporate these related cultural constructs to further isolate the unique influence of cultural tightness-looseness.

 

Reference

Shi, J., Kim, H. K., Salmon, C. T., Tandoc Jr, E. C., & Goh, Z. H. (2024). Cultural tightness–looseness and normative social influence in eight Asian countries: associations of individual and collective norms with vaccination intentions. Social Science and Medicine, 340, 116431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116431

Syropoulos, S., & Law, K. F. (2024). Cultural tightness and its association with national levels of peace: Evidence from a cross-national investigation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 30(3), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000725

Comment 7

Statistical Inference and Reporting

The statistical analyses require greater transparency.　Multiple correlations, regressions, and ANOVAs were conducted across Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, but there is no indication of adjustments for family-wise error rates (e.g., Bonferroni correction) or false discovery rate control.　Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, η²) and confidence intervals are inconsistently reported, making it difficult to assess the practical magnitude of effects.　Potential multicollinearity—such as the relatively high correlation between responsibility attribution and personal norms (r = .54)—is not fully examined.　Although a priori power analyses were conducted, the assumed effect sizes (e.g., η² = .06) may be over- or underestimated, which could affect Type I/II error rates.　Re-analysis or at least a more detailed discussion of these statistical considerations is recommended.

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate your thorough assessment and valuable suggestions regarding the statistical analyses in our manuscript. We have carefully considered these important methodological points and would like to provide the following clarifications and revisions.

Regarding the issue of family-wise error rates, we acknowledge your valid concern about potential inflation of Type I errors. In regression analyses where theoretically motivated predictors are examined simultaneously within a unified model, conventional practice generally does not apply family-wise error rate corrections like Bonferroni to individual regression coefficients, as such adjustments can be overly conservative and substantially increase Type II error rates—potentially masking genuine effects (Gelman et al., 2021; Shmueli, 2010). Perneger (1998) also noted that Bonferroni corrections may sometimes create more problems than they solve.

Secondly, regarding the reporting of effect sizes. We would like to clarify that our selection of effect size indices was carefully considered and aligns with established methodological conventions. Specifically, we reported Cohen's d for independent-samples t-tests, partial eta-squared (η²) for ANOVA models, and bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for mediation analyses. Our approach is supported by contemporary statistical literature in the field, which consistently recommends these specific effect size measures for their respective statistical methods (e.g., Zheng et al., 2011).

Third, regarding the potential multicollinearity between ascription of responsibility and personal norms (r = .54), we sincerely thank you for this pertinent observation. In response, we conducted a formal collinearity diagnostic within the relevant regression model. The results indicated that the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for both variables was 1.41, which is well below the common threshold of 5 (and further below the more stringent threshold of 10) (Shrestha, 2020). Therefore, while these two constructs are empirically related, the degree of their correlation does not reach a level that would introduce substantial multicollinearity bias or unstable parameter estimates in our model.

Finally, regarding the concern about statistical power, we sincerely appreciate the your attention to this important methodological detail. In addition to the a priori power analysis conducted during our study design, we have now performed a post hoc power analysis based on the observed effect size (η² = 0.21) from Study 1b. The results indicate a statistical power (1-β) of 0.999, which substantially exceeds the conventional threshold of 0.80. This demonstrates that our study possessed more than adequate power to detect the observed effects, thereby mitigating concerns about Type II errors in this particular analysis.

We sincerely thank you for raising these detailed analytical points. We hope our responses have adequately addressed your concerns and demonstrated the robustness of our statistical approach.

Reference

Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Vehtari, A. (2021). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press.

Perneger, T. V. (1998). What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ, 316(7139), 1236-1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236.

Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict?. Statistical science, 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330.

Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American journal of applied mathematics and statistics, 8(2), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-8-2-1.

Zheng, H. M., Wen, Z.L., & Wu, Y. (2011). The Appropriate Effect Sizes and Their Calculations in Psychological Research. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1868-1878. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2011.01868

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All suggestions have been addressed