Next Article in Journal
Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Electric Bus: An Application in Italy
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Corporate Ethical Level and Ethical Efforts on Corporate Performance: Evidence of a Corporate Moral Licensing Phenomenon
 
 
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 21
10.3390/su17219785
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 question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Jie Leng
1,2,
Xuegang Zheng
2,
Xinyu Xu
3 and
Ping Hu
2,*
1
School of Social Development, Shandong Women’s University, Jinan 250300, China
2
Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
3
School of Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, Shandong Agriculture and Engineering University, Jinan 250100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(21), 9785; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219785
Submission received: 27 August 2025 / Revised: 21 October 2025 / Accepted: 30 October 2025 / Published: 3 November 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is crucial for addressing global ecological threats, yet cultural factors are often overlooked in research on its determinants. This research explored the impact of cultural tightness–looseness on PEB, focusing on the mediating roles of the ascription of responsibility and personal norms, and the moderating role of environmental threats. In Study 1, we conducted both a measurement (Study 1a) and a manipulation (Study 1b) of cultural tightness–looseness and found that tight cultures effectively promote PEB. In Study 2, we tested the moderated mediation model, which revealed that the ascription of responsibility and personal norms, along with their chain effects, mediated the impact of cultural tightness–looseness on PEB. Environmental threats positively moderated the direct effect, with tight cultures predicting more PEB only under high–threat conditions. This study suggests that cultural tightness may have evolutionary benefits for promoting PEB. Practically, it reveals that promoting a tighter culture, coupled with messaging about environmental threats, may be more effective in encouraging PEB.

1. Introduction

1.1. Advances and Limitations in Pro-Environmental Behavior Research

The escalating global ecological crisis, compounded by the looming climate crisis, has heightened the rift between humanity and nature to unprecedented levels. Various environmental issues, including climate warming and environmental pollution, have caused extensive negative impacts on both the natural world and human livelihoods, posing a grave threat to our existence and bringing us into a period of genuine environmental crisis [1,2]. Since human activities are directly or indirectly culpable for environmental degradation, it is incumbent upon each individual to assume responsibility for protecting the environment [3]. Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) emerges as a critical avenue for individuals to participate in and solve environmental problems. It not only contributes to environmental conservation but also supports the maintenance of human health and well-being [4,5].
Pro-environmental behavior commonly denotes actions that aid in environmental conservation and mitigate detrimental impacts on the environment [6]. It encompasses diverse practices, including recycling, waste management, low-carbon travel, green consumption, and so on [7]. A substantial body of research has sought to identify the factors influencing PEB. Nevertheless, the scholarly focus has predominantly concentrated on individual-level variables such as personality, emotion, belief, and values [8,9], but paid less attention to the influence of macro variables such as cultural aspects and situational elements.
Pro-environmental behavior is indeed subject to the influence of factors such as culture, exhibiting significant variations across nations and regions. Empirical studies reveal, for instance, that Chilean populations demonstrate stronger environmentally friendly tendencies compared to Americans [10], while Germans exhibit higher recycling rates than both Israelis and Japanese [11]. In exploring the cultural underpinnings of these national variances, researchers have focused on collectivism–individualism and found that collectivism was found to be associated with more PEB, such as more organizational pro-environmental performance [12] and a greater willingness to consume sustainably [13]. Additionally, Li et al. investigated the cultural dimension of dialectics and found that it would reduce environmental protection behaviors [14]. However, these studies have neglected another important component of culture—the influence of norms [15]. Adopting a cultural lens, this research will investigate the influence of cultural tightness–looseness on PEB and explore the underlying explanatory mechanisms.

1.2. Cultural Tightness–Looseness and PEB

1.2.1. Relationship Between Cultural Tightness–Looseness and PEB

Cultural tightness–looseness refers to a cultural dimension closely associated with norms, reflecting the rigor of social standards and the extent of sanctions present in a society [16]. It is commonly operationalized using the Cultural Tightness–Looseness Scale, where a higher score denotes a tighter culture. Such cultures are characterized by clearly defined and strictly enforced social norms, exhibiting little tolerance for deviant behavior [17]. Cultural tightness–looseness distinguishes itself from the collectivism–individualism cultural value dimension. The two are orthogonal to each other [18]. In addition, unlike social norm (individuals’ beliefs about common and acceptable behavior in a group) which emphasize the specific content of norms, and personal norms (the moral obligation individuals feel to conduct themselves in a certain manner) [19], cultural tightness–looseness underscores how strong social norms are and how sensitive a society is to their violations [20]. This cultural dimension is closely linked to national harmony [21] and significantly influences individuals’ personality and behaviors. For instance, high cultural tightness is associated with greater conscientiousness [16] and often tied to less innovation [22].
Drawing on evolutionary game theory, Roos et al. proposed that significant threats prompt groups to strengthen social norms, with increased compliance with norms and harsher punishment for deviant behaviors, to cope with threats [23]. Therefore, a tight culture serves as a potent strategy for confronting threats. In recent years, particularly amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have highlighted the evolutionary advantages of cultural tightness. For instance, it has been associated with reduced mortality rates from COVID-19 and promoting protective behaviors, such as mask-wearing, frequent handwashing, and being vaccinated [18,24,25]. Tight cultures are instrumental in navigating survival challenges and promoting human protective behavior, including PEB, which is crucial for addressing environmental problems and protecting the environment [26]. Therefore, a tight culture may be more conducive to promoting individuals’ PEB.
Thus far, only a limited number of studies have examined the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and PEB. For example, Abbas et al. exploratorily found that tighter cultures are associated with a greater willingness to purchase environmentally friendly electric bicycles [27], but they did not provide a reasonable explanation for this relationship. Additionally, Di Santo et al. revealed that tight cultures encourage individuals to act more carefully in socially acceptable ways, which weakens their detachment from morally acceptable behavior and further promotes PEB intentions [28]. Nonetheless, their work focused primarily on desired tightness—i.e., the level of cultural tightness people prefer—which differs from individually perceived cultural tightness–looseness [29]. In contrast, the present study emphasizes the role of the perceived cultural tightness–looseness at the individual level. We therefore hypothesize that cultural tightness positively predicts PEB (H1).

1.2.2. The Mediate Roles of the Ascription of Responsibility and Personal Norm

The norm-activation model (NAM) [30] stands as an effective theory to explain PEB. The NAM highlights personal norm—the moral obligation to adhere to or avoid specific behaviors—as the key factor influencing PEB. It can be activated by individuals’ awareness of the consequences associated with performing or refraining from certain behaviors, and their sense of responsibility towards these consequences (that is, the ascription of responsibility) [31]. A heightened perception of the favorable consequences of PEB, coupled with a stronger sense of responsibility and stronger personal norm, is associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in PEB, such as utility-saving behaviors [32]. Despite the NAM’s valuable insights into predicting PEB, it overlooks the influence of external and situational factors on behavior [33].
Zou et al. pioneered the integration of cultural tightness–looseness into the NAM, and used the components of the NAM to explain the influence of cultural tightness–looseness on human protective behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic [34]. Cultural tightness is positively correlated with NAM components and promotes protective behavior in the face of threats through NAM mechanisms. Gilliam et al. also found that individuals within a tight culture have higher sense of life responsibility and take more responsibility for others [25]. In addition, culturally tight societies have stronger normative pressures from society as a whole, and their citizens need to strictly abide by norms [35,36]. Moreover, the perceived normative pressure from the outside is conducive to the internalization of the norm [37], that is, to the improvement of personal norm. Given that PEB can itself be viewed as a form of protective behavior, we propose that the norm-activation model offers a plausible explanatory pathway for the influence of cultural tightness on PEB. We therefore hypothesize that the ascription of responsibility and personal norm jointly mediate the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and PEB (H2). Specifically, the tighter the culture, the more responsible people may be perceived, and the more inclined they are to internalize and adhere to norms, thus promoting PEB.

1.2.3. The Moderate Role of Environmental Threat

Perceived environmental threat reflects an individual’s perception of the detrimental repercussions associated with environmental events [38]. This perception of threat frequently spurs individuals to safeguard themselves and adopt proactive measures to lessen these risks [39]. Perceived environmental threats also have an important effect on PEB. For instance, Primc et al. observed a positive association between perceived environmental threats and people’s willingness to invest more in environmental protection and a negative association with their energy consumption behavior [40]. Ekinci and Van Lange noted that exposure to threatening situations also increases pro-environmental intent [41]. Notably, cultural tightness often emerges in response to collective threats and serves as a mechanism for coordinating group behavior under risky conditions [17]. In such contexts, environmental threats may not only directly motivate PEB but also amplify the normative influence of cultural tightness. When threats are salient, individuals tend to show stronger support for social norms and increased sensitivity to norm violations [42], suggesting that the function of tight cultures may become more pronounced under high-threat conditions. We therefore propose that perceived environmental threat moderates the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB, as well as its mediation through ascription of responsibility and personal norms. Specifically, the effect of cultural tightness is expected to be stronger under conditions of high environmental threat (H3).

1.3. The Present Study

This research endeavors to (1) explore the role of cultural tightness on PEB; (2) clarify the chain-mediating roles of the ascription of responsibility and personal norm in explaining the influence of cultural tightness on PEB; and (3) evaluate the moderating influence of environmental threats on the cultural tightness–PEB association. In Study 1, cultural tightness–looseness will be measured (Study 1a) and experimentally manipulated (Study 1b) to examine the direct influence of it on PEB. In Study 2, cross-sectional investigation will be employed to examine the mediating and moderating effects of the ascription of responsibility, personal norm, and environmental threat.

2. Study 1

2.1. Study 1a

2.1.1. Participants

A total of 606 Chinese adults aged 18 to 59 years old (24.70 ± 6.96) were recruited for the cross-sectional online study. The sample size meets the requirement of at least 64 people for the correlation analysis (ρ = 0.3, power = 0.8) conducted using G*power 3.1.9.2. Among the participants, 28.5% were female, with the remainder (71.5%) being male, and 92.2% had a college degree or above. The proportion of economic income was below CNY 3000: 16.7%, CNY 3001–6000: 30.4%, CNY 6001–9000: 18.5%, CNY 9001–12,000: 12.9%, CNY 12,001–15,000: 6.9%, CNY 15,001–18,000: 1.2%, more than CNY 18,000: 13.5%. All participants were native Chinese residents with no overseas study experience. The collected data contained no missing values; therefore, no participants were excluded in all studies. Participants gave their informed consent prior to participation and received remuneration (CNY 2) upon completion.

2.1.2. Measurements

Cultural Tightness–Looseness Scale. The Cultural Tightness–looseness Scale, in its Chinese version adapted by Leng et al. [43], was utilized. The one-dimensional structure scale consists of four items, scored on a six-point scale. Elevated total scores are indicative of a tighter culture. Sample item: “People agree upon what behaviors are appropriate versus inappropriate in most situations in this country (one = strongly disagree, six = strongly agree).” The scale’s Cronbach’s α was 0.84.
Pro-environment Behavior Scale. The pro-environment behavior scale revised by Gong (2008) was used [44]. It contains 10 items, which include two dimensions: private and public domain PEB. The score is five points (one = never, five = often). The higher the score is, the more the PEB is. Sample items: “waste sorting” (private domain) and “participation in complaints and appeals seeking solutions to environmental problems” (public domain). Higher scores indicate greater PEB. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92).
Environmental Values Scale. Since previous studies have consistently shown that biospherist values have a significant predictive impact on PEB [45], this study measured biospherism and included it as a control variable in the analysis. This study used the Chinese-version Environmental Values Scale [46] revised by Xu [47], in which the biospherism subscale consists of four items and a five-point scale. The scale had a Cronbach’s α of 0.86.

2.1.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0. First, correlation analysis was performed to preliminarily examine the relationship between cultural tightness and PEB. Subsequently, a multiple linear regression using the enter method was conducted to test Hypothesis 1, with cultural tightness as the predictor variable and PEB as the outcome variable. Gender (0 = women, 1 = men), age, education level (1 = Grade School and below, 7 = Doctoral degree), economic income (1 = 3000 RMB and below, 7 = 18,000 RMB and above), and biosphere values were included as control variables in the regression model.

2.1.4. Results

Correlation analysis showed that cultural tightness (19.37 ± 3.32) was significantly positively related to PEB (38.50 ± 7.94) (r = 0.56, p < 0.001), which initially indicated the direction of the relationship between them. The regression analysis (Table 1) revealed that demographic variables such as gender, age, as well as the 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.

2.2. Study 1b

2.2.1. Participants

Using G*power for sample size estimation [48], univariate two-level ANOVA (η2 = 0.06, power = 0.8) required at least 128 participants. One hundred and sixty adults aged from 18 to 64 years (Mage = 32.07, SD = 8.44) were recruited through the Credamo platform and randomly divided into tight culture-priming and loose culture-priming groups, with 80 participants in each group. All participants successfully completed the study tasks. They were unaware of the specific research hypotheses during the study but were fully debriefed upon completion. Among them, 64.4% were female and 95.6% had college degrees or above. On average, the study took 5–7 min to complete, and each participant received compensation of CNY 5 upon finishing.

2.2.2. Manipulation

The Tekki social story adapted from Jackson et al. [49] was used to manipulate cultural tightness–looseness, which has been demonstrated by Leng et al. [43] to be effective in manipulating Chinese participants’ cultural tightness–looseness. The original story was translated by the experimenters and the social name was changed to “Taiji”. The text-based experimental material explained that the Taiji society is a society 500 years in the future, and the participants were instructed to imagine themselves living within Taiji society. In the tight condition, it is read that Taiji society is based on rules and order, that many social norms need to be followed, and that members are expected to adhere closely to established norms. In contrast, the loose culture condition described Taiji society as valuing freedom and openness, with minimal social norms and limited pressure to conform. After reading the material, the participants completed three items to check whether they read carefully. After that, they completed six items to test if the manipulation was effective. Sample item: “living in this society, if I behave inappropriately, others will strongly disapprove (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).” The measurement yielded a Cronbach’s α of 0.94.

2.2.3. Measurements

Pro-environment Behavior Scale. The pro-environment behavior scale was similar to Study 1a. In this study, the guidance for adjusting the questionnaire was: “imagine that you are living in a Taiji society today, how often do you engage in the following behaviors?” The Cronbach’s α was estimated at 0.91.
Environmental Values Scale. Same as Study 1a. The scale yielded a Cronbach’s α of 0.61.

2.2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0. An independent samples t-test was conducted on the manipulation check scores to verify the effectiveness of the cultural priming procedure. Furthermore, to test Hypothesis 1 regarding the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and PEB, a two-level analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed. This analysis was conducted while controlling for demographic variables (gender, age, education level, and economic income) and biosphere values.

2.2.5. Results

Results of the manipulation test showed that the tight culture group (34.72 ± 3.31) perceived the culture tighter than the loose culture group (16.65 ± 5.95) (t(158) = 23.90, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 3.80), indicating that the manipulation was effective. Controlling for demographic variables and biosphere values, the analysis of ANCOVA showed that the level of PEB in tight culture (42.21 ± 4.91) was significantly higher than that in loose culture (35.66 ± 8.22) (F(1,153) = 40.09, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.21) (Figure 1). Consistent with Study 1a, this result suggested a positive association between cultural tightness and PEB.

2.2.6. Discussion

Using both measured and experimentally manipulated methods, the data of Study 1a and Study 1b provide robust support for Hypothesis 1. The findings demonstrate that people in a tight culture will exhibit a heightened propensity for protective behaviors in response to their current environment. This protection is not limited to self-protection behaviors such as wearing masks and being vaccinated amidst the COVID-19 crisis [18,34], but also extends to the protection of the environment.

3. Study 2

3.1. Participants and Procedure

Using an online survey platform (Wenjuanxing) to collect data. Monte Carlo simulations [50] found that a two serial mediators model would require at least 240 samples (replication = 1000, r = 0.4, power = 0.95). A cross-sectional study was conducted with 505 Chinese adults over 18 years old. Participants had a mean age of 23.13 years (SD = 4.88), 47.1% were female and 96% had a college degree or above. The proportion of economic income was below CNY 3000: 13.9%, CNY 3001–6000: 34.9%, CNY 6001–9000: 19.4%, CNY 9001–12,000: 12.7%, CNY 12,001–15,000: 5.9%, CNY 15,001–18,000: 3.2%, more than CNY 18,000: 10.1%. All participants answered all items without missing values. The whole process lasted 10–15 min, and the participants received a random payment of CNY 3–5 after completing the questionnaire.

3.2. Measurements

Ascription of responsibility and personal norm. Following Zhang et al., we measured the ascription of responsibility with four items [31], such as: “I feel joint responsibility for the environmental harms on the neighboring areas (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).” (α = 0.82). The personal norm was assessed using three items, such as: “I would feel guilty if I don’t protect the environment in my daily life” (α = 0.64).
Perceived environmental threat scale. Referring to Liu et al., items measuring the threat of environmental pollution in CGSS2013 were used [51]. There are six items and rated on a five-point scale. Sample item: “below are various types of environmental problems, how serious do you think they are in your area?”—Air pollution (1 = not a problem, 5 = extremely serious).” The scale yielded a Cronbach’s α of 0.89.
Additionally, the measurements of cultural tightness–looseness (α = 0.68), PEB (α = 0.89), and biospherism (α = 0.81) were the same as in Study 1a. All measurements exhibited acceptable reliability.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. First, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to assess common method bias. Next, correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationships among the key variables. Finally, the moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS macro (version 4.1) for SPSS, specifically employing Model 85. The bootstrap method with 5000 resamples and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized. All continuous variables were centralized in the process macro. The moderated effect was compared with the results of ±1 SD. These analyses were conducted to test Hypothesis 2 and 3.

3.4. Results

3.4.1. Common Method Bias Test

As suggested by Podsakoff and Organ [52], a Harman univariate analysis was conducted to examine common methodological bias. Exploratory factor analysis extracted a total of seven factors with eigenvalues exceeding one, with the first factor contributing 27.08% to the total variation. Notably, this was lower than 40% of the standard. These results indicated that common method bias was not a serious concern in this study.

3.4.2. Correlation Analysis

The correlation analysis (Table 2) revealed significant positive relationships between cultural tightness and the ascription of responsibility, personal norm, and PEB. The ascription of responsibility, as well as personal norm, were also significantly related to PEB. In addition, the ascription of responsibility was linked to higher personal norm.

3.4.3. Moderated Mediation Effect Test

After controlling for demographic variables and biospherism, the results showed (Figure 2) that cultural tightness significantly positively predicted ascription of responsibility (b = 0.29, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.38]), personal norm (b = 0.09, 95% CI: [0.03, 0.15]), and PEB (b = 0.39, 95% CI: [0.12, 0.66]). The ascription of responsibility positively predicted both personal norm (b = 0.22, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.28]) and PEB (b = 0.83, 95% CI: [0.58, 1.08]). Finally, personal norm significantly predicated PEB (b = 1.33, 95% CI: [0.94, 1.72]). Environmental threat moderated the direct path of cultural tightness to PEB (b = 0.07, 95% CI: [0.02, 0.11]), but did not moderate the relationship between cultural tightness and the ascription of responsibility (b = −0.01, 95% CI: [−0.03, 0.01]) and personal norm (b = 0.01, 95% CI: [−0.003, 0.02]).
The mediating effects of each path are shown in Table 3. The direct path from cultural tightness to PEB was significant only under high environmental threat conditions, but not under low environmental threat conditions (interaction coefficient of cultural tightness and environmental threat = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.11]). In addition, the results suggested that cultural tightness can also indirectly predicate PEB through the ascription of responsibility and personal norm, which explained 28.92% and 14.46% of the total effect, respectively. Finally, cultural tightness affected personal norm through the ascription of responsibility and further predicated PEB. It is noteworthy that the moderating effect of environmental threat on the paths from cultural tightness to the ascription of responsibility and to personal norm was not significant.

3.5. Discussion

The findings of Study 2 supported Hypothesis 2, indicating that cultural tightness can predict PEB through the ascription of responsibility and personal norm, respectively, as well as through their chain-mediating paths. While Zou et al. established the mediating role of two NAM components in the link between cultural tightness and protective reactions [34], the present study further found that they are also applicable to explain the cultural tightness and PEB connection. In addition, it partially supports Hypothesis 3 that environmental threat moderates how cultural tightness directly affects PEB but did not moderate its influence on the ascription of responsibility and personal norm.

4. General Discussion

PEB exerts a substantial impact on both environmental sustainability and human well-being [4,5]. This study, grounded in the perspective of cultural tightness–looseness, revealed that a tight culture can promote PEB (Study 1), especially in the presence of high environmental threat, where the effect of a tight culture is amplified (Study 2). In addition, this study extends the NAM (Study 2) to incorporate cultural tightness–looseness and environmental threats as external variables in the NAM, revealing that cultural tightness activates a higher ascription of responsibility and personal norm, which in turn promotes PEB. These findings empirically support the inclusion of external variables in the NAM, as suggested by Zeng et al. [33].

4.1. The Influence of Cultural Tightness on PEB Under Conditions of Ecological Threat

Cultural tightness serves as a key driver in the cultural evolution of human groups and exerts a substantial influence on individual behavioral responses during times of crisis [18,53]. Previous studies have established that social and environmental threats such as pathogen epidemics, wars, and natural disasters are important precursors of tight cultures [17,54], while tight culture helps humans cope with and overcome ecological pressures, bringing evolutionary advantages [23]. Considering the demonstrated success of tight cultures in reducing mortality rates and fostering protective behaviors during the COVID-19 crisis [18,24], this study revealed that tight culture can also enhance individuals’ engagement in environmental protection activities. Given that environmental conservation represents an adaptive response to threats, a tight culture is more likely to establish relevant rules to protect the environment and supervise people to comply with the rules through social sanctions, thus promoting more PEBs. It is worth emphasizing that, even after controlling for biosphere values—a construct previously established as a significant predictor of PEB [45]—cultural tightness remained a statistically significant factor. This finding underscores the unique role of normative cultural dimensions in predicting PEB.
However, Study 2 revealed that under the condition of low environmental threat, cultural tightness had no significant predictive effect on PEB. Barth et al. pointed out that environmental threat can bolster support for norms and punish individuals who violate norms, thereby augmenting the influence of tight culture [42]. In the context of low environmental threat, the motivation and behavior to protect the environment may become less urgent, so tight culture has no obvious effect on PEB. In summary, the results substantiated the idea that cultural tightness facilitates evolution [53], notably in situations of environmental threat.

4.2. NAM Components as a Mediating Link in the Cultural Tightness–PEB Association

The positive influence of two norm-activation model components, namely the ascription of responsibility and personal norm, on PEB has been confirmed by predecessors [32]. Furthermore, the ascription of responsibility can indirectly promote PEB by activating individuals to internalize environmental protection into moral obligation and guilt [55]. Consistent with prior findings, this study supported the role of the ascribing responsibility in the development of personal norm. In addition, according to the suggestion of Zeng et al. [33], our study extended the NAM by including a cultural variable, revealing the mediating role of the two NAM components in the cultural tightness–PEB association. Although few researchers have directly investigated the relationship between cultural tightness, the ascription of responsibility, and personal norm in the field of PEB, in tight culture, people need to frequently supervise and adapt their behaviors, cultivating heightened self-supervision and self-control abilities [56], and both are conducive to the cultivation of people’s sense of responsibility (such as academic responsibility) [57]. Moreover, in tight culture, normative pressure from the whole society is an important determinant of behavior [35], and this external pressure encourages individuals to internalize norms and then form personal norm [58]. Zou et al. previously demonstrated that cultural tightness could increase people’s responsibility attribution and personal norm for COVID-19 protection behaviors [34]. This study found that the effects of cultural tightness on them also appear in the field of environmental protection behaviors, ultimately promoting PEB through these mechanisms.
Inconsistent with Hypothesis 3, we did not find the moderating effect of environmental threat on how cultural tightness impacts the ascription of responsibility, as well as personal norm. This may be due to the high demands on the personality characteristics of responsibility in a tight culture, aimed at fostering social stability by encouraging individuals to assume greater responsibility for their behavior and for others [16,25,59]. Therefore, regardless of the level of environmental threat, a tight culture profoundly affects the ascription of responsibility. Similarly, a society with a tighter culture exerts greater normative pressure to adhere strictly to norms and has the existence of harsher penalties for violating norms, which increases people’s willingness to comply with norms [36]. Consequently, even under conditions of low environmental risk, a tight culture also predicts stronger personal norm due to its own characteristics.

4.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study offers significant theoretical and practical contributions. Recognizing the pivotal role of culture in shaping behavior, it investigates the influence of cultural tightness–looseness on PEB. Unlike nation-level analyses [27], this research focuses on individual-level perceptions of cultural tightness, allowing for a direct examination of how culture carried by individuals shapes their behavior and clarifies the underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, while prior research such as Ofori-Owusu et al. emphasized only singular pro-environmental actions [60], this study employs a composite measure of PEB, enhancing the generalizability of the results. In addition, this work responds to calls for extending the norm-activation model—following scholars such as Zhang et al. [61], who incorporated normative pressure and building on Zou et al. [34]; by integrating cultural tightness into the NAM framework, we thereby provide empirical support for its expanded applicability.
Practically, the findings offer actionable insights for promoting PEB. Cultivating tighter cultural environments could encourage more pro-environmental conduct. Highlighting environmental threats may further strengthen normative motivation and enhance behavioral outcomes. For instance, in community governance, combining strict norm adherence with environmental risk messaging—such as through targeted posters—could positively influence resident behaviors like waste sorting and recycling.

4.4. Limitations and Future Directions

First, 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. Additionally, drawing on NAM components, the mediation effect explained 53.01% of the total effect, and the chain mediating effect only accounted for a small portion. This suggests the existence of other significant psychological mechanisms beyond the NAM framework. One promising candidate is regulatory focus, particularly prevention focus. This construct, which emphasizes safety, responsibility, and adherence to rules, is conceptually aligned with cultural tightness [63]. Given that both prevention focus and cultural tightness motivate PEB through similar mechanisms—concern with duties and avoidance of negative outcomes [64]—prevention focus may serve as an alternative or complementary pathway through which cultural tightness influences PEB. Future studies should therefore consider incorporating additional mediating variables such as prevention focus to further examine the underlying mechanisms through which cultural tightness influences PEB.
Several limitations in the study’s design and methodology should be noted. First, all participants in this study were recruited from China, which limits the cross-cultural generalizability of the findings. Future research would benefit from sampling populations across diverse cultural contexts to examine the robustness of the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and PEB. Furthermore, the gender distribution in our samples, particularly in Study 1a, was imbalanced. Although gender was controlled for statistically, the generalizability and validity of the findings may be constrained by this demographic skew. Future studies should strive for more balanced gender representation. Additionally, the sample consisted predominantly of highly educated adults. While we statistically controlled for education level in our analyses, this sampling characteristic may limit the generalizability of the findings across populations with different educational backgrounds. Future research would benefit from including participants with more diverse educational profiles to enhance the external validity of the results. Furthermore, 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 inaccuracies, 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 [66]. Finally, the model tested in Study 2 relied on cross-sectional data, which limits the ability to draw definitive causal conclusions regarding the proposed pathway from cultural tightness to PEB through the examined mediators. Future research would benefit from employing longitudinal designs or experimental approaches to better establish temporal precedence and strengthen causal inference.

5. Conclusions

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-activation model while also informing practical initiatives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and P.H.; Methodology, J.L. and P.H.; Resources, J.L. and P.H.; Software, J.L. and X.Z.; Investigation, J.L. and X.X.; Formal analysis, J.L.; Visualization, J.L.; Writing—Original Draft, J.L., X.Z., X.X. and P.H.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.L., X.Z., X.X. and P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China (protocol code: IRB24-030 and date of approval: 20 April 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available in The Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/83hwn/?view_only=4b720c5c36b6461588db05c39ddc8478 (accessed on 25 August 2025).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PEBPro-environmental behavior
NAMNorm-activation model

References

  1. Stollberg, J.; Jonas, E. Existential Threat as a Challenge for Individual and Collective Engagement: Climate Change and the Motivation to Act. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sulfa, D.M.; Suwono, H.; Husamah, H. Human Connection with Nature Improves Wellbeing and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review. J. Pendidik. Biol. Indones. 2024, 10, 698–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vlek, C.; Steg, L. Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces, and Research Topics. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mavisakalyan, A.; Sharma, S.; Weber, C. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Subjective Well-Being: Culture Has a Role to Play. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 217, 108081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Netuveli, G.; Watts, P. Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Attitudes Are Associated with Health, Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction in Multiple Occupancy Households in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Popul. Environ. 2020, 41, 347–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring Pro-Environmental Behavior: Review and Recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What Influences an Individual’s pro-Environmental Behavior? A Literature Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gifford, R. Environmental Psychology Matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 541–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Harjadi, D.; Gunardi, A. Factors Affecting Eco-Friendly Purchase Intention: Subjective Norms and Ecological Consciousness as Moderators. Cogent. Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2148334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cordano, M.; Welcomer, S.; Scherer, R.; Pradenas, L.; Parada, V. Understanding Cultural Differences in the Antecedents of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Business Students in the United States and Chile. J. Environ. Educ. 2010, 41, 224–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mintz, K.K.; Henn, L.; Park, J.; Kurman, J. What Predicts Household Waste Management Behaviors? Culture and Type of Behavior as Moderators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, P.; Wu, W.; Huo, C. Crucial to Me and My Society: How Collectivist Culture Influences Individual pro-Environmental Behavior through Environmental Values. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 454, 142211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhao, A.L.; Dermody, J.; Koenig-Lewis, N.; Hanmer-Lloyd, S. Cultivating Sustainable Consumption: The Role of Harmonious Cultural Values and pro-Environmental Self-Identity. J. Consum. Behav. 2024, 23, 1014–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, L.M.W.; Mei, D.; Li, W.-Q.; Lee, H. The Relationship Between Dialectical Beliefs and Proenvironmental Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 223–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lu, J.G.; Benet-Martinez, V.; Wang, L.C. A Socioecological-Genetic Framework of Culture and Personality: Their Roots, Trends, and Interplay. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2023, 74, 363–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gelfand, M.J.; Nishii, L.H.; Raver, J.L. On the Nature and Importance of Cultural Tightness-Looseness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1225–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gelfand, M.J.; Raver, J.L.; Nishii, L.; Leslie, L.M.; Lun, J.; Lim, B.C.; Duan, L.; Almaliach, A.; Ang, S.; Arnadottir, J.; et al. Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study. Science 2011, 332, 1100–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shi, J.; Kim, H.K.; Salmon, C.T.; Tandoc Jr, E.C.; Goh, Z.H. Cultural Tightness-Looseness and Normative Social Influence in Eight Asian Countries: Associations of Individual and Collective Norms with Vaccination Intentions. Soc. Sci. Med. 2024, 340, 116431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Collado, S.; Staats, H.; Sancho, P. Normative Influences on Adolescents’ Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Role of Parents and Friends. Environ. Behav. 2017, 51, 288–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Dong, Y.; He, W.; Yao, S.; Xu, Z.; Mu, Y. How We Learn Social Norms: A Three-Stage Model for Social Norm Learning. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1153809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Syropoulos, S.; Law, K.F. Cultural Tightness and Its Association with National Levels of Peace: Evidence from a Cross-National Investigation. Peace. Confl. J. Peace. Psychol. 2024, 30, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chua, R.; Zhao, N.; Han, M. Cultural Tightness in Organizations: Investigating the Impact of Formal and Informal Cultural Tightness on Employee Creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2024, 184, 104338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Roos, P.; Gelfand, M.; Nau, D.; Lun, J. Societal Threat and Cultural Variation in the Strength of Social Norms: An Evolutionary Basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2015, 129, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gelfand, M.J.; Jackson, J.C.; Pan, X.; Nau, D.; Pieper, D.; Denison, E.; Dagher, M.; Van Lange, P.A.M.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Wang, M. The Relationship between Cultural Tightness-Looseness and COVID-19 Cases and Deaths: A Global Analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e135–e144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gilliam, A.; Schwartz, D.B.; Godoy, R.; Boduroglu, A.; Gutchess, A. Does State Tightness-Looseness Predict Behavior and Attitudes Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic in the USA? J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2022, 53, 522–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cao, J. The Relationship between Pro-Environmental Behavior of Urban Residents and Socio-Demographic Variables. China Econ. Trade Her. 2020, 7, 118–121. [Google Scholar]
  27. Abbas, M.; Iftikhar, H.; Liu, Y. Electrifying Transportation: Social, Cultural and Environmental Factors Affecting Electric Bicycle Buying Intention. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2025, 141, 104652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Di Santo, D.; Santo, D.D.; Pierro, A. ‘Take Back the Land’: Analysis of the Influence of Environmental Concern, Cultural Tightness and Moral Disengagement on Pro-environmental Behaviour Intentions. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2024, 34, e2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Di Santo, D.; Gelfand, M.J.; Baldner, C.; Pierro, A. The Moral Foundations of Desired Cultural Tightness. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 739579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Explanations of Helping Behavior: A Critique, Proposal, and Empirical Test. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1973, 9, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Zhao, K. Antecedents of Citizens’ Environmental Complaint Intention in China: An Empirical Study Based on Norm Activation Model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 134, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shen, Y.; Ru, P. Saving for the Future? Integrating Time Orientations into the Norm-Activation Model of Utility-Saving Behavior. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2024, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zeng, Y.; Tian, Y.; He, K.; Zhang, J. Environmental Conscience, External Incentives and Social Norms in Rice Farmers’ Adoption of pro-Environmental Agricultural Practices in Rural Hubei Province, China. Environ. Technol. 2020, 41, 2518–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zou, Y.; Liu, X.; Yu, M.; Deng, Y. Linking Cultural Tightness, Components of Norm Activation and COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors among University Students: Evidence from Beijing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2023, 20, 4905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chan, D.K.-S. Tightness-Looseness Revisited: Some Preliminary Analyses in Japan and the United States. Int. J. Psychol. 1996, 31, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, A.; Savani, K.; Liu, F.; Tai, K.; Kay, A.C. The Mutual Constitution of Culture and Psyche: The Bidirectional Relationship Between Individuals’ Perceived Control and Cultural Tightness-Looseness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 124, 901–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lopez-Mosquera, N. Gender Differences, Theory of Planned Behavior and Willingness to Pay. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lim, J.; Moon, K.-K. Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 9816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Maddux, J.E.; Rogers, R.W. Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 19, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Primc, K.; Ogorevc, M.; Slabe-Erker, R.; Bartolj, T.; Murovec, N. How Does Schwartz’s Theory of Human Values Affect the Proenvironmental Behavior Model? Balt. J. Manag. 2021, 16, 276–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ekinci, S.; Van Lange, P.A.M. Lost in between Crises: How Do COVID-19 Threats Influence the Motivation to Act against Climate Change and the Refugee Crisis? J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 85, 101918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barth, M.; Masson, T.; Fritsche, I.; Ziemer, C.-T. Closing Ranks: Ingroup Norm Conformity as a Subtle Response to Threatening Climate Change. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2017, 21, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leng, J.; Ma, H.; Lv, X.; Hu, P. Validation of the Chinese Cultural Tightness-Looseness Scale and General Tightness-Looseness Scale. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1131868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gong, W. A Gender Comparison on the Environment-Friendly Behaviors of Contemporary Urban Residents. J. China Univ. Geosci. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2008, 8, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Čapienė, A.; Rūtelionė, A.; Krukowski, K. Engaging in Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Influence of Environmental Attitudes, Values, Personal Norms, and Perceived Responsibility. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. A Brief Inventory of Values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 984–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xu, Q. Study on the Relationship between Value Orientation and Energy Consumption Attitude towards Environmental Sustainability. Master Dissertation, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  48. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jackson, J.C.; Caluori, N.; Abrams, S.; Beckman, E.; Gelfand, M.; Gray, K. Tight Cultures and Vengeful Gods: How Culture Shapes Religious Belief. J. Exp. Psychol.-Gen. 2021, 150, 2057–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schoemann, A.M.; Boulton, A.J.; Short, S.D. Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, P.; Han, C.; Teng, M. The Influence of Internet Use on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: An Integrated Theoretical Framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jackson, J.C.; Gelfand, M.; Ember, C.R. A Global Analysis of Cultural Tightness in Non-Industrial Societies. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2020, 287, 20201036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Uz, I. The Index of Cultural Tightness and Looseness Among 68 Countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2015, 46, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jhawar, A.; Kumar, P.; Israel, D. Impact of Materialism on Tourists’ Green Purchase Behavior: Extended Norm Activation Model Perspective. J. Vacat. Mark. 2024, 30, 841–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mu, Y.; Kitayama, S.; Han, S.; Gelfand, M.J. How Culture Gets Embrained: Cultural Differences in Event-Related Potentials of Social Norm Violations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 15348–15353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fishman, E.J. With Great Control Comes Great Responsibility: The Relationship between Perceived Academic Control, Student Responsibility, and Self-Regulation. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 84, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. D’Arco, M.; Marino, V.; Resciniti, R. Exploring the Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intention of Generation Z in the Tourism Context: The Role of Injunctive Social Norms and Personal Norms. J. Sustain. Tour. 2025, 33, 1100–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Harrington, J.R. Tightness-Looseness in the United States: Ecological Predictors and State Level Outcomes. Master’s Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ofori-Owusu, C.; Owusu, G.M.Y.; Agyenim-Boateng, C.; Welbeck, E.E.S. What Drives the Sustainability Reporting Intentions of Firms? Sustainability 2024, 16, 5052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, X.; Geng, G.; Sun, P. Determinants and Implications of Citizens’ Environmental Complaint in China: Integrating Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Skalski, S.B.; Loichen, T.; Toussaint, L.L.; Uram, P.; Kwiatkowska, A.; Surzykiewicz, J. Relationships between Spirituality, Religious Fundamentalism and Environmentalism: The Mediating Role of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Contu, F.; Di Santo, D.; Baldner, C.; Pierro, A. Examining the Interaction between Perceived Cultural Tightness and Prevention Regulatory Focus on Life Satisfaction in Italy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Coelho, F.; Cruz, L.; Pereira, M.C.; Simões, P.; Barata, E. How Regulatory Focus Shapes Pro-environmental Behaviour: Evidence from Portugal. J. Mark. Manag. 2023, 39, 167–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lange, F. Behavioral Paradigms for Studying Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Systematic Review. Behav. Res. Methods 2023, 55, 600–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 09785 g001
Figure 1. PEB scores of tight culture and loose culture groups.
Figure 1. PEB scores of tight culture and loose culture groups.
Sustainability 17 09785 g001
Sustainability 17 09785 g002
Figure 2. Moderated mediation model. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Moderated mediation model. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 17 09785 g002
Table 1. Results of the linear regression analysis in Study 1a.
Table 1. Results of the linear regression analysis in Study 1a.
Independent VariablesModel 1Model 2
βtβt
Gender0.092.65 **0.103.14 **
Age0.185.44 ***0.175.59 ***
Economic income0.082.37 *0.061.93
Education0.020.510.020.63
Biospherism0.5617.63 ***0.389.69 ***
Cultural tightness 0.338.43 ***
F70.49 *** 77.04 ***
R20.37 0.44
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Model 1: control variables; Model 2: control and predictor (cultural tightness) variables.
Table 2. Study 2: Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis findings.
Table 2. Study 2: Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis findings.
M ± SD12345
1. Cultural tightness19.60 ± 2.51
2. Ascription of responsibility16.13 ± 2.890.43 ***
3. Personal norm12.19 ± 1.860.41 ***0.54 ***
4. Biospherism17.34 ± 2.350.47 ***0.50 ***0.52 ***
5. PEB35.60 ± 8.180.37 ***0.48 ***0.50 ***0.32 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Moderated mediation effects in Study 2.
Table 3. Moderated mediation effects in Study 2.
PathsEnvironmental ThreatEffectSE95%LLCI95%ULCI
X → Y−1SD0.020.19−0.350.39
00.390.140.140.66
+1SD0.760.180.411.11
X → M1 → Y−1SD0.280.080.140.45
00.240.060.130.37
+1SD0.200.070.070.35
X → M2 → Y−1SD0.070.06−0.050.20
00.120.050.040.22
+1SD0.170.070.050.32
X → M1 → M2 →Y−1SD0.100.030.040.17
00.080.020.040.13
+1SD0.070.020.030.12
Note: X = Cultural tightness, M1 = Ascription of responsibility, M2 = Personal norm, Y = PEB. LLCI = Lower limit of the confidence interval, ULCL = Upper limit of the confidence interval.
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

Leng, J.; Zheng, X.; Xu, X.; Hu, P. Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219785

AMA Style

Leng J, Zheng X, Xu X, Hu P. Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background. Sustainability. 2025; 17(21):9785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219785

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leng, Jie, Xuegang Zheng, Xinyu Xu, and Ping Hu. 2025. "Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background" Sustainability 17, no. 21: 9785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219785

APA Style

Leng, J., Zheng, X., Xu, X., & Hu, P. (2025). Cultural Tightness Promotes Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Ecological Threat Background. Sustainability, 17(21), 9785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219785

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