Supplementary Materials Supplementary Tables

0 downloads 0 Views 206KB Size Report
Public-sphere PEB. EC measure: Awareness. Views. Concern. Awareness. Views. Concern. Individual level. Intercept. 2.34***. (.04). 2.34***. (.04). 2.32***. (.05).

1

Supplementary Materials Supplementary Tables Table S1 Multilevel regression coefficients from random-slope models testing the cross-national variations of the association between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.34*** (.04) .22*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .04*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.34*** (.04) .17*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01* (.00)

2.32*** (.05) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.36*** (.03) .16*** (.03) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.36*** (.03) .21*** (.03) .01* (.00) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.35*** (.03) .13*** (.02) .00 (.00) -.00** (.00) .07*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

Variances Residual Intercept of PEB Slope of EC

.33 .06*** .01***

.33 .06*** .01***

.32 .06*** .00***

.50 .03*** .02***

.51 .03*** .02***

.48 .03*** .01***

Number of individuals Number of countries

28298 32

27446 32

29926 32

39791 32

37716 32

42596 32

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = singleitem environmental concern.

2

Table S2 Partial correlations between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior in each country PEB measure: EC measure:

Awareness partial r N

Argentina Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Chile Taiwan Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Israel Japan Korea Latvia Lithuania Mexico New Zealand Norway Philippines Russia Slovak Republic Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

.20 .27 .30 .11 .36 .02 .22 .36 .28 .33 .28 .32 .22 .19 .22 .24 .00 .05 .08 .37 .36 .09 .14 .13 .35 .07 .26 .30 .21 .12 .39 .36

Mean Minimum Maximum

.23 .00 .39

356 780 864 255 834 524 1872 858 922 961 870 1836 1049 639 882 1273 378 544 818 966 1065 467 376 599 848 1424 1648 896 962 781 593 1158

Private-sphere PEB Views partial r N .08 .27 .27 .12 .27 -.04 .09 .31 .22 .24 .42 .32 .24 .11 .17 .04 .14 .19 -.18 .32 .37 -.12 .04 .19 .16 .22 .19 .31 .28 .00 .28 .23 .18 -.18 .42

343 791 877 244 826 496 1852 803 917 940 828 1772 1002 617 788 1259 338 462 841 978 1013 462 325 584 831 1399 1540 881 958 723 604 1152

Concern partial r N .36 .25 .36 .34 .39 .27 .22 .42 .40 .37 .42 .36 .24 .19 .22 .24 .23 .25 .18 .38 .37 .03 .22 .27 .24 .31 .33 .38 .23 .17 .48 .37 .30 .03 .48

374 842 947 267 862 537 1903 877 982 1049 908 1925 1130 723 921 1291 400 549 895 1040 1171 460 395 610 889 1531 1763 980 1003 805 644 1253

Awareness partial r N .02 .16 .24 .01 .27 .04 .05 .16 .12 .20 .21 .24 .15 .10 .04 .06 .06 .07 -.01 .28 .24 -.07 -.04 .05 .11 .01 .15 .16 .22 -.03 .24 .22 .12 -.07 .28

1042 935 983 904 721 1354 2146 1148 1292 998 1058 1897 1216 983 1196 1507 892 913 1290 978 1169 1186 1459 1049 989 2627 2290 1017 1103 1508 690 1251

Public-sphere PEB Views partial r N .10 .31 .29 .13 .28 .12 .10 .17 .15 .18 .22 .28 .18 .16 .08 .10 .09 .10 .00 .30 .24 -.04 .07 .10 .10 .07 .18 .25 .24 .07 .32 .24

962 945 993 781 712 1212 2124 1066 1285 973 987 1844 1155 972 1031 1476 779 726 1327 993 1121 1171 1148 982 968 2612 2052 1004 1081 1295 696 1243

.16 -.04 .32

Note. The effects of gender, age, level of education and personal income were partialled out. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern. r-to-z and then z-to-r transformations were performed when computing the mean partial correlations.

Concern partial r N .10 .21 .25 .11 .32 .10 .10 .19 .26 .26 .26 .26 .21 .15 .12 .09 .19 .15 .05 .30 .30 .08 .12 .15 .12 .15 .16 .25 .24 .11 .27 .20 .18 .05 .32

1113 1019 1076 968 752 1393 2203 1175 1397 1090 1115 1999 1312 1157 1254 1542 969 935 1434 1066 1303 1179 1576 1095 1058 2933 2500 1128 1149 1566 770 1370

3

Table S3 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between distrust and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.40*** (.05) .23*** (.02) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.40*** (.05) .16*** (.02) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) -.01 (.00)

2.38*** (.05) .17*** (.01) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.36*** (.04) .16*** (.03) .01 (.00) .00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.36*** (.04) .21*** (.03) .01* (.01) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .01+a (.01)

.35*** (.04) .14*** (.02) .01* (.00) -.00 (.00) .07*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

Country level Distrust  intercept of PEB Distrust  slope of EC

.04 (.05) -.05* (.02)

.05 (.05) -.06* (.02)

.05 (.05) -.04** (.01)

-.09* (.04) -.08* (.03)

-.09* (.04) -.09** (.03)

-.09* (.04) -.05** (.02)

Variances Residual Intercept of PEB Slope of EC

.31 .04** .01*

.32 .04** .01*

.31 .04** .00*

.50 .03** .02**

.51 .02** .02**

.48 .02** .01**

Number of individuals Number of countries

16970 17

16379 17

17853 17

22456 17

21112 17

23873 17

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

Note. + p = a.095; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

4

Table S4 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between belief in external control and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.40*** (.05) .23*** (.02) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.39*** (.050) .17*** (.02) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) -.01 (.00)

2.38*** (.05) .17*** (.01) -.06*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.01 (.00)

.37*** (.04) .17*** (.03) .01 (.00) .00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.37*** (.03) .21*** (.03) .01* (.01) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .01+a (.01)

.36*** (.03) .14*** (.02) .01* (.00) -.00 (.00) .07*** (.00) .07*** (.00)

Country level Belief in external control  intercept of PEB Belief in external control  slope of EC

-.00 (.05) -.05* (.02)

.01 (.05) -.07** (.02)

.00 (.05) -.04** (.01)

-.12** (.04) -.11*** (.03)

-.11** (.04) -.11*** (.03)

-.11** (.04) -.06*** (.02)

Variances Residual Intercept of PEB Slope of EC

.31 .04** .01**

.32 .04** .01*

.31 .05** .00**

.50 .02** .01**

.51 .02** .01**

.48 .02** .00**

Number of individuals Number of countries

16970 17

16379 17

17480 17

22456 17

21112 17

23873 17

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

Note. + p = a.095; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

5

Table S5 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between present orientation and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.39*** (.05) .24*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.38*** (.05) .16*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01** (.00)

2.37*** (.05) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.38*** (.03) .16*** (.03) .00 (.00) .00+b (.00) .09*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

39*** (.03) .21*** (.03) .01 (.00) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.38*** (.03) .14*** (.02) .00 (.00) -.00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

-.09* (.04) -.00 (.02)

-.08+a (.04) -.03 (.02)

-.09* (.04) -.00 (.01)

-.08* (.03) -.05+c (.03)

-.08* (.04) -.05+d (.03)

-.08* (.03) -.03* (.02)

Variances Residual Intercept of PEB Slope of EC

.33 .05*** .01**

.34 .05*** .01**

.32 .05*** .00**

.53 .03*** .02**

.54 .03*** .02**

.51 .03*** .01**

Number of individuals Number of countries

23211 24

22629 24

24568 24

31379 24

30056 24

33682 24

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income Country level Present orientation  intercept of PEB Present orientation  slope of EC

Note. + p = a.051; b.055; c.083; d.067; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general proenvironmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

6

Table S6 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between individualism and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.35*** (.04) .22*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.35*** (.04) .16*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01* (.00)

2.34*** (.04) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.36*** (.02) .15*** (.02) .01+b (.00) .00 (.00) .09*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.36*** (.02) .21*** (.02) .01** (.00) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .01*** (.00)

.35*** (.02) .13*** (.01) .01+c (.004) -.00** (.000) .08*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.06 (.04) .03+a (.02)

.05 (.04) .07*** (.02)

.06 (.04) .02* (.01)

.12*** (.02) .11*** (.02)

.12*** (.02) .11*** (.02)

.12*** (.02) .07*** (.01)

Variances Residual Intercept of PEB Slope of EC

.32 .05*** .01***

.33 .05*** .01***

.31 .05*** .00***

.51 .02*** .01***

.52 .02*** .01***

.49 .02*** .00***

Number of individuals Number of countries

26874 31

26047 31

28395 31

37164 31

35104 31

39663 31

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income Country level Individualism  intercept of PEB Individualism  slope of EC

Note. + p = a.051; b.052; c.072; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

7

Table S7 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between looseness and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level 2.35*** (.05) .21*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

2.35*** (.04) .16*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01** (.00)

2.33*** (.05) .18*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.33*** (.02) .14*** (.02) .01* (.004) -.00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.34*** (.02) .19*** (.02) .01** (.00) -.00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.33*** (.02) .12*** (.01) .01* (.00) -.00** (.00) .07*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.07 (.05) .02 (.02)

.06 (.04) .04+a (.02)

.06 (.05) .02* (.01)

.10*** (.02) .09*** (.02)

.09*** (.02) .10*** (.02)

.09*** (.02) .05*** (.01)

Variances Residual Intercept Slope of EC

.34 .06*** .01**

.35 .05*** .01**

.33 .06*** .00**

.47 .01*** .01**

.49 .01*** .01***

.46 .01*** .00**

Number of individuals Number of countries

22794 27

22028 27

24086 27

33412 27

31425 27

35718 27

Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income Country level Looseness  intercept of PEB Looseness  slope of EC

Note. + p = a.090; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

8

Table S8 Simple slopes of environmental concern at high and low levels of the societal-level factors PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Distrust .18*** (.03) .28*** (.03)

.11** (.04) .22*** (.03)

.13*** (.02) .20*** (.02)

.08 (.05) .25*** (.04)

.12** (.05) .30*** (.04)

.09** (.03) .19*** (.02)

.18*** (.03) .29*** (.03)

.09** (.03) .24*** (.03)

.13*** (.02) .21*** (.02)

.06 (.04) .28*** (.04)

.10* (.04) .32*** (.04)

.08** (.02) .20*** (.02)

High (1 SD above mean)

-

-

-

Low (1 SD below mean)

-

-

-

.11** (.04) .21*** (.04)

.16*** (.04) .27*** (.04)

.10*** (.02) .17*** (.02)

.25*** (.02) .19*** (.02)

.23*** (.02) .09*** (.03)

.19*** (.01) .15*** (.01)

.27*** (.02) .04 (.03)

.32*** (.03) .09** (.03)

.20*** (.01) .06*** (.01)

.20*** (.03) .12*** (.03)

.20*** (.01) .16*** (.01)

.23*** (.03) .05+a (.03)

.29*** (.03) .09*** (.03)

.17*** (.02) .07*** (.02)

High (1 SD above mean) Low (1 SD below mean) Belief in external control High (1 SD above mean) Low (1 SD below mean) Present orientation

Individualism High (1 SD above mean) Low (1 SD below mean) Looseness High (1 SD above mean)

-

Low (1 SD below mean)

-

Note. + p = a.079; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern. Only the significant or marginally significant cross-level interaction effects were explicated in these simple slope analyses.

9

Supplementary Analyses We performed a series of supplementary analyses in which alternative indicators of distrust, belief in external control, and present orientation were used. An ideal alternative indicator should be conceptually identical or similar to the indicator we used in the main manuscript, and at the same time not strongly inter-correlated with other societal-level factors (unfortunately, this was not achieved, as we explain below). Distrust. An indicator of generalized trust was used. Based on previous studies (e.g., Bjørnskov, 2007), for each country we computed the mean score of individuals’ responses to the following item in Environment III of the ISSP: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” (1 = you can’t be too careful to 5 = most people can be trusted). This item has been considered as the standard measure of generalized trust (Nannestad, 2008). We recoded the scores so that higher scores indicated lower levels of generalized trust. We labelled this indicator as generalized distrust. As Table S9 shows, generalized distrust was significantly correlated with social cynicism among the 17 countries matched, suggesting that it is a conceptually valid alternative indicator. As Table S10 shows, this indicator exhibited a significant cross-level interaction effect; the effect was negative, suggesting that the concern-behavior association was weaker among countries with a higher level of generalized distrust. This pattern replicates what we reported in the manuscript, and is consistent with Hypothesis 1. However, because generalized distrust was also significantly correlated with some of the other societal-level factors (fate control, present orientation, and individualism; see Table S9), we cannot rule out the possibility that the effects obtained were not confounded. Belief in external control. Based on past studies (e.g., Greenway et al., 2015), we identified one item in the WVS: “Some people feel they have completely free choice and control over their lives, while other people feel what they do has no real effect on what happens to them.” After reading this statement, participants indicated how much freedom of choice and control they felt they had over their life on a 10-point scale (1 = no choice at all to 10 = a great deal of choice). We computed the mean score for each country included in Wave 6 (WVS Association, 20102014) or Wave 5 (WVS Association, 2005-2008). We recoded the scores so that higher scores indicated a stronger belief in external control. We labelled this indicator as lack of personal control. As Table S9 shows, lack of personal control was marginally significantly correlated with fate control among the 15 countries matched, suggesting that it appears to be a conceptually valid alternative indicator. However, it was also significantly correlated with some of the other societal-level factors (social cynicism and past-present orientation). As Table S11 shows, this indicator did not exhibit any significant cross-level interaction effect. This pattern does not replicate what we reported in the manuscript, and does not support Hypothesis 2. We speculate that this is due to the subtle differences in the meanings of the two indicators used. Although they were moderately inter-correlated, it is plausible that fate control more comprehensively captures the notion of powerlessness and external control than the single-

10

item measure regarding personal control in the WVS. As Leung and Bond (2004) suggested, fate control is a broad belief that not only concerns the extent to which individuals have control over what occurs to them but also includes an additional theme that events are predetermined and fated. This notion is in line with the suggestion that control belief is a multidimensional construct (e.g., Smith et al., 1995). It also points to the possibility of decomposing the barrier of belief in external control into two interrelated components: whether one has control over environmental outcomes and whether environmental problems are seen as predetermined and fated. Unfortunately, for the moment this distinction cannot be empirically examined because, as far as we understand, cross-national data in this regard is not available. Operationalizing these two components and comparing their effects as a barrier appears to be an important direction for future research. Present orientation. We referred to the concept of long-term orientation, which is one of the most widely used indicators related to time orientation in the cross-cultural psychology literature. This concept represents a cultural dimension with persistence and thrift (which reflect an orientation toward the future) on one end, and personal stability and tradition (which reflect a focus on the present and the past) on the other (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov, 2010). We obtained national scores from Hofstede et al. (2010); we recoded the scores so that higher scores indicated stronger orientation to the past and present. We labelled this construct as past-present orientation. Although this concept and the indicator of future orientation we reported in the manuscript appear similar and are regarded by many as interchangeable, research has shown that they are actually not inter-correlated (Venaik, Zhu, & Brewer, 2013). This was also observed among the 24 countries matched in our data set, as Table S9 shows. In other words, it is questionable to what extent this alternative indicator is a valid one. It is also noteworthy that this indicator was significantly correlated with some of the other societal-level factors (social cynicism, personal control, fate control, individualism, and looseness). As Table S12 shows, past-present orientation did not exhibit any significant cross-level interaction effect. This pattern does not replicate what we reported in the manuscript, and does not support Hypothesis 3. We speculate that this is due to the subtle differences in the meanings of the two indicators used. Future orientation contrasts planning for the future versus focusing on the present. Comparatively, long-term orientation is more multidimensional, and some of its dimensions reflect an emphasis on the past, not the present (Venaik et al., 2013). Thus, the content of future orientation is arguably more directly relevant to the notion of present orientation as a psychological barrier. References Bjørnskov, C. (2007). Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public Choice, 130, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9069-1 Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Branscombe, N. R., Ysseldyk, R., & Heldreth, C. (2015). From “we” to “me”: Group identification enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000019

11

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 119–197). New York, NY: Academic Press. Nannestad, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413-436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135412 Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599508246576 Venaik, S., Zhu, Y., & Brewer, P. (2013). Looking into the future: Hofstede long term orientation versus GLOBE future orientation. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20, 361-385. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-02-2012-0014 World Values Survey Association. (2005-2008). Official aggregate v.20140429. Retrieved from www.worldvaluessurvey.org World Values Survey Association. (2010-2014). Official aggregate v.20150418. Retrieved from www.worldvaluessurvey.org

12

Table S9 Zero-order correlations among all indicators of the societal-level factors

1. Generalized distrust 2. Social cynicism 3. Lack of personal control 4. Fate control 5. Past-present orientation 6. Present orientation 7. Individualism 8. Tightness

r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.50* 17 .27 23 .65** 17 .09 32 .62** 24 -.63*** 31 -.32 27

.61* 15 .77*** 17 -.86*** 17 .27 15 -.60* 17 -.22 14

.45+a 15 -.66** 23 .18 20 -.21 22 -.22 19

-.75** 17 .26 15 -.64*** 17 -.55* 14

.02 24 .19 31 .16 27

-.32 23 -.02 20

.50* 26

Note. + p = a.090; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. r = correlation coefficient; N = number of countries in the pairwise correlation.

8

13

Table S10 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between generalized distrust and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

2.33*** (.04) .21*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .04*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.33*** (.04) .17*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01* (.00)

2.32*** (.04) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.35*** (.02) .15*** (.02) .01 (.00) .00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.36*** (.02) .20*** (.02) .01* (.00) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.35*** (.02) .13*** (.01) .00 (.00) -.00 (.00) .07*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

Country level Generalized distrust  intercept of PEB Generalized distrust  slope of EC Variances Residual Intercept Slope of EC

-.12** (.04) -.05** (.01)

-.11** (.04) -.06*** (.02)

-.09** (.04) -.01 (.01)

-.14*** (.02) -.11*** (.02)

-.14*** (.02) -.11*** (.02)

-.13*** (.02) -.07*** (.01)

.33 .06*** .01***

.33 .06*** .01***

.32 .06*** .00***

.50 .02*** .01***

.51 .02*** .01***

.48 .02*** .00***

Number of individuals Number of countries

28298 32

27446 32

29926 32

39791 32

37716 32

42596 32

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = singleitem environmental concern.

14

Table S11 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between lack of personal control and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

2.36*** (.05) .22*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.36*** (.05) .16*** (.03) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01+a (.00)

2.35*** (.05) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) -.00 (.00)

.37*** (.04) .15*** (.03) .01 (.00) -.00* (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.38*** (.04) .21*** (.03) .01+c (.00) -.00+d (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.37*** (.04) .13*** (.02) .01 (.00) -.00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

Country level Lack of personal control  intercept of PEB Lack of personal control  slope of EC Variances Residual Intercept Slope of EC

-.01 (.05) -.02 (.02)

-.00 (.05) -.00 (.03)

-.01 (.05) -.01 (.01)

-.06+b (.04) -.04 (.03)

-.06+e (.04) -.04 (.03)

-.06+f (.04) -.02 (.02)

.33 .06*** .01**

.34 .06*** .02**

.32 .06*** .00**

.50 .03*** .02**

.51 .03*** .02**

.48 .03*** .01**

Number of individuals Number of countries

21753 23

21117 23

22947 23

30598 23

28995 23

32683 23

Note. + p = a.063; b.078; c.088; d.075; e.087; f.085; * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general proenvironmental views. Concern = single-item environmental concern.

15

Table S12 Multilevel regression coefficients from models testing the association between past-present orientation and the intercept of pro-environmental behavior and slope of environmental concern PEB measure: EC measure:

Private-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Public-sphere PEB Awareness Views Concern

Individual level Intercept EC Gender Age Education Income

2.34*** (.04) .22*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .04*** (.00) .00 (.00)

2.34*** (.04) .17*** (.02) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .02*** (.00) -.01* (.00)

2.32*** (.04) .17*** (.01) -.05*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .03*** (.00) .03** (.00)

.36*** (.03) .16*** (.03) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .08*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

.36*** (.03) .21*** (.03) .01* (.00) .00 (.00) .06*** (.00) .02*** (.00)

.35*** (.03) .13*** (.01) .00 (.00) -.00** (.00) .07*** (.00) .03*** (.00)

Country level Past-present orientation  intercept of PEB Past-present orientation  slope of EC Variances Residual Intercept Slope of EC

-.05 (.04) .01 (.02)

-.05 (.04) -.01 (.00)

-.06 (.04) .01 (.01)

.04 (.03) .02 (.03)

.04 (.03) .02 (.03)

.04 (.03) .01 (.02)

.33 .06*** .01***

.33 .06*** .01***

.32 .06*** .00***

.50 .03*** .02***

.51 .03*** .02***

.48 .03*** .01***

Number of individuals Number of countries

28298 32

27446 32

29926 32

39791 32

37716 32

42596 32

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Awareness = awareness of specific problems. Views = general pro-environmental views. Concern = singleitem environmental concern.