Next Article in Journal
The Costs of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada between 1971 and 2015
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Appropriate Light Intensity and Daytime Temperature for Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Seedlings in a Plant Factory with Artificial Lighting for Use as Grafting Material
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054490
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Individual Cultural Value Differences on Pro-Environmental Behavior among International Students at Korean Universities

by
Waqas Riaz
1,
Sehrish Gul
2 and
Yoonseock Lee
1,*
1
Department of Public Administration, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea
2
Department of International Hotel Management, Kyungdong University, Gosung 24764, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4490; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054490
Submission received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 19 February 2023 / Accepted: 1 March 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the influence of individual cultural value differences on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) among international students from various cultural backgrounds presently studying in Korean universities. Data was collected using an online, self-administered questionnaire from a sample of 224 international students. Analysis was performed through structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques with the help of AMOS 26 software. The results show that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are strong predictors of private and public-sphere PEB. The results indicated that the uncertainty avoidance, collectivistic, and long-term orientation values of international students have a significant positive effect on both private and public-sphere PEB. However, power distance does not affect PEB in the private and public spheres. Notably, masculinity is negatively associated with only public-sphere PEB. This study also provides valuable practical implications for policymakers and other stakeholders to promote sustainable behavior among international students.

1. Introduction

Increasing environmental degradation and destruction have resulted in countless health problems, biodiversity loss, and climate change [1]. These issues have created immense challenges and risks to the planet and its inhabitants, as well as a significant threat to society, the economy, and natural ecosystems [2]. To address these challenges, the world has been working towards sustainability through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the urgency for greater action. It has revealed the interdependence of the global community and the devastating effects of environmental degradation and social inequality [3].
Many sociologists consider environmentally unfriendly behavior the leading cause of these environmental problems. As a result, environmental conservation heavily relies on individuals stimulating and reinforcing sustainable and pro-environmental behavior (PEB) [4,5]. Thus, studying the determinants of individuals’ PEBs is crucial to reducing environmental problems and achieving sustainability [6,7]. PEB refers to “any action that enhances the quality of the environment, either resulting or not resulting from pro-environmental intent” [8]. Individuals who engage in PEB aim to take measured efforts to promote positive environmental changes and limit the impacts of human neglect [9]. Academics generally view PEB as multifaceted [10]. According to Stern [11], there are two main categories of PEB: private and public spheres. Private-sector PEB involves practical behaviors. Individuals may protect the environment through their efforts (time and energy) to directly impact environmental quality, such as garbage sorting, water and electricity conservation, and recycling [10,11]. Public-sphere PEB refers to actions that indirectly impact the public domain [12], such as making legislative suggestions for environmental protection, complaining about environmental pollution events, and participating in environmental protection publicity activities. These actions, both in the private and public spheres, substantially contribute to reducing environmental pollution and resource abuse [13].
Although several studies have focused on PEB, demographic and psychological factors are the most prominent determinants [13,14]. Few studies have examined contextual factors such as cultural values, social structure, and environmental policies, significantly impacting psychological factors. Cultural values have a profound impact and have become increasingly prominent [14]. For example, “Individualism and collectivism” have been used to explain and forecast differences in attitudes, intentions, and behaviors in cross-cultural studies as the dimension of cultural values of the greatest concern [15].
Several studies have investigated cultural orientations at the national level [16,17]. In contrast, examining cultural values on a personal level is especially valuable for two interconnected reasons. First and foremost, culture is embedded within each individual, forming distinct thoughts and practices [18]. Second, cultural values can vary widely between individuals within the same culture [19], and disparities in individual cultural values are also vital for residents undertaking PEB. As a result, a viable approach (personal-level cultural values assessment) to managing and promoting PEB may be overlooked [13]. Despite inconsistent results, cultural orientation and its effects on individuals have received significant attention [20]. Hofstede’s cultural model is one of the most influential models for studying the impact of cultural value differences between countries on people’s PEB [21]. Hofstede [22] argued that culture comprises five dimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and long-term orientation. Although Hofstede’s cultural orientation has had a significant impact, its measurement is problematic due to generalizability and validity concerns. Previous research, for example, found that Hofstede’s findings are difficult to apply because the study used a single organizational sample (IBM corporation) [23,24]. Based on the controversial findings in the literature and the failure of previous works to investigate the effects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on PEB [25], there is a need further to investigate cultural orientations in relation to individual PEB. Recent research has called for more comprehensive studies to further investigate Hofstede’s cultural orientations and their effects on PEB [13].
Different nations have different levels of environmental awareness, concern, infrastructure (recycling, public transport, etc.), and social and cultural standards [22,26]. Many of these differences have an impact on how activities (using energy, commuting, etc.) that have an environmental impact are carried out in various regions. However, research on the possibility that environmentally impactful practices could shift when people move between countries is much less explored [27]. International students are essential for global education and cultural exchange [28], but their PEB has not been extensively studied [29]. This lack of research highlights the need to better understand how Hofstede’s cultural dimensions affect PEB in international students. It is essential to investigate their behavior toward environmental issues and their willingness to adopt sustainable practices.
The current study aims to investigate the influence of individual cultural value differences on PEB among international students from various cultural backgrounds who are presently studying in Korean universities. This will be done by exploring Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions in relation to individual PEB in a diverse student sample from various cultural backgrounds. The PEB of young people, particularly university students, is critical because they are the ones who must shoulder the burden of past and present environmental neglect. They are also likely to be influential individuals who gain the technical and professional skills required to develop and offer practical solutions for changing environmental behavior. This research will provide insight into how diverse cultures think about PEB and inform educators and practitioners of the best strategies for engaging young people from different cultural backgrounds in the conversation around PEB.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Cultural Values and PEB

Pro-environmental behavior is a broad concept that can be described as any action that improves the environment or, if it harms it, strives to minimize damage to the extent possible [30]. Environmental behaviors, environmentally friendly activities, environmental protection behavior, green consumption behavior, and sustainable consumption behaviors are all actions or behaviors that protect the natural environment by reducing negative environmental impacts to preserve the environment for all life on Earth [31]. These behaviors or actions are further classified into three categories: purchasing behaviors (such as purchasing water-saving products and purchasing used products); habitual usage behaviors (such as minimizing energy and water usage); and recycling behaviors (such as recycling glass, newspapers, cans, and plastic bottles) [32]. Although there are many other typologies of PEB [33], the primary connotation of these categories is similar to that of public-sphere or private-sphere PEB [34]. One important advantage of the public–private classification over other classifications is that it can include a wide range of activities without being constrained by a society’s developmental level and cultural differences [10]. As a result, the public–private classification is frequently utilized in empirical research conducted not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, including Thailand [35], US [36,37], China [34,38,39], and Lithuania [40]. For instance, Briscoe et al. [36] used survey data from five states in the Intermountain West region of the United States to examine gender differences in public–private sphere PEB. According to the research, both public- and private-sphere PEB are necessary for environmental protection. For example, private sphere actions such as recycling can contribute to the development of pro-environmental attitudes and the adoption of more PEBs [41]. Private PEB, however, may not be sufficient to address larger-scale environmental challenges [42]. Public-sphere PEB, such as lobbying for laws and regulations, is necessary to bring about systemic changes that can substantially influence the environment and may successfully impact policy change and safeguard the environment on a larger scale [43]. However, earlier studies on the impact of social psychological factors on PEB have mostly focused on private sphere PEB, with little emphasis paid to public sphere PEB [10].
PEB is probably best viewed as a combination of self-interest (e.g., pursuing a strategy that reduces one’s own health risk) and concern for other people, the next generation, other species, or entire ecosystems (e.g., preventing air pollution that may endanger others’ health or the global climate) [44]. This mixture of self-interest and pro-social motivations is represented in the most commonly used theoretical models for explaining PEB. Researchers who see environmental behavior as primarily pro-socially motivated frequently employ the norm-activation model [45] as a theoretical framework, whereas researchers who see self-interest as the more important motive frequently employ rational choice models such as the theory of planned behavior [46]. In fact, PEB includes both self-interest and pro-social motivation [44]. The research of PEB from the aspect of cultural values can consider both pro-social and self-interest motives; for example, collectivism and individualism in cultural values focus on both pro-social and self-interest motivations [13,47].
Cultural value is a multifaceted phenomenon that can be studied from different perspectives [48]. Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” [49]. Hofstede’s (1980) study demonstrated that cultural conglomerates at the regional and national levels influence the behavior of societies and organizations over very long periods. Hofstede developed the model of cultural dimensions, which specifies four initial dimensions: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and uncertainty avoidance [50]. Hofstede later introduced a fifth dimension, “long-term orientation versus short-term orientation,” also known as Confucian dynamism [51].
The relationship between culture and behavior has received much attention [52]. Recent studies have shown that cultural values can affect different behaviors, including those of university students [53], tourists [54,55], and consumers [56,57]. These behaviors can vary among existing generations and emerging generations, which may have different traits due to intergenerational differences [58]. For instance, Mi et al. [13] found that among Chinese participants, collectivism, long-term orientation, and masculinity positively predicted PEB, while uncertainty avoidance negatively predicted these. Personal long-term orientation was also found to be associated with PEBs [59]. A recent study conducted by Ruanguttamanun [57] investigated consumer differences between a developed economy (USA) and an emerging economy (Thailand) based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the advertising appeal of green advertisements, which play an important role in raising consumer concerns about environmental issues. The study revealed that the cultural value differences in Hofstede’s dimensions are evident in the advertising appeal of green advertisements. These studies’ findings indicate that cultural values in a society have a significant influence on individuals’ and national pro-environmental tendencies [60].

2.2. Power Distance

Power Distance is defined by Hofstede [22] as the extent to which less powerful members of an organization expect and accept unequal power distribution. In other words, the degree to which followers and leaders disapprove or endorse power inequalities in their society is referred to as power distance. People with low power distance cultural values regard equal opportunities and general equality to be extremely important and desired. Regardless of a person’s social status, the exercise of power should be founded on ethical norms to be legitimate [49]. In contrast, people with high power distance cultural values view inequality as essentially good. They believe that everyone has a position in society’s hierarchy that requires no further explanation [61]. Previous research has revealed that a high level of power distance in society is associated with poor environmental performance [62] and a country’s institutional capacity for environmental sustainability [63]. A survey conducted in Hungary revealed that power distance has a significant but negative impact on PEB [25]. Therefore, the hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis H1a:
Students with high power distance values are less likely to show private-sphere PEB.
Hypothesis H1b:
Students with high power distance values are less likely to show public-sphere PEB.

2.3. Individualism versus Collectivism

Since Hofstede’s ground-breaking study in 1980, there has been a continuous stream of elaborations on the concepts of individualism and collectivism [64]. Collectivism is defined as “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” [65]. Hofstede [51] conceptualizes individualism and collectivism as part of a single continuum, with each cultural construct representing an opposing pole. Many scholars believe that a society with a high individualism score reflects a low collectivism score and vice versa. Individualism is characteristic of societies where social bonds are weak; everyone cares only about themselves and their immediate family [35,42,43].
In contrast, collectivism is characteristic of societies in which people are born into strong and cohesive groups that protect them throughout their lives in exchange for unflinching loyalty [51]. Most collectivists are willing to put the group’s aims ahead of their own [66]; as a result, they are more inclined to act in an environmentally friendly fashion because it is suitable for the group. As a result, it is more likely that they will exhibit values that support the environment and positive attitudes toward the notion of sustainability [52,67].
According to McCarty and Shrum [19], collectivism positively impacts customers’ beliefs about their recycling activities. Collectivists are more inclined to engage in recycling due to their more cooperative behavior. They are more willing to assist others and prioritize the group’s interests over their own. Conversely, individualists regard recycling as less important and are less likely to engage in resource conservation behaviors than collectivists. Similar findings were observed for ecological engagement [68]. Therefore, hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis H2a:
Students with collectivist values are more likely to show private-sphere PEB.
Hypothesis H2b:
Students with collectivist values are more likely to show public-sphere PEB.

2.4. Masculinity versus Femininity

The cultural dimension of masculinity–femininity describes the division of emotional and gender roles [50]. Men are regarded as assertive and ambitious in masculine cultures, whereas women are more caring. These masculine-oriented cultures place a higher value on work than family and admire the strong. As a result, those who have masculine cultural values are more assertive and competitive, and roles of achievement, control, and power are constantly reinforced [69]. In contrast, feminine cultural norms are related to greater equality of emotional and gender roles [61].
A dominant relationship with nature, which is associated with masculinity, emphasizes that humans have the right to use natural resources and dominate nature in pursuit of financial success without considering the potential environmental damage [70]. Economic concerns are prioritized over sustainability in masculine cultures, which frequently comes at the expense of a broadly-defined quality of life [71] and results in a tolerance for environmental pollution or degradation. Empirical evidence suggests that masculinity and a country’s capacity for social and environmental sustainability are negatively correlated [63]. Furthermore, a link has been found between masculinity and lower levels of the Environmental Sustainability Index [62].
Egalitarian human–nature interactions, associated with femininity, emphasizes the importance of collaboration with nature and environmental preservation. Previous empirical research has discovered a link between egalitarian nature orientation and environmental concern, environmental activism, and positive attitudes toward environmental conservation [72,73]. Individually, women, who usually embrace more feminine values, have been proven to engage in green purchasing more willingly and to have more pro-environmental attitudes than men [74]. Therefore, the hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis H3a:
Students who value masculinity are less likely to exhibit private-sphere PEB.
Hypothesis H3b:
Students who value masculinity are less likely to exhibit public-sphere PEB.

2.5. Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which society tolerates ambiguity and the degree to which its members feel more comfortable in ambiguous, uncertain, and unstructured situations [69]. In high uncertainty avoidance societies, more laws and regulations are in place to minimize perceived risks and uncertainties [75]. Societies with a high level of uncertainty avoidance are more concerned with life security; thus, they are more prone to stress and anxiety. As a result, they tend to avoid situations fraught with uncertainty. In contrast, societies with low uncertainty avoidance have a more relaxed attitude. They are less aggressive, more willing to accept uncertain situations, and willing to take more risks in life [50]. In high uncertainty avoidance societies, there is a higher tendency for anxiety about future well-being and consequently increased environmental concerns [76]. The scholarly evidence reveals that societies with a high level of uncertainty avoidance tend to have higher savings rates than societies with low levels of uncertainty [65]. Moreover, on the individual level, those experiencing more uncertainty, such as immigrants, have been shown to save money more by being more mindful of their energy and water consumption and reusing products [77]. Thus, research has revealed that people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more inclined to take the next step and participate in ensuring the environment’s sustainability [62,76].
Hypothesis H4a:
Students with high uncertainty avoidance values are more likely to show private-sphere PEB.
Hypothesis H4b:
Students with high uncertainty avoidance values are more likely to show public-sphere PEB.

2.6. Long-Term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation

Long-term orientation is defined as “the degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification” and is related to the willingness to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow [65]. It implies that individuals with a long-term orientation focus on behaviors and actions that lead to long-term benefits, such as retirement savings or conserving resources [78]. In contrast, people with a short-term orientation seek immediate gratification and are less willing to make sacrifices because they are more concerned with keeping up with others than with the long-term consequences of their actions [65,69]. They also show stronger materialistic tendencies, which make it difficult to sacrifice today’s gains for future well-being [79,80]. In the context of the environment, Leonidou et al. [81] proposed that long-term-oriented consumers are more likely to protect the natural environment in order to create sustainable conditions for their families and themselves to prosper in the future. In terms of environmental protection, empirical research has confirmed that consumers with a long-term perspective are aware of the high environmental impact of automobiles [82].
Hypothesis H5a:
Students with long-term orientation values are more likely to show private-sphere PEB.
Hypothesis H5b:
Students with long-term orientation values are more likely to show public-sphere PEB.
The proposed causal model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

This study was based upon a cross-sectional survey. The survey was administered in English, as all international students in Korea are required to achieve an IELTS 5.5 level prior to commencing studies. While the language of the classroom in Korea is often in Korean, many or most readings are in English. The data was collected in October 2022 through an online survey (Google forms). Online surveys are a cost-effective way to reach a broader, geographically dispersed audience and facilitate participation. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated technology adoption and associated social practices such as studying and working [83], making online surveys essential to ensure the safety and well-being of our participants. The participants were international students who had been studying in Korean universities for more than one year. A link to the questionnaire was sent to the students via email and social networking apps (KakaoTalk and WhatsApp). The Snowball sampling technique, commencing from the researcher’s own studies, was used to reach out to the students. Completion of the questionnaires was voluntary, and students gave informed consent. A total of 325 students were approached to participate in the study; 246 individuals completed the task, making the response rate equal to 76%. Following data cleaning, 22 responses were removed from the 246 gathered due to poor response, resulting in a total of 224 usable responses to analyze. The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. The findings showed that about 54% of all the respondents were male, and the rest were female (46%). Regarding age distribution, the majority (50%) were 18–24 years old. The remaining respondents ranged in age from 25 to 34 years old (46.9%), 35 to 44 years old (2.7%), and 45 to 54 years old (0.4%). Regarding education distribution, it was found that most respondents were studying for a bachelor’s degree (62.1%). The remaining respondents were studying in either master’s (26.8%) or Ph.D. (11.2%) courses.

Measurement

The questionnaire was composed of two parts. Part one asked participants to provide their demographic information, including gender, age, and education. Part two measured cultural values (power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term vs. short-term orientation) and PEB (private-sphere and public-sphere).
PEB was measured using the survey items used by the Korea Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) on residents’ efforts to prevent environmental pollution [84]. Participants were asked to describe how often they had performed five different Private-sphere PEB, such as “sorting garbage” (SG), “efforts to reduce food waste” (RFW), “reducing the use of disposable products” (DP), “buy eco-friendly products” (BEF) and “water saving” (WS). Similarly, to measure public sphere PEB, participants were asked how often they had performed four different behaviors: “participate in environmental campaigns” (EC), “proactively report pollution incidents” (RP), “participating in green donation activities” (GD) and “participating in environmental education activities” (ED). All items solicited responses through a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5).
A scale developed by Yoo et al. [85] was used to measure the cultural values dimensions of Hofstede’s model. Power distance includes three items: for example, “People in higher positions do not need to ask the opinions of people in lower positions when making most decisions.” The four items used to assess individualism versus collectivism included “At some critical moments, individual interests should be subordinated to collective interests.” Three items were used to evaluate masculinity versus femininity, including “Males usually use logical analysis to solve problems while females usually rely on intuition.” Uncertainty avoidance includes four items, including “It is important to have detailed instructions when doing one thing so that I know how to do it.” Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation included three items, one being “I always think long-term when I do things.” Responses ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) on a five-point Likert scale.
A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to examine the measurement and structural components of the model. Data analysis was carried out following a two-stage procedure. First, the reliability and validity of the instruments were evaluated. Then, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesized relationships among variables. The SEM method was adopted to estimate complex causal relationships among multiple latent variables while controlling measurement errors [10]. Descriptive statistics, reliability test, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), were conducted with SPSS 27 for windows. CFA and SEM analyses were performed using the Amos 26 software package with the maximum-likelihood estimation method.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is conducted prior to factor analysis. The sample adequacy and suitability of the dataset for factor analysis were tested using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A dataset suitable for factor analysis has a KMO value greater than 0.6 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.05) [86]. Our study’s KMO value was 0.888, demonstrating that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.05), indicating that the data is spherically distributed.
Based on a two-stage structural equation modeling (SEM) approach, the first measurement model was tested to ensure the reliability and validity of latent constructs. Then, the structural model was tested to examine the hypothesized relationships among variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the measurement model. Because the initial model did not achieve fitness, we deleted one item from collectivism (deleted item = CO1) and one item from private-sphere PEB (deleted item = SG) with factor loadings less than 0.60, and created covariance of error terms based on modification indices (MI > 30). The goodness-of-fit of the measurement model was assessed using different indices, such as the normed Chi-square (CMIN), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The results of these indices showed an excellent fit of the model to the data, as indicated by values of CMIN/df below 3, CFI and TLI higher than 0.90, SRMR lower than 0.08, and RMSEA lower than 0.06. Table 2 of CFA shows that the revised model had good fit statistics, including x2/df = 1.450, CFI = 0.967, SRMR = 0.053, and RMSEA = 0.045. Table 2 shows the recommended values based on Hu and Bentler’s guidelines [87].
As for reliability, values of factor loadings (>0.6), Cronbach’s alpha (>0.7), and composite reliability (>0.7) were taken into consideration. As shown in Table 3, each item’s standardized factor loadings were above 0.60, and the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) for all latent variables were larger than 0.70, indicating good internal consistency [88]. Furthermore, average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs exceeded the 0.5 threshold for all constructs [89]. Thus, it can be concluded that all constructs have acceptable convergent validity. Moreover, the divergent validity was tested using the Hetero-trait–mono-trait (HTMT) criterion. As shown in Table 4, the HTMT value for each construct was less than the 0.85 threshold [90], indicating that the measurement model had proper divergent validity.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment

We used a latent SEM analysis with maximum likelihood estimation to examine the relationship between cultural values and private-sphere PEB and public-sphere PEB. The structural model was run, and the relevant goodness-of-fit values (χ2/df = 1.548, TLI = 0.953, CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.050) indicated that the structural model fits the data very well. According to the results in Table 5, power distance has no significant influence on private-sphere PEB and public-sphere PEB (β = −0.068, p = 0.477; β = −0.029, p = 0.755), so H1a and H1b are not verified. Uncertainty avoidance has a significant positive effect on both types of PEB (β = 0.322, p = 0.004; β = 0.259, p = 0.016); thus, H2a and H2b are accepted. Collectivism has a significant positive impact on private-sphere and public-sphere PEB (β = 0.914, p < 0.001; β = 0.936, p < 0.001), which supports H3a and H3b. Masculinity significantly influences public-sphere PEB (β = −0.076, p = 0.013), but the effect of masculinity on private-sphere PEB was not significant (β = −0.219, p = 0.396); therefore, H4b is accepted while H4a is rejected. The results of structural equations modeling also show that long-term orientation has a significant positive impact on both private-sphere PEB and public-sphere PEB (β = 0.596, p < 0.001; β = 0.636, p < 0.001), and thus H5a and H5b are also verified.

5. Discussion

This study investigates the influence of individual cultural value differences on PEB among international students from various cultural backgrounds presently studying in Korean universities. This section discusses the findings of the investigation in light of the findings of previous studies. Moreover, the implications for policymakers and study limitations are discussed.
The study’s findings fail to validate all the hypotheses because power distance does not affect PEB in the private and public spheres. These results are not in line with those of [25,62,91], who found that power distance exhibits stronger pro-environmental attitudes. Some other studies also reported a non-significant relationship between power distance and the tendency to act pro-environmentally [13]. This study also confirms that power distance has no significant impact on PEB. Studies reported that power distance affects individual behavior [55,63]; most were conducted in the workplace setting or with respondents from the same region with similar power distance values. However, this study is unique because it examined a sample of international students from different countries with differing cross-cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds and varying power distance values.
Additionally, the results showed that uncertainty avoidance has a significant positive effect on both types of PEB. These findings demonstrate that international students with higher uncertainty avoidance are more likely to engage in proactive and preventive behaviors than those with lower uncertainty avoidance. The results are in line with previous research [56,91,92]. These findings may be explained by the fact that people with a higher uncertainty avoidance value are risk-averse and strive to keep themselves and their society safe from any uncertain situation to the greatest extent possible. As a result, these individuals operate sustainably, including purchasing environmentally friendly products [56], recycling, conserving energy, and managing resources to keep the environment safe and the resources available for a longer period [91].
Collectivism also has a significant positive effect on private- and public-sphere PEB. The current study’s results are similar to the findings of the previous literature [92]. Farrow et al. [93] argued that group norms determine collectivist societies’ behavior. People from collectivist cultures will sacrifice their individual goals for the sake of the collective and will thus endeavor to make decisions that society approves of [66]. Thus, societies with high environmental values ensure that all members behave in a way that does not harm the environment to keep it safe for future generations.
Interestingly, the results reveal that masculinity has a significant negative effect on public-sphere PEB but not on private-sphere PEB. When people from masculine cultures are confronted with a choice, their mental conditioning pressures them to prioritize reaching goals and material gains, even at the expense of others’ well-being. Environmental concerns are frequently overlooked in this goal-oriented masculine culture since they are viewed as less severe. This increases their propensity to circumvent the law or take shortcuts in order to attain their objectives more quickly while compromising environmental aspects [62]. Consequently, the masculine gender role is counteracting public-sphere PEB by influencing people to prioritize their own needs over the greater good of society [63].
Long-term orientation shows a significant positive effect on private and public-sphere PEB. This suggests that having a long-term perspective on environmental issues and understanding their effects on society, in the long run, are important elements in encouraging environmentally conscious behavior. These findings may be influenced by economic and financial reasons. As stated by Li et al. [94], cost savings can also influence an individual’s choices apart from environmental awareness. Zhang et al. [95] argue that even though a product is more expensive than alternatives, users may prefer it more if it has energy-saving features since they would eventually save money on their energy use. Long-term savings from decreased operating costs will be sufficient to compensate for the expensive purchase price of the product [56]. This is especially true for international students, who often have limited economic resources; consequently, most of their pro-environmental choices are based on a cost-saving mindset.
This study also has important practical implications for policymakers who wish to get more people involved in issues related to climate change. As international students will become an important part of many countries’ populations, governments and other organizations should use the findings of this study to their advantage and prioritize incentivizing PEBs among international students. Incentivizing PEBs could be done in various ways, such as by offering discounts for green transportation options or providing additional funding or scholarships for international students participating in environmental initiatives. International students being aware of the financial benefits associated with PEBs could help them make better-informed decisions that would benefit the environment and their finances. Furthermore, governments and organizations should ensure that international students have access to the right information and resources to help them become more engaged in environmental issues. Lastly, universities should encourage the participation of international students in campaigns or initiatives related to sustainability and environmental protection.
This study has a few limitations to be noted. Firstly, financial constraints may limit the range of behaviors that international students can engage in to reduce their environmental impact. Secondly, language barriers may make it difficult for international students to access information related to environmental issues. Moreover, the sample of participants was mostly from Asian and developing countries, all of whom were residing in Korea, and therefore might not be representative of all international students, so further research with a more diverse sample is needed to obtain a more comprehensive picture. Future studies should increase their sample size and focus on various environmental issues to address this limitation. Efforts to promote sustainable consumption typically appeal to those already inclined toward sustainability. Thus, future research should examine both covert and overt behavioral controls that prevent people from engaging in PEB as well as the equivalent ways to overcome these issues [58].

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the influence of Hofstede’s cultural values differences on pro-environmental behavior among university students from various cultural backgrounds presently studying in Korean universities. We found robust evidence indicating that international students with a higher degree of uncertainty avoidance, collectivistic, and long-term orientation values are more likely to engage in proactive and preventive behaviors in both the private and public-sphere than those with a lower degree of these values. However, results show that power distance does not affect PEB in the private and public spheres. Notably, masculinity was negatively associated only with public-sphere PEB. These findings suggest that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are strong indicators of PEB and demonstrate the importance of considering cultural influences when designing and implementing effective public-sector environmental policies. This study discussed several practical implications for policymakers who may wish to engage more people’s involvement in issues related to climate change. Universities should encourage international students to participate in campaigns or projects that promote sustainability and the protection of the environment. Such activity will both benefit the environment and serve as a learning opportunity that international students can use to develop their knowledge and skills related to sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.R., Y.L. and S.G.; methodology, W.R. and S.G.; data collection, W.R. and S.G.; Analysis, W.R. and Y.L.; investigation, W.R. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, W.R., S.G. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, W.R. and Y.L; supervision, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Robert J. Dickey for his comments and feedback on this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amit Kumar, G. Framing a model for green buying behavior of Indian consumers: From the lenses of the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Espeland, E.K.; Kettenring, K.M. Strategic plant choices can alleviate climate change impacts: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 222, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lim, W.M. The Sustainability Pyramid: A Hierarchical Approach to Greater Sustainability and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals with Implications for Marketing Theory, Practice, and Public Policy. Australas. Mark. J. 2022, 30, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gkargkavouzi, A.; Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. How do motives and knowledge relate to intention to perform environmental behavior? Assessing the mediating role of constraints. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 165, 106394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bergek, A.; Mignon, I. Motives to adopt renewable electricity technologies: Evidence from Sweden. Energy Policy 2017, 106, 547–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Karimi, S.; Liobikienė, G.; Saadi, H.; Sepahvand, F. The Influence of Media Usage on Iranian Students’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors: An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Carmi, N.; Arnon, S.; Orion, N. Transforming Environmental Knowledge Into Behavior: The Mediating Role of Environmental Emotions. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 46, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, X.; Zou, Y.; Wu, J. Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test of Value–Belief–Norm Theory. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moon, S.-G.; Jeong, S.; Choi, Y. Moderating Effects of Trust on Environmentally Significant Behavior in Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mi, L.; Qiao, L.; Xu, T.; Gan, X.; Yang, H.; Zhao, J.; Qiao, Y.; Hou, J. Promoting sustainable development: The impact of differences in cultural values on residents’ pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1539–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xia, D.; Li, Y.; He, Y.; Zhang, T.; Wang, Y.; Gu, J. Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Frank, B.; Enkawa, T.; Schvaneveldt, S.J. The role of individualism vs. collectivism in the formation of repurchase intent: A cross-industry comparison of the effects of cultural and personal values. J. Econ. Psychol. 2015, 51, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Petegem, P. A Cross-Cultural Study of Environmental Values and Their Effect on the Environmental Behavior of Children. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45, 551–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Soyez, K. How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behavior. Int. Mark. Rev. 2012, 29, 623–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cho, Y.-N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. To be or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001, 20, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Van de Vliert, E.; Huang, X.; Levine, R.V. National Wealth and Thermal Climate as Predictors of Motives for Volunteer Work. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2004, 35, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morren, M.; Grinstein, A. Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 47, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. McSweeney, B. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith—A Failure of Analysis. Hum. Relat. 2002, 55, 89–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Taras, V.; Kirkman, B.L.; Steel, P. Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 405–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Nagy, S.; Konyha Molnárné, C. The Effects of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions on Pro-Environmental Behaviour: How Culture Influences Environmentally Conscious Behaviour. Theory, Methodol. Pract. 2018, 14, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schwartz, S.H. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications; Cross-cultural research and methodology series; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; Volume 18, pp. 85–119. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tyers, R.; Berchoux, T.; Xiang, K.; Yao, X.Y. China-to-UK Student Migration and Pro-environmental Behaviour Change: A Social Practice Perspective. Sociol. Res. Online 2019, 24, 575–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Barnett III, C. International Student Engagement: Strategies for Creating Inclusive, Connected, and Purposeful Campus Environments. J. Int. Stud. 2016, 6, 1076–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tyers, R. Barriers to enduring pro-environmental behaviour change among Chinese students returning home from the UK: A social practice perspective. Environ. Sociol. 2021, 7, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, E.S.-T.; Lin, H.-C. Sustainable Development: The Effects of Social Normative Beliefs On Environmental Behaviour. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, B. Who will be more active in sustainable consumption? Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 6, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lou, X.; Li, L.M.W. The relationship of environmental concern with public and private pro-environmental behaviours: A pre-registered meta-analysis. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 53, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lu, H.; Liu, X.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Yue, T. Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of public- and private-sphere pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Piyapong, J. Factors Affecting Environmental Activism, Nonactivist Behaviors, and the Private Sphere Green Behaviors of Thai University Students. Educ. Urban Soc. 2019, 52, 619–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Briscoe, M.D.; Givens, J.E.; Hazboun, S.O.; Krannich, R.S. At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environ. Sociol. 2019, 5, 374–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. D’Arco, M.; Marino, V. Environmental citizenship behavior and sustainability apps: An empirical investigation. Transform. Gov. People, Process Policy 2022, 16, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shi, J.; Lu, C.; Wei, Z. Effects of Social Capital on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in Chinese Residents. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xing, Y.; Li, M.; Liao, Y. Trust, Identity, and Public-Sphere Pro-environmental Behavior in China: An Extended Attitude-Behavior-Context Theory. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 919578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liobikienė, G.; Poškus, M.S. The Importance of Environmental Knowledge for Private and Public Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior: Modifying the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Agyeman, J.; Bullard, R.D.; Evans, B. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  43. Weber, E.U.; Stern, P.C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Higueras-Castillo, E.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Molinillo, S. The role of collectivism in modeling the adoption of renewable energies: A cross-cultural approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 2143–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Steenkamp, J.E.M. The role of national culture in international marketing research. Int. Mark. Rev. 2001, 18, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1980; p. 475. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hofstede, G.; Geert, H.; Jan, H.G.; Michael, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ng, E.S.; Burke, R.J. Predictor of Business Students’ Attitudes Toward Sustainable Business Practices. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tezel, E.; Ugural, M.; Giritli, H. Pro-environmental Behavior of University Students: Influence of Cultural Differences. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Mika, M.; Faracik, R. National culture as a driver of pro-environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions in tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1804–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, L.; Filimonau, V. The effect of national culture on pro-environmental behavioural intentions of tourists in the UK and China. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ghazali, I.; Abdul-Rashid, S.H.; Md Dawal, S.Z.; Aoyama, H.; Sakundarini, N.; Ho, F.H.; Herawan, S.G. Green product preferences considering cultural influences: A comparison study between Malaysia and Indonesia. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2021, 32, 1040–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ruanguttamanun, C. How consumers in different cultural backgrounds prefer advertising in green ads through Hofstede’s cultural lens? A cross-cultural study. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2023, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lim, W.M.; Kumar, S.; Pandey, N.; Verma, D.; Kumar, D. Evolution and trends in consumer behaviour: Insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour. J. Consum. Behav. 2023, 22, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carmi, N.; Arnon, S. The Role of Future Orientation in Environmental Behavior: Analyzing the Relationship on the Individual and Cultural Levels. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 1304–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lou, X.; Li, L.M.W. The Mediating Role of Self-Enhancement Value on the Relationship of Power Distance and Individualism with Pro-Environmental Attitudes: Evidence from Multilevel Mediation Analysis with 52 Societies. Cross-Cultural Res. 2022, 56, 445–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Caputo, A.; Ayoko, O.B.; Amoo, N.; Menke, C. The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 99, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Park, H.; Russell, C.; Lee, J. National culture and environmental sustainability: A cross-national analysis. J. Econ. Financ. 2007, 31, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Husted, B.W. Culture and Ecology: A Cross-National Study of the Determinants of Environmental Sustainability. Manag. Int. Rev. 2005, 45, 349–371. [Google Scholar]
  64. Green, E.G.T.; Deschamps, J.C.; Páez, D. Variation of individualism and collectivism within and between 20 countries: A typological analysis. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Javidan, M.; Dorfman, P.W.; Gupta, V. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sharma, P. Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2009, 38, 787–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, Y.; Segev, S. Cultural orientations and environmental sustainability in households: A comparative analysis of Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the United States. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ling-Yee, L. Effect of Collectivist Orientation and Ecological Attitude on Actual Environmental Commitment. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1997, 9, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bhagat, R.S.; Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chan, R.Y.K.; Lau, L.B.Y. Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. J. Consum. Mark. 2000, 17, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Katz, J.P.; Swanson, D.L.; Nelson, L.K. Culture-Based Expectations Of Corporate Citizenship: A Propositional Framework And Comparison Of Four Cultures. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2001, 9, 149–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mostafa, M.M. A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 445–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kals, E.; Schumacher, D.; Montada, L. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31, 178–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lee, K. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Ho, F.N.; Wang, H.-M.D.; Vitell, S.J. A Global Analysis of Corporate Social Performance: The Effects of Cultural and Geographic Environments. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Parboteeah, K.P.; Addae, H.M.; Cullen, J.B. Propensity to Support Sustainability Initiatives: A Cross-National Model. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dustmann, C. Return migration, uncertainty and precautionary savings. J. Dev. Econ. 1997, 52, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ashkanasy, N.; Gupta, V.; Mayfield, M.; Trevor-Roberts, E. Future Orientation. In Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 282–342. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kilbourne, W.; Pickett, G. How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Polonsky, M.J. Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1311–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leonidou, L.C.; Leonidou, C.N.; Kvasova, O. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour. J. Mark. Manag. 2010, 26, 1319–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Joireman, J.A.; Van Lange, P.A.M.; Van Vugt, M. Who cares about the environmental impact of cars?: Those with an eye toward the future. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lim, W.M. History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 2021, 5, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  84. KOSIS KOrean Statistical Information Service. Available online: https://kosis.kr/eng/ (accessed on 24 August 2022).
  85. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N.; Lenartowicz, T. Measuring hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2011, 23, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliff, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 5, pp. 207–2019. [Google Scholar]
  87. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hair, J., Jr.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis a Global Perspective; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2010; Volume 7458. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Irawan; Elia, A.; Benius. Interactive effects of citizen trust and cultural values on pro-environmental behaviors: A time-lag study from Indonesia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nguyen, T.N.; Lobo, A.; Greenland, S. The influence of cultural values on green purchase behaviour. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2017, 35, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Li, Y.; Tong, Y.; Ye, F.; Song, J. The choice of the government green subsidy scheme: Innovation subsidy vs. product subsidy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 4932–4946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, C.; Zhou, G. Willingness to pay a price premium for energy-saving appliances: Role of perceived value and energy efficiency labeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04490 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed causal model of this study.
Figure 1. Proposed causal model of this study.
Sustainability 15 04490 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic profiles of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profiles of respondents.
VariablesFrequencyPercentage (%)
Gender
Female10346
Male12154
Age
18–2411250
25–3410546.9
35–4462.7
45–5410.4
Education
Bachelor’s13962.1
Master’s 6026.8
Doctoral2511.2
Table
Table 2. Goodness-of-fit of the measurement model.
Table 2. Goodness-of-fit of the measurement model.
Fit IndicesCMIN/DFCFITLISRMRRMSEA
Recommended value1–3>0.90>0.90<0.08<0.06
Revised Model 1.4500.9670.9610.0530.045
Note: CMIN: normed Chi-square; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR: standardized root mean squared residual; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.
Table
Table 3. SFLs, CR, AVE, and Cronbach’s α values.
Table 3. SFLs, CR, AVE, and Cronbach’s α values.
FactorsIndicatorsSFLsCRAVEα
Power distancePD10.7310.8630.6790.858
PD20.843
PD30.891
CollectivismCO20.7740.8020.5740.801
CO30.780
CO40.717
Masculinity MA10.8360.8790.7090.875
MA20.907
MA30.777
Uncertainty avoidanceUA10.6940.8760.6400.872
UA20.879
UA30.838
UA40.778
Long-term orientation LO10.7500.7920.5600.787
LO20.714
LO30.779
Private-sphere PEBRFW0.6480.8470.5840.846
DP0.823
BEF0.877
WS0.684
Public-sphere PEBEC0.8840.9330.7770.933
RP0.879
GD0.902
ED0.861
Note: SFL: Standardized factor loadings; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; α: Cronbach’s alpha.
Table
Table 4. Hetero-trait–mono-trait (HTMT).
Table 4. Hetero-trait–mono-trait (HTMT).
Constructs1234567
1Power distance
2Uncertainty avoidance0.398
3Collectivism0.2060.498
4Masculinity0.6030.3300.145
5Long-term orientation0.3500.6950.6840.253
6Private-sphere PEB0.2640.4170.5600.2160.402
7Public-sphere PEB0.2590.3650.5550.2910.3310.631
Table
Table 5. Result of structural equation analyses.
Table 5. Result of structural equation analyses.
Hypothesized RelationshipsEstimateβS.E.t-ValuepResult
H1aPower distance→Private-sphere PEB−0.053−0.0680.075−0.7120.477Reject
H2aUncertainty avoidance→Private-sphere PEB0.3570.3220.1242.8820.004Accept
H3aCollectivism→Private-sphere PEB0.9900.9140.1606.197***Accept
H4aMasculinity→Private-sphere PEB−0.069−0.0760.082−0.8490.396Reject
H5aLong-term orientation→Private-sphere PEB0.6690.5960.1953.437***Accept
H1bPower distance→Public-sphere PEB−0.035−0.0290.113−0.3130.755Reject
H2bUncertainty avoidance→Public-sphere PEB0.4470.2590.1862.4040.016Accept
H3bCollectivism→Public-sphere PEB1.5720.9360.2456.409***Accept
H4bMasculinity→Public-sphere PEB−0.308−0.2190.124−2.4810.013Accept
H5bLong-term orientation→Public-sphere PEB1.1060.6360.303.686***Accept
Significant at *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed test); β, standardized path coefficients; SE, standard error.
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

Riaz, W.; Gul, S.; Lee, Y. The Influence of Individual Cultural Value Differences on Pro-Environmental Behavior among International Students at Korean Universities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054490

AMA Style

Riaz W, Gul S, Lee Y. The Influence of Individual Cultural Value Differences on Pro-Environmental Behavior among International Students at Korean Universities. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054490

Chicago/Turabian Style

Riaz, Waqas, Sehrish Gul, and Yoonseock Lee. 2023. "The Influence of Individual Cultural Value Differences on Pro-Environmental Behavior among International Students at Korean Universities" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054490

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