Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 47, Issue 5, e7843 https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7843 www.sbp-journal.com Prosocial individual values and collective action: Does the societal culture matter? Kevin J. Zeng1, Irina Y. Yu2, Moxi Song3, Morgan X. Yang1, Ji Li4 1 Department of Marketing, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong 3 Department of Management, College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, People’s Republic of China 4 Department of Human Resource Management, School of Management, Shenzhen University, People’s Republic of China 2 How to cite: Zeng, K. J., Yu, I. Y., Song, M., Yang, M. X., & Li, J. (2019). Prosocial individual values and collective action: Does the societal culture matter?. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47(5), e7843 We tested a theoretical model showing the interplay of prosocial individual values and societal culture in influencing collective action. Using data supplied by 29,159 individuals from 30 countries, we found that prosocial values about both human beings and the environment increased people’s participation in collective action. Moreover, we proposed and found that the fundamental societal-level cultural value of power distance, moderated the relationship between prosocial values and participation in collective action. The results should help in better understanding the issues related to the effects of prosocial values on people’s collective action across different cultures, and implications are discussed. Keywords prosocial individual values; societal culture; collective action; power distance; cultural difference Collective action is one of the important types of social behavior in which individuals, as members of a group, engage in actions that are directed at achieving a common group goal, such as improving the conditions of the whole group and promoting social change (e.g., van Zomeren, 2016). Issues related to collective action have received increasing attention as an important topic within a broad range of sociopolitical and psychological studies (e.g., Raymond & Schneider, 2014; van Stekelenburg, Roggeband, & Klandermans, 2013). For example, according to van Stekelenburg et al. (2013), an average of 2.3 papers on this issue were published in the journal Political Psychology annually until 2000. After 2001, however, the average number almost tripled to 6.4 papers per year. This increasing scholarly interest in collective action has been inspired partly by recent international events involving collective action initiated by citizens with highly diversified ethnic, religious, and cultural identities (van Zomeren, Kutlaca, & Turner-Zwinkels, 2018). The initiation, development, and termination of collective action in different societies seem to hinge on both individual values and beliefs and the sociocultural macroenvironment. Consistent with van Zomeren and Louis’s (2017) call for research into the missing link between culture and collective action, in our research we have asked a question that we found intriguing, but which has been largely unexplored: What are the social psychological roots of collective action across different cultures? Our approach to this research question is informed by Schwartz’s (2011) distinction of two levels of influences of human values on social behaviors. First and foremost, social behaviors, such as collective action, should be directly motivated by individual-level values. Basic individual values, such as the concern for others in the society (i.e., prosocial values), are universal aspects of personality that vary across CORRESPONDENCE Moxi Song, Department of Management, College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, No. 17, Tsing Hua East Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100094, People’s Republic of China. Email: songmoxi87@aliyun.com © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. Zeng, Yu, Song, Yang, Li individuals in all societies, serving as common predicting factors of social behaviors. Although pioneering research on universal human values at the individual level has been conducted over three decades (e.g., Schwartz, 1992), the effects of these universal values on people’s actual social behaviors, such as collective action, have not been examined in depth. Our position, in line with Schwartz’s distinction, is also consistent with the role of moral beliefs in collective action that was proposed in recent work by van Zomeren et al. (2018), in which they emphasized that, in terms of driving collective action, moral beliefs “reflect values that transcend specific issues and situations” (p. 128) and should be a key antecedent of collective actions in general. Nonetheless, in the current study our aim was to conduct a focused empirical test of the role of prosocial values, which are specific, well-validated basic human values (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012), in influencing individual collective action. Apart from the universal influence of basic human values on collective action, according to Schwartz (2011), societal-level cultural values shape people’s social behaviors in a separate way. Specifically, societal cultural values represent the normative value orientations acquired by all individuals in the same society through socialization processes, and these normative value orientations distinguish collectives of people in one society from those in another (Hofstede, 2001). Unlike individual-level values, societal cultural values tend to serve as a contextual, macrolevel factor that imposes a combinatorial, rather than direct, effect on social and organizational behaviors (Fu et al., 2004). There are only a few studies pertinent to collective action in which the focus has been on explaining the national differences in prosocial behaviors by societal-level cultural variables (e.g., Luria, Cnaan, & Boehm, 2015). A closer examination of the exact mechanism underlying the role of societal-level cultural values in influencing individual collective action is largely lacking in the existing literature. Because collective action often involves an individual’s choice between compliance and defiance of the power of a higher social hierarchy (Ostrom, 2000), among all the major societal cultural dimensions as identified by Hofstede (2001), we chose to focus on the dimension most relevant to collective action, namely, power distance. We tested a theoretical model dealing with the issue of whether and how societal cultural values influence the relationship between individual universal values and people’s collective action. We first distinguished between two types of prosocial values: those for the human being and those for the environment. Using this new construct of prosocial values, we tested the effects of these universal values on participation in collective action. Moreover, we considered the effect of one particular societal cultural value, that is, the power distance index (PDI). We expected that our results would help us to delineate the separate effects of individual-level and societal-level factors in explaining collective action. By doing so, our findings will not only promote understanding of the social psychological antecedents of collective action in the global context, but also contribute to enriching the theoretical landscape of social behaviors under the joint influence of individual values and societal-level normative factors. Prosocial Individual Values and Collective Action Consistent with the extant research (e.g., Kitts, 2006), we defined prosocial values as those personal views and goals that encourage individuals to make contributions to the collective good and to sustainable development. Specifically, when people hold prosocial values they are encouraged to protect the welfare of all people and to promote protection for the environment. However, in the real world the welfare of people and the protection of nature are not always compatible, at least in the short run. This is reflected in the debate regarding the priority of two basic social goals of developing the economy and protecting the environment. In many countries, especially developing countries, these two goals often conflict. In other words, although some authors have argued that it pays to be green, spending on large environmental projects is not always economically efficient or profitable (e.g., Raymond & Schneider, 2014). To address this issue, we have distinguished between two types of prosocial values: prosocial values for human beings and prosocial values for the environment, which allows us to better understand the nature of prosocial values and their effects on people’s social behaviors, such as collective action. Although the two subsets of prosocial values may be correlated for some individuals, they may have no correlation for others. For © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 2 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal instance, those who oppose construction projects that lead to environmental threats may ignore the interests of other people or the economic development of their country or society as a whole. Because of this reality, it would be helpful to consider separately the effect of prosocial values for the environment on collective action. In using this finer conceptual distinction, we hoped to contribute to relevant value theories by identifying more precise and meaningful constructs with greater universal heuristic potential and predictive power, than have previously been identified. Prior researchers have suggested that there is a positive relationship between prosocial values for human beings and participation in collective action. According to Schwartz et al. (2012), for example, when people hold a prosocial value this may inspire collective action that is seen as an expression of individual concern for the well-being of people. Thus, the holding of a prosocial value can make people feel more responsible for the well-being of other people in general. As they are motivated by this sense of responsibility, people with prosocial values will be more likely than are their peers to participate in a collective action, such as signing a petition, joining in boycotts, or attending lawful demonstrations. Accordingly, we formed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between prosocial values for human beings and participation in collective action. Prosocial values for the environment have also been studied as a pertinent factor to social behavior. Shelton (2009) argued that any value in support of environmental protection is fundamentally prosocial, because holding this value is in the common interest of society. Further, the value should be considered a personal value at the individual level because it can be independent from the societal-level culture. For instance, people in the same society may have different perceptions of the relative importance of the two goals of environmental protection and economic development. According to the extant literature, a person with prosocial values for the environment is more likely than are his/her peers to participate in collective action because they perceive environmental threats (see, e.g., Shelton, 2009; Steg & Vlek, 2009). Moreover, people with strong proenvironmental values are more likely than others are to receive psychological benefits from expressing their preferences publicly through proenvironmental collective action (e.g., Steg, De Groot, Dreijerink, Abrahamse, & Siero, 2011). Thus, we formed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between prosocial values for the environment and participation in collective action. Moderating Effects of Societal Culture Researchers have argued that societal culture can moderate the relationship between individual-level personal values and collective action (e.g., Stranlund, 1995). Societal culture may influence the priority of individual values among people in different institutional environments, and the way in which a given individual value functions. Accordingly, societal culture may influence the relationship between prosocial values and people’s participation in collective action. Societal Value of Power Distance Power distance can be defined as the extent to which less powerful members accept the unequal distribution of power in a culture (Hofstede, 2001). In societies with a high PDI, people are more obedient than are their counterparts in societies with a low PDI. In other words, in a culture with a high societal PDI, people are less likely to perceive abusive supervision or government decisions as being unfair or indicative of a lack of respect (see, e.g., Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000). Accordingly, in a society with high (vs. low) PDI, people are less likely to translate their individual prosocial values into collective action when they feel unsatisfied because they tend to be more obedient. Therefore, the societal value of PDI may moderate the relationship between prosocial values and collective action, and we formed the following hypotheses: © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 3 Zeng, Yu, Song, Yang, Li Hypothesis 3: Other conditions being equal, the higher the societal value of power distance, the weaker will be the positive relationship between the prosocial values for human beings and collective action. Hypothesis 4: Other conditions being equal, the higher the societal value of power distance, the weaker will be the positive relationship between prosocial values for the environment and collective action. Method Participants and Procedure Our data came from two sources: the World Values Survey (https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp) and the societal values of PDI as distinguished by Hofstede (2001). After excluding countries with missing data for the key variables, we obtained a data set of responses from 29,159 people from 30 countries that could be used to test our hypotheses. The total population in these 30 countries accounts for more than 50% of the world’s population, allowing for wide generalization of our findings. Measures Dependent variables. Following previous researchers (e.g., Dalton, Van Sickle, & Weldon, 2010), collective action was measured with a five-item scale drawn from the European and World Values Surveys (https://home.bi.no/a0110709/IntegratedQuestionnaire.pdf) four-wave integrated data file, 1981–2004 (v.20060423). The respondents were asked to indicate whether they had participated in the following political activities: “Signing a petition,” “Joining in boycotts,” “Attending lawful demonstrations,” “Joining unofficial strikes,” and “Occupying buildings or factories.” There were three alternatives for response: 1 = would never do, 2 = might do, 3 = have done. This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = .76). Independent variables. Prosocial values for human beings were measured with a five-item scale from the World Values Survey, including “Prepared to help immediate family,” “Prepared to help people in the neighborhood,” “Prepared to help elderly people,” “Prepared to help immigrants,” and “Prepared to help sick and disabled people.” Responses ranged from 1 = absolutely no to 5 = absolutely yes. This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = .80). Prosocial values for the environment were measured with a two-item scale from the World Values Survey, in which respondents indicated whether they “Would give part of my income for the environment” and “Would support an increase in taxes if used to prevent environmental pollution.” Responses were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = .78). We examined the reliability and convergent validity of the multi-item scales. All composite reliability values were greater than .80, suggesting acceptable reliability. Furthermore, all average variance extracted values were greater than .50, demonstrating convergent validity at the construct level. The societal-level cultural value of PDI was measured with data https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries). from Hofstede (via Control variables. We controlled for the effects of several variables that may lead to differences in individual values (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008): age (1 = 15–29 years old, 2 = 30–49 years old, 3 = 50 years old or older), gender (male = 1, female = 2), and education level (1 = incomplete elementary education [left without qualification], 2 = complete elementary education, 3 = incomplete secondary school: technical/vocational type study, 4 = complete secondary school: technical/vocational type study, 5 = incomplete secondary: university-preparatory type study, 6 = complete secondary: university-preparatory © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 4 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal type study, 7 = some university study without degree, 8 = university study with degree). Results The results of correlation analysis are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Regression Analysis To ensure that our estimates in the regression analyses were not biased by multicollinearity, we conducted variance inflation factor tests for all our regression models. Each of our models had a variance inflation factor score < 10, the recommended threshold value (cf. Gujarati, 2003). Therefore, we concluded that multicollinearity did not bias our empirical findings. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we conducted a regression analysis (see Table 2). First, we entered collective action as a dependent variable. After that we entered the control variables, including age, gender, and education level (Model 1). In Model 2 we entered the prosocial values for human beings, and in Model 3 we entered the prosocial values for the environment. © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 5 Zeng, Yu, Song, Yang, Li Table 2. Analysis of Effect of Prosocial Values on Collective Action Note. PDI = power distance index, PH = prosocial values of human beings, PE = prosocial values for the environment. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Table 2 shows the results of the analyses. First, the result for Model 2 shows that Hypothesis 1 was supported, in that a significant and positive relationship exists between prosocial values for other human beings and participation in collective action. In addition, the result for Model 3 shows a positive relationship between prosocial values for the environment and participation in collective action. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was also supported. Hierarchical Linear Modeling Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was adopted to investigate the effects of individual-level prosocial values, a societal-level cultural value (i.e., PDI), and their interaction effects on individual-level collective action. The reason for conducting HLM is that our data were multilevel, with demographic variables (age, gender, and education level) and prosocial values for human beings and the environment (Level 1: individual level) nested within PDI (Level 2: country level). The individual-level variables were centered on their group means and country-level variables were centered on their grand means. We first examined if there was sufficient between-country variance in the dependent variable to warrant further hypothesis testing. Results of analysis of variance by country showed significant between-country variance in collective action (F = 182.19, p < .001). Furthermore, when we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) we found that ICC(1) explained 16% of the variance in collective action between countries, and ICC(2) was .99. Using HLM (see Model 4, Table 2), we added all predictors, including control variables, individual-level predictors, and the societal-level variable. These individual-level variables (control variables and individuallevel predictors) were centered at the group means, and the societal-level variable (i.e., PDI) was centered at the grand means. Table 2 shows the result of the HLM analysis. Consistent with the results from regression analysis, gender and age were negatively related to collective action, whereas education level was positively related to © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 6 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal collective action. Moreover, in Model 4 prosocial values for human beings and for the environment had significant and positive effects on collective action. Furthermore, the direct effect of PDI was significant. Thus, the findings from the regression analysis (Table 2, Models 2 and 3) and the HLM analysis (Table 2, Model 4) were consistent with each other, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. In Table 2 the results also show the moderating effect of PDI on the relationship between prosocial values and collective action (Model 5). The interaction between prosocial values for the environment and PDI was significant, but that between prosocial values for human beings and PDI was not. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported, but Hypothesis 3 was not. Discussion Both prosocial values for human beings and prosocial values for the environment have a universal heuristic nature and predictive power for studying people’s social behaviors, such as their collective action. Our approach in the current study is consistent with that of Schwartz et al. (2012), who suggested working with as large or small a set of values as is appropriate to the purpose. Indeed, if the whole individual value system is partitioned into only the two dimensions of growth versus self-protection, as Schwartz et al. suggested, prosocial values for human beings should have more common elements with the growth dimension, whereas prosocial values for the environment should have more common elements with the self-protection dimension. Our research yielded several important findings about the effects of prosocial values on collective action among people in cultures with high or low PDI. First, our finding suggests that societal cultural values may not always be as effective in predicting people’s social behaviors as are individual-level prosocial values, as least in the case of collective action. Our results showed that people with the same individual-level prosocial values in societies with a low level of PDI are more likely to participate in collective action than are their counterparts in societies with a high level of PDI, but the effect of PDI was much weaker than that of individual-level prosocial values. Second, we found that for both prosocial values for human beings and for the environment, the effects were significant. Although, as we have discussed, these two dimensions of individual values can have important differences, both have a positive relationship with people’s participation in collective action. By simultaneously testing our respondents’ individual values for human beings and for the environment separately, our findings enhance understanding of the nature of prosocial values. As Schwartz and colleagues (2012) pointed out, a finer-tuned partitioning of the relevant value system according to the issue being studied should yield more precise knowledge and more powerful predictions of the relationship between prosocial values and their behavior consequences, such as collective action. Third, we found that prosocial values at the individual level can influence collective action independently, regardless of the culture at the societal level. Of the two interactions tested in our study only the interaction between PDI and individual values for the environment was significant. This result suggests that personal values at the individual level, especially prosocial values for human beings, may function independently regardless of the societal-level culture. Although we found that both prosocial values for the environment and prosocial values for human beings predicted collective action, the results suggest that prosocial values for human beings may lead to behavioral consequences universally across different cultures, whereas prosocial values for the environment lead only to behavioral consequences in some cultures with a particular level of PDI. Finally, consistent with prior research, our data show that age, gender, and education level influence participation in collective action. This is true even after controlling for the effects of the two levels of the cultural value of PDI (the only value we tested). Considering the significant effects of these demographic factors, in our view it would be interesting to study their interactions with prosocial values in the future. © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 7 Zeng, Yu, Song, Yang, Li Because these interactions involve many complex relationships and many theories have been proposed about the interactions and the relationships, testing their interactive effects on collective action was beyond the scope of our paper. However, we believe that this is an important direction to develop in future studies on the relationship between prosocial values and collective action. As an example, the variable of gender is often related to issues of gender diversity and opportunities for women that are equal with those of men in organizations or societies. However, it remains unclear whether prosocial values for human beings and prosocial values for the environment influence the participation of men and women in collective action differently, and, if so, how this influence manifests. These issues can be explored in future studies. Acknowledgements Moxi Song, Irina Y. Yu, and Kevin J. Zeng contributed equally to this paper and should be considered cofirst authors. China Agricultural University provided strong support for this paper and should be considered the first completed unit. This paper was also supported by a research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71803183) to Moxi Song. References Dalton, R., Van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 51–73. https://doi.org/b2zf6p Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Peng, T.-K., … Cheosakul, A. (2004). The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 284–305. https://doi.org/fq3bpz Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics, (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kitts, J. A. (2006). Collective action, rival incentives, and the emergence of antisocial norms. American Sociological Review, 71, 235–259. https://doi.org/b9489p Luria, G., Cnaan, R. A., & Boehm, A. (2015). National culture and prosocial behaviors: Results from 66 countries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 1041–1065. https://doi.org/f7sqfs Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 137–158. https://doi.org/d7m63x Raymond, L., & Schneider, L. U. (2014). Personal moral norms and attitudes toward endangered species policies on private land. Conservation & Society, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/cxj6 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/fhtb97 Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, A. Chasiotis, & S. M. Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463–493). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/cxj7 Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., … Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–689. https://doi.org/nft © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 8 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal Shelton, D. (2009). Common concern of humanity. Environmental Policy and Law, 39, 83–86. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2zDaMoJ Steg, L., De Groot, J. I. M., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., & Siero, F. (2011). General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: The role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society & Natural Resources, 24, 349–367. https://doi.org/cjk72m Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317. https://doi.org/b2kt3c Stranlund, J. K. (1995). Public mechanisms to support compliance to an environmental norm. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 205–222. https://doi.org/bjgtpz Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1138–1163. https://doi.org/d264cx van Stekelenburg, J., Roggeband, C. M., & Klandermans, B. (Eds.). (2013). The future of social movement research: Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. van Zomeren, M. (2016). Building a Tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of the social structure in the political psychology of political action. Political Psychology, 37, 87–114. https://doi.org/cxj8 van Zomeren, M., Kutlaca, M., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2018). Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: A further extension of the social identity model of collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 122–160. https://doi.org/cxj9 van Zomeren, M., & Louis, W. R. (2017). Culture meets collective action: Exciting synergies and some lessons to learn for the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 277–284. https://doi.org/f98jgm van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. https://doi.org/c6hxh7 © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 9 Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment