Consumers’ Environmental Sustainability Beliefs and Activism: A Cross-Cultural Examination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental sustainability research suffers from a paucity of comprehensive, cross-cultural investigations and lacks insight into the interplay of human values and environmental beliefs and behaviors. In addition, despite the importance of understanding why consumers engage in active attempts to protect the environment, studies examining the role of environmental sustainability activism remain scarce, poorly integrated, and ill-defined. Against this backdrop, this research captures the links of specific human values with environmental sustainability beliefs and their subsequent relationships with individuals’ environmental sustainability activism and quality of life. Using data from the United States and China, the authors show that religiosity and interdependence are consistently related to environmental sustainability beliefs, whereas, contrary to previous findings, materialism has no significant relationship. In addition, generativity is positively linked with environmental sustainability beliefs only in the U.S. sample, whereas family values are significant only in the China sample. The results show that environmental sustainability beliefs influence environmental sustainability activism, which in turn is linked with individual perceptions of superior quality of life. The study discusses several implications for practice and identifies fruitful future research directions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it