The role of collectivism in modeling the adoption of renewable energies: a cross-cultural approach

  • E. Higueras-Castillo
  • F. J. Liébana-CabanillasEmail author
  • F. Muñoz-Leiva
  • S. Molinillo


The present study intends to show how collectivism as a cultural dimension influences pro-environmental behavior, as well as attitude toward renewable energies (biomass and solar). It is expected that the higher is the level of a society’s collectivism, the greater will be its concern for the environment. We conducted online personal surveys with a pre-coded questionnaire in three countries (Germany, Mexico and Spain) with high, low and medium levels of collectivism, respectively (Hofstede in Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values (1st/Abridged eds). Beverly Hills, 1980). The data were assessed through structural equation modeling using AMOS 18 software. The results show that the level of collectivism/individualism is a determinant of the formation of pro-environmental behavior and impacts on consumers’ attitudes toward the adoption of renewable energy systems. The analysis confirms that the country with the highest level of collectivism develops stronger eco-friendly behaviors and stronger intentions to adopt renewable energy technologies.


Collectivism Modeling Adoption Renewable energies Cross-cultural study Pro-environmental behavior 



The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees and to the editor in chief for the insightful comments and suggestions made during the reviewing process. These were all very constructive and helpful in improving the manuscript. They would also like to thank all the respondents who participated in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval and informed consent

The present research was undertaken in accordance with the Good Research Practice Code and the Good Research Practice Recommendations of the Research Ethics Committee, University of Granada. We fully explained the objectives and methods of the study to the participants and electronically obtained their informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall Int, LondresGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (2012) Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci 40(1):8–34. Google Scholar
  4. Bang H, Ellinger AE, Hadjimarcou J, Traichal PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Market 17(6):449–468.;2-8 Google Scholar
  5. Barber NA, Bishop M, Gruen T (2014) Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental consumer goods? Using the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. J Environ Psychol 40:218–227. Google Scholar
  6. Bejanyan K, Marshall TC, Ferenczi N (2015) Associations of collectivism with relationship commitment, passion, and mate preferences: opposing roles of parental influence and family allocentrism. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0117374. Google Scholar
  7. Berry JW (1992) Cross-cultural psychology: research and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Blake J (1999) Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ 4(3):257–278. Google Scholar
  9. Bonnes M, Bonaiuto M (2002) Environmental psychology: From spatial-physical environment to sustainable development. In: Handbook of environmental psychology, Wiley, New York, p 28–54Google Scholar
  10. Bruner IIGC (2009) Marketing scales handbook: a compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising research. American Marketing Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Castells M (1996) The rise of the network society, vol 1 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Castro Barroso, Cepeda GA, Roldán JL (2007) Constructos latentes y agregados en la economía de la empresa. XX Congreso anual de AEDEM 1:979–993Google Scholar
  13. Cattell RB (1965) A biometrics invited paper. Factor analysis: an introduction to essentials I. The purpose and underlying models. Biometrics 21(1):190–215Google Scholar
  14. Çelikbilek Y, Tüysüz F (2016) An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources. Energy 115:1246–1258. Google Scholar
  15. Chan DC, Wu AM, Hung EP (2010) Invulnerability and the intention to drink and drive: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1549–1555. Google Scholar
  16. Chase D, Smith TK (1992) Consumers keen on green but marketers don’t deliver. Advert Age 63(26):S2Google Scholar
  17. Chin WW (2000) Frequently asked questions–partial least squares & PLS-graph. Home Page. [On-line]. Retrieved Oct 15 2006Google Scholar
  18. Cohen AB (2009) Many forms of culture. Am Psychol 64:194–204. Google Scholar
  19. Corral-Verdugo V, Pinheiro JDQ (2004) Aproximaciones al estudio de la conducta sustentable. Medio ambiente y comport hum 5(1):1–26Google Scholar
  20. Dagger TS, O’Brien TK (2010) Does experience matter? Eur J Mark 44(9/10):1528–1552. Google Scholar
  21. Demirbas A (2009) Biofuels. Securing the planet’s future energy needs. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Demirbas A, Kabli M, Alamoudi RH, Ahmad W, Basahel A (2017) Renewable energy resource facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: prospects, social and political challenges. Energy Sources Part B 12(1):8–16. Google Scholar
  23. Devine-Wright P (2008) Delivering a low carbon electricity system: technologies, economics and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 443–461Google Scholar
  24. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM (2003) Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56(6):465–480. Google Scholar
  25. Diekmann A, Preisendoerfer P (1998) Environmental behavior: discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Ration Soc 10(1):79–102. Google Scholar
  26. Edwards JR (2001) Multidimensional construct in organizational behaviour research: an integrate exploratory study in the furniture industry. Dec Sci 25:669–689. Google Scholar
  27. Fazio RH, Powell MC, Herr PM (1983) Toward a process model of the attitude–behavior relation: accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. J Pers Soc Psychol 44(4):723–735. Google Scholar
  28. Fishbein M (1963) An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Hum Relat 16:233–240. Google Scholar
  29. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Boston. Google Scholar
  30. Franceschinis C, Thiene M, Scarpa R, Rose J, Moretto M, Cavalli R (2017) Adoption of renewable heating systems: an empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory. Energy 125:313–326. Google Scholar
  31. García-Maroto I, Muñoz-Leiva F (2015) Adoption of biomass heating systems: cross-market segmentation. Analyzing the cultural diversity of consumers in the global marketplace 177, IGI Global, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. García-Rodríguez FJ, Gil-Soto E, Ruiz-Rosa I, Gutiérrez-Taño D (2017) Entrepreneurial potential in less innovative regions: the impact of social and cultural environment. Eur J Manag Bus Econ 26(2):163–179Google Scholar
  33. Gardner MJ, Hall N, Fung E, White O, Berriman M, Hyman RW, Barrell B (2002) Genome sequence of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Nature 419(6906):498–511. Google Scholar
  34. Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C (2002) Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ Behav 34(3):335–362. Google Scholar
  35. Goodman JS, Blum TC (1996) Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. J Manage 22(4):627–652Google Scholar
  36. Gould LC, Gardner GT, De Luca DR, Tiemann AR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JA (1988) Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. Rusell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Guzmán TQ, Angel DAV (2010) Dimensiones Culturales En La Empresa Estatal De Autoservicio, Sucursal Delicias, Chihuahua. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios 14(27):375–386Google Scholar
  38. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2007) Análisis multivariante, 5ª edn. Prentice Hall Iberia, MadridGoogle Scholar
  39. Hair JJF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Halder P, Pietarinen J, Havu-Nuutinen S, Pöllänen S, Pelkonen P (2016) The Theory of Planned Behavior model and students’ intentions to use bioenergy: a cross-cultural perspective. Renew Energy 89:627–635. Google Scholar
  41. Hast A, Alimohammadisagvand B, Syri S (2015) Consumer attitudes towards renewable energy in China—the case of Shanghai. Sustain Cities Soc 17:69–79. Google Scholar
  42. Hofstede GH (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values (1st/Abridged eds.). Beverly Hills, Sage, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. Hofstede G (1999) Culturas y organizaciones: el software mental: la cooperación internacional y su importancia para la supervivencia. Alianza EditorialGoogle Scholar
  44. Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Read Psychol Cult 2(1):1–26. Google Scholar
  45. Hofstede GH (2016) Country comparison, s.f. the hofstede centre. Strategy-Culture-Change. Accessed 07 Feb 2016
  46. Hofstede GH, Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Google Scholar
  47. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Huang L, Gursoy D, Xu H (2014) Impact of personality traits and involvement on prior knowledge. Ann Tour Res 48:42–57. Google Scholar
  49. Hume S, Strand P, Fisher C, Fitzgerald K, Freeman L (1989) Consumers go green. Advert Age 25:3–5Google Scholar
  50. Hussain A, Arif SM, Asla M (2017) Emerging renewable and sustainable energy technologies: state of the art. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 71:12–28. Google Scholar
  51. Hwang Y, Kim DJ (2007) Understanding affective commitment, collectivist culture, and social influence in relation to knowledge sharing in technology mediated learning. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 50(3):232–248. Google Scholar
  52. Jamieson FM (1989) Bass adjusting stated intention measures to predict trial purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods. J Market Res 26(3):336–345Google Scholar
  53. Joskow PL (1996) How will it all end? The electric utility industry in 2005. Electr J 9(1):67–73Google Scholar
  54. Karp DG (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 28(1):111–133Google Scholar
  55. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260. Google Scholar
  56. Kozloff K (1995) Rethinking development assistance for renewable electric power. Renew Energy 6(3):215–231Google Scholar
  57. Kumar B, Manrai AK, Manrai LA (2017) Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: a conceptual framework and empirical study. J Retail Consum Serv 34:1–9. Google Scholar
  58. Larcher D, Tarascon JM (2015) Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nat Chem 7(1):19. Google Scholar
  59. Leung K, Bond MH (1984) The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. J Personal Soc Psychol 47(4):793. Google Scholar
  60. Li YY, Mizuno O, Miyahara T, Noike T, Katsumata K (1997) Ecological analysis of the bacterial system in a full-scale egg-shaped digester treating sewage sludge. Water Sci Technol 36(6–7):471–478. Google Scholar
  61. Liébana-Cabanillas F, Muñoz-Leiva F, Sánchez-Fernández J (2017) A global approach to the analysis of user behavior in mobile payment systems in the new electronic environment. Serv Bus 12:1222. Google Scholar
  62. Lin LY, Chen CS (2006) The influence of the country-of-origin image, product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. J Consum Market 23(5):248–265. Google Scholar
  63. Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Ecology: let’s hear from the people: an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 28(7):583. Google Scholar
  64. Manolopoulos D, Kitsopoulos K, Kaldellis JK, Bitzenis A (2016) The evolution of renewable energy sources in the electricity sector of Greece. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(29):12659–12671. Google Scholar
  65. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychol Rev 98:224–253. Google Scholar
  66. McCarty JA, Shrum LJ (2001) The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. J Public Policy Market 20(1):93–104. Google Scholar
  67. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo de España (2015) La energía en España 2014. Accessed 07 Feb 2016
  68. Moisander J (2007) Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int J Consum Stud 31(4):404–409Google Scholar
  69. Muñoz-Leiva F, Climent-Climent S, Liébana-Cabanillas F (2017) Determinants of intention to use the mobile banking apps: an extension of the classic TAM model. Span J Market ESIC 21(1):25–38Google Scholar
  70. Nguyen TN, Lobo A, Greenland S (2017) The influence of cultural values on green purchase behaviour. Market Intell Plan. Google Scholar
  71. Oh K, Abraham L (2016) Effect of knowledge on decision making in the context of organic cotton clothing. Int J Consum Stud 40(1):66–74. Google Scholar
  72. Oreskes N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702):1686. Google Scholar
  73. Pato C, Ros M, Tamayo A (2005) Creencias y comportamiento ecológico: un estudio empírico con estudiantes brasileños. Medio Ambiente y Comport Hum 6(1):5–22Google Scholar
  74. Pieterse JN (2015) Globalization and culture: global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  75. Pinto DC, Nique WM, Añaña EDS, Herter MM (2011) Green consumer values: how do personal values influence environmentally responsible water consumption? Int J Consum Stud 35(2):122–131. Google Scholar
  76. Poortinga YH (1989) Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues. Int J Psychol 24(6):737–756. Google Scholar
  77. Poortinga YH, Van de Vijver FJ (1987) Explaining cross-cultural differences bias analysis and beyond. J Cross-Cult Psychol 18(3):259–282. Google Scholar
  78. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior a study into household energy use. Environ Behav 36(1):70–93. Google Scholar
  79. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I (2006) Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. School of Environ Sci. University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  80. Prakas G, Pathak P (2017) Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: a study on developing nation. J Clean Prod 141:385–393. Google Scholar
  81. Rau PLP (ed) (2016) Cross-cultural design: 8th international conference, CCD 2016, held as part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17–22, 2016, Proceedings (vol 9741). Springer.
  82. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Satorra A (2002) Asymptotic robustness in multiple group linear-latent variable models. Econ Theory. Google Scholar
  84. Schuerkens U (2003) The sociological and anthropological study of globalization and localization. Curr Soc 51(3–4):209–222. Google Scholar
  85. Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism 1. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:221–279Google Scholar
  86. Segev S (2016) Toward an understanding of ethnic consumers’ conservation behavior: the case of Hispanics. In: Let’s get engaged! Crossing the threshold of marketing’s engagement era, pp 157–162. Springer International Publishing.
  87. Senbel M, Ngo VD, Blair E (2014) Social mobilization of climate change. J Environ Psychol 38:84–93. Google Scholar
  88. Shropshire J, Warkentin M, Sharma S (2015) Personality, attitudes, and intentions: predicting initial adoption of information security behavior. Comput Sec 49:177–191. Google Scholar
  89. Sinha JB, Verma J (1987) Structure of collectivism. In: Kagitcibasi C (ed) Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology, Lisse, the Netherlands, Swets & Zeitlinger, p 123–129Google Scholar
  90. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285. Google Scholar
  91. Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. Google Scholar
  92. Triandis HC (1989) The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol Rev 96(3):506. Google Scholar
  93. Triandis HC (2018) Individualism and collectivism. Routledge, Abingdon. Google Scholar
  94. Tutore I (2013) Drivers of environmental pro-activity in Danish electricity industry. Int Rev Manag Bus Res 2(1):210Google Scholar
  95. Van Hoorn A (2015) Individualist–collectivist culture and trust radius: a multilevel approach. J Cross-Cult Psychol 46(2):269–276. Google Scholar
  96. Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q 44(2):181–197. Google Scholar
  97. Van Rijnsoever FJ, Farla JC (2014) Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 31:71–82. Google Scholar
  98. Vringe K, Aalbers T, Blok K (2007) Household energy requirement and value patterns. Energy Policy 35(1):553–566. Google Scholar
  99. Willis R (2012) Individualism, collectivism and ethnic identity: cultural assumptions in accounting for caregiving behaviour in Britain. J Cross-Cult Gerontol 27(3):201–216. Google Scholar
  100. Yang B, Xu T, Shi L (2017) Analysis on sustainable urban development levels and trends in China’s cities. J Clean Prod 141:868–880. Google Scholar
  101. Zaichkowsky JL (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Marketing and Market Research. Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of MalagaMalagaSpain

Personalised recommendations