Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Intergenerational association of environmental concern: Evidence of

parents' and children's concern

, Jose
Luis V. Casalo
n Escario*

-Julia

n, s/n, 22001, Huesca, Spain
Faculty of Business and Public Management, University of Zaragoza, Spain, Plaza de la Constitucio

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To understand how young people develop environmental concern, this article investigates the rela-
Received 11 February 2016 tionship between parents' environmental concern and those of their children. Using 2006 survey data
Received in revised form from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), featuring nationally representative
30 August 2016
samples from 16 countries, this study provides evidence that parents' environmental concern has an
Accepted 3 September 2016
important inuence on children's environmental concern. The inuence of parents in this realm reects
Available online 7 September 2016
the parent equivalent socialization hypothesis and applies for both boys and girls. However, girls are
more sensitive to the intergenerational association of their mothers and fathers. Informative campaigns
Keywords:
Intergenerational association
about the environment in schools also contribute to increase children's environmental concern. These
Environmental concern results offer interesting implications for both research and practice.
Sex 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Parents

1. Introduction
Human activities have signicant effects in terms of degrading
the environment and altering ecosystems, and increasing aware-
ness acknowledges both these environmental problems and human
responsibility for them (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000;
Rodrguez-Barreiro et al., 2013). To protect the natural environ-
ment from further degradation, a key goal is to change people's
environmental attitudes, dened as psychological evaluations of
the natural environment expressed with some degree of favor or
disfavor (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010), as well as their behaviors
(Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, 2010). Analyses of environmental
attitudes are widespread in research, because of their likely inu-
ence on environmental behaviors, as predicted by the theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). However, the effects of attitudes
tend to be indirect, such that they inuence behavioral intentions,
which in turn inuence behavior.
The growing research into environmental attitudes in recent
decades features two broad perspectives. First, some authors
investigate possible causal relationships between pro-
environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors

n Pblica, Plaza de la
* Corresponding author. Facultad de Empresa y Gestio
Constitucio
n, s/n, 22001, Huesca, Spain.
E-mail addresses: lcasalo@unizar.es (L.V. Casalo
), jescario@unizar.es
(J.-J. Escario).
(Kaiser, Oerke, & Bogner, 2007; Kaiser, Wo lng, & Fuhrer, 1999;
Levine & Strube, 2012; Ritter, Borchardt, Vaccaro, Pereira, &
Almeida, 2015; Rodrguez-Barreiro et al., 2013). Second, some
studies focus on explaining differences in environmental attitudes,
often by identifying predictors of attitudes and then inferring new
ways to inuence them (Boeve-de Pauw, 2011; Boeve-de Pauw &
van Petegem, 2010; Duarte, Escario, & Sanagustn, 2016; Shen &
Saijo, 2008; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Whether explicitly or
implicitly, such studies predict that attitudes determine behavior,
so improving environmental attitudes improves environmental
behaviors. Building on this analysis, we explicitly investigate the
role of intergenerational associations as determinants of the envi-
ronmental attitudes of children. With this exploratory study, we
test empirically whether parents' environmental attitudes, along
with other contextual variables, can predict their children's envi-
ronmental attitudes. We use nationally representative survey data
across several countries and also consider the possible effect of sex
patterns on this intergenerational association, such that we inves-
tigate whether the related socialization process depends on the sex
of either the parent or the child.
In turn, the present study offers an initial investigation of the
relationship between parents' environmental concern and the
environmental concern of their children using a homogeneous,
nationally representative, international sample. The data came
from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
2006 survey, developed by the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD). We focus on environmental

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.001
0272-4944/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
66
, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo
concern because the PISA 2006 contains detailed information about
environmental concern, but not about attitudes, among children
and one of their parents. In addition, environmental concern is
generally considered a close concept to attitude (Rhead, Elliot, &
Upham, 2015). Subsequent PISA reports do not include informa-
tion about parents' environmental concern, so the 2006 surveys are
the most recent versions that contain this specic information.
We extend the scarce research focused on the transmission of
environmental attitudes from parents to children (Grnhj &
Thgersen, 2009; Leppa nen, Haahla, Lensu, & Kuitunen, 2012;
Meeusen, 2014) by considering the specic element of environ-
mental concern and using a homogeneous and representative
survey data for several countries; we also investigate how the sex of
the parents and their children affect this relationship. Specically,
we evaluate (1) the inuence of parents' environmental concern on
the environmental concern of their children, (2) whether boys and
girls exhibit different levels of environmental concern, (3) whether
one sex is more sensitive to the inuences of mothers and fathers,
(4) whether the inuences of fathers and mothers differ depending
on the sex of the child, and (5) the inuence of school character-
istics and family socioeconomic characteristics on environmental
concern. With this expansive exploration, we clarify how children's
environmental concern builds and how to promote it, which may
help increase children's willingness to contribute to environmental
solutions (Dunlap & Jones, 2002).
2. Background and hypotheses
2.1. Environmental concern
According to the impressionable years hypothesis, people are
highly susceptible to attitude changes during their adolescence and
early adulthood, but this susceptibility drops precipitously there-
after and remains low throughout the rest of the person's life
(Krosnick & Alwin, 1989). If this hypothesis holds, research on
attitude development seemingly should focus primarily on ado-
lescents and youth (Meeusen, 2014), for whom family has signi-
cant inuences on attitude development and formation and
education (Noller & Callan, 1991). Therefore, many researchers
analyze the intergenerational transmission of various attitudes and
behaviors, including political party preferences, religious afliation
(Duriez & Soenens, 2009; Jennings, Stoker, & Bowers, 2009), edu-
cation (Mendez, 2015; Remmerswaal, Muris, & Huijding, 2015),
tobacco consumption (Escario & Wilkinson, 2015), and well-being
(Carlsson, Lampi, Li, & Martinsson, 2014).
Despite such interest in both intergenerational transmission and
environmental attitudes, few studies consider their combination,
that is, the intergenerational transmission of environmental atti-
tudes (cf. Grnhj & Thgersen, 2009; Leppa nen et al., 2012;
Meeusen, 2014). We seek to address this gap by investigating
environmental concern, which in Meeusens (2014) terminology
represents a postmaterialist attitude, in the sense that this is a
concern that moves beyond simply economic or physical security
issues. Dunlap and Jones (2002) regard environmental concern as a
broad concept, reecting the degree to which people are aware of
environmental problems, support efforts to solve the problems, and
are willing to contribute personally to the solution. Despite some
different perspectives on environmental concerns and attitudes in
previous literature, environmental concern generally is regarded as
attitudinal (Rhead et al., 2015; Vining & Ebreo, 1992), which makes
it an appropriate variable for the current study.
2.2. Intergenerational association of environmental concern
Children's concern about environmental issues could be
inuenced by their parents' opinions and behaviors. If intergener-
ational transmission occurs, some similarity arises in the values,
attitudes, and behaviors expressed by parents and their children
(Grnhj & Thgersen, 2009). Younger people have less stable
beliefs and are more susceptible to others' messages (Hess, 1994;
Sears, 1986); the strongest inuence comes from their close refer-
ence groups, such as their immediate family (Sancho, Miguel, &
Ald
as, 2011). As a reference group, parents generally have more
experience with and knowledge about environmental issues, so
they can inuence their children's beliefs and behaviors, largely
through their own routines. This inuence might reect an inter-
nalization of information from relevant sources (e.g., observing
parents' behaviors, communication within the family) or a need to
comply with parents' expectations (Belanche, Casalo
, & Flavi

an,
2012). Grnhj and Thgersen (2009) afrm that specic pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviors are positively correlated
between parents and children. Therefore, we propose:
H1. Parents' environmental concern is positively associated with
children's environmental concern.
2.3. Role of parents' and children's sex
Previous studies suggest that although men usually show a
greater knowledge about environmental problems (e.g. Schahn &
Holzer, 1990), women exhibit stronger environmental concerns, at-
titudes, and behaviors than men (e.g., Arcury & Christianson, 1990;
Arnocky & Stroink, 2010; Maineri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, &
Oskamp, 1997). This distinction may be explained due to sex differ-
ences in terms of personality traits, roles, and socialization (Zelezny
et al., 2000), including the greater levels of emotional empathy
among women (Arnocky & Stroink, 2010). Sex differences may also
appear in personality traits, starting in early childhood (Else-Quest,
Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006) and persisting throughout
adolescence (Wilgenbusch & Merrell, 1999) and adulthood
(Feingold, 1994). Specically, women appear to be more tender-
minded and agreeable and less risk-taking than men (Byrnes,
Miller, & Schafer, 1999; Feingold, 1994; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, &
Allik, 2008). Other values linked to femininity include caring for
others and quality of life (Belanche, Casalo
, & Guinaliu, 2015), and
women are also socialized to value the needs of others (Zelezny et al.,
2000), such that they often show more helping behavior and
altruism (Rand, Brescoll, Everett, Capraro, & Barcelo, 2016).
Compared with men, women exhibit a stronger ethic of care and are
more socialized to be other-oriented and socially responsible, which
may motivate them to be more worried about environmental issues
and develop greater environmental concern than men (Zelezny et al.,
2000). Taking all these factors into account, we propose:
H2. Children's environmental concern is greater among girls than
among boys.
In addition, men and women may process information differ-
ently (e.g. Wolin, 2003). In this line, in a meta-analysis of 148
studies, Eagly and Carli (1981) found that women are slightly more
persuadable than men are. This may be explained by the fact that
whereas men tend to be more assertive (Schmitt et al., 2008),
women consider others' opinions and social information to a
greater extent (Sun & Zhang, 2006; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000),
potentially because women are more oriented toward social re-
lationships and motivated by afliation needs (Belanche et al.,
2012; Eagly & Carli, 1981; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). As
Guadagno and Cialdini (2002) note, while men often attempt to
demonstrate one's independence from others (for example,
through assertiveness in their interactions); women are more

, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo
communally oriented, so that their conversations are meant to
achieve closeness and consensus. Taking all these into account in
our research context, it is reasonable to expect that girls' concern
may be more affected by their parents' concern. Therefore, we
propose:
H3. The association between parents' environmental concern and
children's environmental concern is greater for girls than for boys.
We focus on this moderating effect in more detail. Following
gender schema theory (Bem, 1984), we posit that the parentechild
relationship might be affected by the sex of both parent and child.
The inuence of the father and the mother thus may differ,
depending on the sex of the child. Different predictions about these
varying inuences are available in prior literature. For example, in
the parents' equivalent socialization hypothesis, both parents exert
the same inuence on sons and daughters, but the gender-specic
socialization hypothesis indicates that socialization differs
depending on the sex of both the parent and the child (Kulik, 2002).
In this latter case, either parents have more inuence on a child of
the same sex or they have more inuence on a child of the opposite
sex. Other proposals also suggest that mothers exert the dominant
inuence (Acock & Bengtson, 1978). For this study, we adopt the
gender-specic socialization hypothesis and propose that parents
have more inuence on a child of the same sex. If a teenager per-
ceives similarities with the information source (i.e., father or
mother), he or she may consider the opinions of that source as
more congruent with his or her own personal values (Casalo
,
Flavi

an, & Guinalu, 2013), which would prompt greater interper-
sonal inuence. In studies that demonstrate the importance of the
source of information (Dou, Walden, Lee, & Lee, 2012; Vermeulen &
Seegers, 2009), sex congruency between the sender and the
receiver generally appears to increase perceived trust in the sender
(Jordan, 2015), which then enhances persuasion, internalization of
the message, and intentions to follow the sender's advice (Casalo
,
Flavi

an, & Guinalu, 2011). Therefore, taking sex-oriented congru-
ence between the parent and the child into account, we propose:
H4a. The association between a mother's environmental concern
and her daughter's environmental concern is greater than the as-
sociation between a father's environmental concern and his
daughter's environmental concern.
H4b. The association between a father's environmental concern
and his son's environmental concern is greater than the association
between a mother's environmental concern and her son's envi-
ronmental concern.
2.4. Role of socio-economic and school characteristics
Because most people grow up in families, and school is an
important part of children's lives, these social contexts cannot be
neglected when evaluating environmental concern (Coertjens,
Boeve-de Pauw, de Maeyer, & van Petegem, 2010). We investigate
socioeconomic characteristics of the family (socioeconomic index,
parents' education) and the child (native vs. immigrant), as well as
school characteristics (information provided at school, school
management [public vs. private]), as potentially relevant to the
concern formation process.
First, previous studies suggest that environmental concerns and
attitudes are affected by individual socioeconomic characteristics
(Shen & Saijo, 2008) and whether the person lives in her or his
native country or is an immigrant (Coertjens et al., 2010). In this
respect, although previous studies suggested that immigrants ex-
press similar environmental attitudes as compared to native resi-
dents (e.g. Hunter, 2000), recent ndings shows that both rst
67
(Duarte et al., 2016) and second generation immigrants (Coertjens
et al., 2010) are more pro-environmental than natives.
As perhaps the most relevant reference group for children
(Sancho et al., 2011), the family's sociodemographic characteristics
(e.g., socioeconomic status, cultural possessions, education level)
also might affect environmental concerns (Coertjens et al., 2010;
Duarte et al., 2016). Specically, while the relationship between
socioeconomic status and environmental concern offers mixed
results (Shen & Saijo, 2008), previous studies suggest that educa-
tion level increases pro-environmental orientation (e.g. Scott &
Willits, 1994).
Finally, previous literature (e.g., Ballantyne, Fien, & Packer,
2001) shows that informative campaigns at school also may posi-
tively affect children's attitudes toward environmental issues.
Finally, school management (public vs. private) may also inuence
environmental attitudes and previous studies (Duarte et al., 2016)
already note that, relative to private schools, students in public
schools show a more pro-environmental attitude.
These variables all might relate to children's environmental
concern, beyond the effects of the parents' environmental concern,
so we postulate:
H5. Socioeconomic and school characteristics are associated with
children's environmental concern.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Participants
The participants for this study (n 95,008) were children aged
15 years who participated in the PISA 2006 data survey. The data
came from children in 16 countries for which parent questionnaires
from the same survey also were available: Bulgaria (n 4498),
Colombia (n 4478), Croatia (n 5213), Denmark (n 4532),
Germany (n 4891), Hong Kong (n 4645), Iceland (n 3789),
Italy (n 21,773), Korea (n 5176), Luxembourg (n 4567),
Macao-China (n 4760), New Zealand (n 4823), Poland
(n 5547), Portugal (n 5109), Qatar (n 6265), and Turkey
(n 4942). The sample includes 47,810 female children (50.33%)
and 47,198 male children (49.67%). In terms of immigration status,
the breakdown among the 92,412 participants who answered the
pertinent question was as follows: native (85.67%, n 79,174),
native rst-generation (7.97%, n 7366), and immigrant (6.35%,
n 5872). The parents of these children had relatively similar
educational levels, such that about one-quarter had earned uni-
versity degrees (25.06% for mothers, 26.62% for fathers). The 87,756
students who indicated the types of schools they attended indi-
cated the following distribution: private (4.72%, n 4144), private
and dependent on government support (14.17%, n 12,438), and
public (81%, n 71,114).
The survey also contains information about individual, family,
and socioeconomic characteristics, which we can link to the school
characteristics. The two-stage stratied sample design required a
minimum response rate of 80% of selected children in participating
schools (OECD, 2009, pp. 64e83). The nal PISA 2006 subsample
for the selected countries, after excluding observations for which
the survey did not provide information about the sex of the parent,
consisted of 70,041 children.
3.2. Measures
The dependent variable, an individual environmental concern
index (ECI), was measured with six items (see Table 1) included in
the student questionnaire for PISA 2006 (p. 19, Q24). Children
indicated whether they considered six topics as being of serious
68
, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo

Table 1
Environmental concern.

Do you see the environmental issues as a This is not a serious This is a serious concern only This is a serious concern for other people This is a serious concern for me
serious concern for yourself and/or others? concern to anyone % for people in other countries % in my country but not me personally % personally as well as others %

Students
a) Air pollution 1.55 4.66 13.75 80.04
b) Energy shortage 2.52 11.38 24.54 61.56
c) Extinction of plants and animals 3.63 12.43 23.27 60.67
d) Clearing of forests for other land use 2.84 14.51 24.12 58.53
e) Water shortages 2.03 15.87 14.13 67.97
f) Nuclear waste 4.40 20.98 25.26 49.35
Parents
a) Air pollution 0.55 1.69 6.31 91.45
b) Energy shortage 1.18 5.05 10.61 83.15
c) Extinction of plants and animals 1.75 6.74 13.49 78.02
d) Clearing of forests for other land use 1.42 8.77 12.23 77.57
e) Water shortages 0.92 7.90 7.39 83.79
f) Nuclear waste 1.59 10.13 10.89 77.38

concern: air pollution, energy shortages, extinction of plants and Table 2

animals, clearing of forests for other land use, water shortages, and Cronbach's alpha and mean of the environmental concern index by sex.

nuclear waste. Their possible responses, matched to a 0e3 scale, Sample M SD n Cronbach's alpha
were This is not a serious concern for anyone; This is a serious All 14.67 3.34 90,379 0.80
concern only for people in other countries; This is a serious Girls 14.98 3.20 45,513 0.78
concern for other people in my country but not for me personally; Boys 14.36 3.65 44,866 0.82
and This is a serious concern for me personally as well as others.
Each respondent's ECI thus was the sum of the points obtained
across all six responses, from 0 (the child believes each topic is not a extends beyond an ordinary linear regression that cannot account
serious concern for anyone) to 18 (the child considers all six topics for nested individual observations within groups. That is, an ordi-
as serious concerns for the self and others). The Cronbach's alpha nary linear regression assumes that individual observations are
values for the ECI in Table 2 reveal acceptable values above the independent, instead of acknowledging that responses from
threshold of 0.7 in all cases (Cronbach, 1970). members of the same group might be more similar than would be
To measure the ECI for parents, the parent questionnaire of the expected by chance. This correlation biases the standard errors
PISA 2006 survey included the same six topics, so we computed toward zero, leading to overestimated t-ratios and thus erroneous,
their ECI in the same way. Unfortunately though, each parent overly optimistic conclusions about the statistical signicance of
questionnaire was answered by only one parent; we do have not the independent variables.
information for both parents. Ideally, we would estimate the model with data about the par-
To evaluate intergenerational association of environmental ents' ECI in the past to avoid the potential for reverse causal effects.
concern, we also must control for the broad set of physical, family, However, the lack of such information in the surveys left us with no
and school characteristics that we outlined previously. Table 3 choice but to relate the environmental concern of parents and their
contains the covariates for these variables, including their means children using contemporaneous data, with the reasonable
and standard deviations. assumption that most inuences ow from parents to children. The
statistical analyses were implemented with Stata software.

3.3. Statistical analyses

Our empirical model for the ECI of child i attending school s in
country c (ECIisc) relies on a linear function of the parent's ECI
(PECIisc), together with a group of control variables related to in-
dividual, family, and school characteristics (Xisc):
4. Results
In Table 1 we present the frequencies that correspond to the six
items used to compute the ECI. In general, children show a
moderately high degree of concern about the environment, such
that about 80% (n 74,312 of 92,843) were seriously concerned

ECIisc f(PECIisc, Xisc) usc uc uisc dPECIisc bXisc usc uc uisc,

where uisc represents the unobservable inuences on the ECI of
child i attending school s in country c. The hierarchical data
prompted us to introduce school-specic (usc) and country-specic
(uc) intercepts. To estimate the effect of the covariates, we used a
multivariate, multilevel regression in which specic intercepts are
included as random intercepts (Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem,
2010; Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2005). This multilevel regression
can handle non-independence due to group membership and thus
with air pollution, and 68% (n 63,023 of 92,723) were seriously
concerned with water shortages. However, less than half (49%,
n 45,509 of 92,214) noted concern about nuclear waste. Parents
reported higher levels of concern on all topics, such that more than
77% (n 57,994 of 74,943) were seriously concerned about all six
environment topics. Similar to their children, air pollution was the
top focus of parents: More than 91% (n 68,724 of 75,146) reported
it as a serious concern. According to the descriptive analyses in

, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo 69

Table 3
Variable denitions and descriptive statistics.

Variable Denition M (SD)

Concern Environmental concern index (ECI) for children 14.67

(3.44)
Concern of Parent ECI for parent (mother or father) who answered the survey 16.38
(2.72)
Concern of Mother ECI for the mother 16.48
(2.630)
Concern of Father ECI for the father 16.35
(2.76)
Sex Equal to 1 if the child is a boy and 0 if a girl 0.50
(0.50)
Native (Omitted category) Equal to 1 if the child is a native student (born in the country of assessment or with at least one parent born in the country) 0.86
and 0 otherwise (0.35)
Native rst-G Equal to 1 if the child is a rst-generation resident (born in the country of assessment but whose parent(s) were born in 0.08
another country) and 0 otherwise (0.27)
Immigrant (Non-native) Equal to 1 if the child is not native (born outside the country of assessment and whose parents were also born in another 0.06
country) and 0 otherwise (0.24)
Socio Economic Statusa (ESCS) Socioeconomic index provided by PISA 2006 survey and labeled Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS). 0.18
(1.08)
Cultural Possessions (CULTPOSS) Cultural possession index provided by PISA 2006 survey and labeled Cultural Possessions (CULTPOSS). 1.80
1.34)
b
Primary Studies Mother (Omitted Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED0 or ISCED1 level and 0 otherwise 0.16
category) (0.37)
Secondary Studies Motherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED2, ISCED3B or ISCED3C level and 0 otherwise 0.29
(0.46)
Postsecondary Studies Motherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED3A or ISCED4 level and 0 otherwise 0.29
(0.45)
University Studies Motherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED5A, ISCED5B or ISCED6 level and 0 otherwise 0.25
(0.43)
Primary Studies Fatherb (Omitted Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED0 or ISCED1 level and 0 otherwise 0.15
category) (0.35)
Secondary Studies Fatherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED2, ISCED3B or ISCED3C level and 0 otherwise 0.29
(0.46)
Postsecondary Studies Fatherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED3A or ISCED4 level and 0 otherwise 0.30
(0.46)
University Studies Fatherb Equal to 1 if the mother has ISCED5A, ISCED5B or ISCED6 level and 0 otherwise 0.27
(0.44)
Private (Omitted category) Equal to 1 if the school is private and 0 otherwise 0.05
(0.21)
Private Dependent Equal to 1 if the school is private government-dependent and 0 otherwise 0.14
(0.35)
Public Equal to 1 if the school is public and 0 otherwise 0.81
(0.39)
InfoSchoolAir Equal to 1 if school is the main source of information about air pollution for the child and 0 otherwise. 0.71
(0.45)
InfoSchoolForest Equal to 1 if school is the main source of information about clearing of forests and other land uses for the child and 0.64
0 otherwise. (0.48)
InfoSchoolWater Equal to 1 if school is the main source of information about water shortages for the child and 0 otherwise. 0.58
(0.49)
InfoSchoolNuclear Equal to 1 if school is the main source of information about nuclear waste for the child and 0 otherwise. 0.52
(0.50)
a
For technical aspects, see the PISA 2006 Technical Report (OECD, 2009, p. 346).
b
PISA 2006 used the International Standard Classication of Education (ISCED) developed by UNESCO to facilitate comparisons of education statistics and indicators across
countries, on the basis of uniform and internationally agreed denitions. Using this denition (http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/isced97-en.pdf), we specied
the parent education variables, following the codication in the table as, Primary Studies (primary education or less), Secondary Studies (secondary education), Post-secondary
Studies (post-secondary, non-tertiary education), and University Studies (tertiary education).

Tables 2 and 3, children reported an approximately 10% lower ECI
(M 14.67, SD 3.44) than their parents (M 16.38, SD 2.72).
Furthermore, among parents, the ECI was slightly higher for
mothers (M 16.48, SD 2.63) than for fathers (M 16.35,
SD 2.76).
The estimated results in Table 4 depict how the random in-
tercepts for schools and countries have signicant variances. The
results in the rst column show that parents' environmental
concern was positively and signicantly associated with their
children's concern. A child's ECI increased by approximately 0.21
for each unit increase in her or his parents' ECI. These estimates
provide support for H1. With regard to H2, boys expressed less
concern, with a negative, signicant coefcient of 0.42, in support
of our prediction.
When we divided the samples by sex, as in the second and third
columns, we found support for H3. Concretely, the estimated co-
efcients for the intergenerational effects were 0.17 (95% con-
dence interval [CI]: 0.16, 0.19) for boys and 0.25 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.26)
for girls. That is, the effect for girls was approximately 43% higher
than that for boys. Both CIs exclude the coefcient value obtained
for the other sex, in further support for H3.
Next, we reestimated the model for the full sample, the female
sample, and the male sample, while introducing parents' environ-
mental concern separately for mothers and fathers (Table 5). The
intergenerational association was nearly identical for both parents
when we considered the full sample, but we found some small
differences across sexes. Specically, girls' environmental concern
was more strongly inuenced by their mothers and fathers
70
, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo

Table 4
Multilevel estimates for intergenerational transmissions of environmental concern.

Variable All (n 52,840) Girls (n 27,676) Boys (n 25,164)

B SE B p B SE B p B SE B p

Concern of Parent 0.21 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.17 *** (0.01) 0.00
Sex 0.42 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.00 (.) . 0.00 (.) .
Native (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Native rst-G. 0.03 (0.06) 0.60 0.02 (0.07) 0.81 0.09 (0.09) 0.31
Immigrant 0.18 *** (0.06) 0.00 0.09 (0.08) 0.26 0.25 *** (0.09) 0.01
Socio Economic Status 0.08 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.11 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.06 (0.04) 0.13
Cultural Possessions 0.23 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.23 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.22 *** (0.03) 0.00
Secondary Studies Mother 0.05 (0.05) 0.28 0.03 (0.06) 0.58 0.07 (0.07) 0.37
Primary Studies Mother (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Postsecondary Studies Mother 0.13 ** (0.05) 0.01 0.09 (0.07) 0.19 0.18 ** (0.08) 0.03
University Studies Mother 0.10 (0.06) 0.11 0.07 (0.08) 0.35 0.12 (0.09) 0.21
Primary Studies Father (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Secondary Studies Father 0.01 (0.05) 0.86 0.08 (0.06) 0.21 0.05 (0.07) 0.48
Postsecondary Studies Father 0.02 (0.05) 0.73 0.11 * (0.07) 0.09 0.08 (0.08) 0.33
University Studies Father 0.04 (0.06) 0.48 0.06 (0.08) 0.45 0.14 (0.10) 0.15
Private (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
PrivateDependent 0.08 (0.09) 0.36 0.13 (0.11) 0.22 0.00 (0.13) 0.98
Public 0.29 *** (0.08) 0.00 0.28 *** (0.10) 0.01 0.29 ** (0.12) 0.02
InfoSchoolAir 0.18 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.15 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.21 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolForest 0.10 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.05 (0.04) 0.24 0.15 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolWater 0.19 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.17 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.21 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolNuclear 0.24 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.27 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.19 *** (0.05) 0.00
Intercept 10.86 *** (0.34) 0.00 10.22 *** (0.34) 0.00 11.06 *** (0.38) 0.00
Variance random Intercept
School level 0.14 *** (0.02) 0.14 *** (0.21) 0.18 *** (0.03)
Country level 1.35 *** (0.51) 1.28 *** (0.49) 1.46 *** (0.56)

Notes: The variable denitions are available in Table 3.

*p < 0.1. **p < 0.05. ***p < 0.01.

Table 5
Multilevel estimates for intergenerational transmissions of environmental concern (father and mother concern separately).

Variable All (n 52,840) Girls (n 27,676) Boys (n 25,164)

B SE B p B SE B p B SE B p

Concern of Mother 0.21 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.25 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.17 *** (0.01) 0.00
Concern of Father 0.21 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00 0.17 *** (0.01) 0.00
Sex 0.42 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.00 (.) . 0.00 (.) .
Native (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Native rst-G. 0.03 (0.06) 0.61 0.02 (0.07) 0.83 0.09 (0.09) 0.32
Immigrant 0.18 *** (0.06) 0.00 0.09 (0.08) 0.24 0.25 *** (0.09) 0.01
Socio Economic Status 0.08 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.11 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.06 (0.04) 0.13
Cultural Possessions 0.23 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.23 *** (0.02) 0.00 0.22 *** (0.03) 0.00
Primary Studies Mother (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Secondary Studies Mother 0.05 (0.05) 0.28 0.04 (0.06) 0.52 0.06 (0.07) 0.41
Postsecondary Studies Mother 0.13 ** (0.05) 0.01 0.10 (0.07) 0.15 0.17 ** (0.08) 0.04
University Studies Mother 0.10 (0.06) 0.11 0.09 (0.08) 0.28 0.11 (0.10) 0.26
Primary Studies Father (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
Secondary Studies Father 0.01 (0.05) 0.86 0.08 (0.06) 0.19 0.06 (0.07) 0.45
Postsecondary Studies Father 0.02 (0.05) 0.73 0.12 * (0.07) 0.07 0.09 (0.08) 0.29
University Studies Father 0.04 (0.06) 0.49 0.07 (0.08) 0.37 0.15 (0.10) 0.13
Private (Omitted category) e e e e e e e e e
PrivateDependent 0.08 (0.09) 0.36 0.14 (0.11) 0.22 0.00 (0.13) 0.98
Public 0.29 *** (0.08) 0.00 0.28 *** (0.10) 0.01 0.29 ** (0.12) 0.02
InfoSchoolAir 0.18 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.15 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.21 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolForest 0.10 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.05 (0.04) 0.24 0.15 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolWater 0.19 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.17 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.21 *** (0.05) 0.00
InfoSchoolNuclear 0.24 *** (0.03) 0.00 0.27 *** (0.04) 0.00 0.19 *** (0.05) 0.00
Intercept 10.86 *** (0.34) 0.00 10.22 *** (0.34) 0.00 11.06 *** (0.37) 0.00
Variance random Intercept
School level 0.14 *** (0.11) 0.14 *** (0.02) 0.18 *** (0.03)
Country level 1.35 *** (0.51) 1.28 *** 0.49 1.46 *** (0.55)

Notes: The variable denitions are available in Table 3.

*p < 0.1. **p < 0.05. ***p < 0.01.

(coefcients of 0.25 and 0.24, respectively) than boys' environ- inuenced by their mothers than by their fathers, and boys' envi-
mental concern (coefcients of 0.170 and 0.173, respectively). ronmental concern was slightly more affected by their fathers than
However, girls' environmental concern also was slightly more by their mothers. These results are in line with H4a and H4b; the

, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo 71

intergenerational inuences on both girls and boys were greater for
the parent of the same sex. However, the differences were not
statistically signicant.
To address our last hypothesis, we included socioeconomic and
school characteristics in the model. The socioeconomic status and
cultural possessions variables were signicant for both subsamples.
In the former case, the association was negative, such that a higher
score on the socioeconomic index entailed a lower ECI score. In
contrast, cultural possessions revealed a positive link, such that a
higher score on this index was associated with a higher ECI score.
The inuence of the socioeconomic index was also greater for girls
than for boys (i.e., e0.11 and 0.06, respectively; see Tables 4 and
5), but the inuence of the cultural possessions index was about
the same for both subsamples (0.23 and 0.22, respectively). We
found no signicant differences in children's environmental
concern between those studying in private government-dependent
versus private schools, but students in public schools revealed
slightly higher ECI values, with a positive, signicant coefcient in
all estimations. Finally, the four variables we included to measure
the effect of environmental information provided at school were
signicant, with positive coefcients.
In Table 6, we reproduce some analyses by country. The means
and standard deviations of the ECI reveal some differences. In
particular, countries with lower ECI levels included Iceland,
Denmark, New Zealand, and Qatar (<14), whereas Turkey,
Colombia, and Portugal all indicated higher levels (>16). It is dif-
cult to explain these differences precisely, though Inglehart (1995)
posits that the degree of pollution in the country and the shift from
materialist to postmaterialist values have important effects on
environmental concern.
Finally, the coefcient estimates for the parentechildren envi-
ronmental concern association by country revealed results consis-
tent with those in Tables 4 and 5 All estimates provided positive,
signicant coefcients, with the exception of Denmark. Moreover,
most of countries indicated coefcients near the estimate obtained
using the full sample (0.21). In addition, the intergenerational as-
sociation of environmental concern was very similar for mothers
and fathers. These consistent results offer support for the robust-
ness of our ndings for the full sample.
5. Discussion
Various studies analyze the intergenerational transmission of
attitudes and behaviors, but without really considering the trans-
mission of environmental attitudes from parents to children (cf.
Grnhj & Thgersen, 2009; Leppa nen et al., 2012; Meeusen, 2014).
We focus on the relationship between parents' environmental
concern and the environmental concern of their children by con-
structing an environmental concern index, based on PISA 2006 data
survey across 16 countries. We also use a multivariate, multilevel
regression approach with two random intercepts for the school and
country levels. This approach enables us to obtain more robust
standard errors as the hypothesis of independent observations
among schools and countries may not hold true (Rabe-Hesketh &
Skrondal, 2005).
These data showed that parents reported higher environmental
concern, with an ECI that is around 10% higher than the ECI of their
adolescent children. Previous literature has suggested that young
people hold more positive attitudes toward environmental issues
but are less inclined to follow up with behavior than older

Table 6
Analyses by country.

Country Descriptive Estimates model Table 4 Estimates model Table 5

M SD Concern of B SE B p Concern of B SE B p

Bulgaria 15.55 2.98 Parent 0.16 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.16 *** 0.02 0.00
Father 0.17 *** (0.02 0.00
Colombia 16.39 2.74 Parent 0.36 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.36 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.37 *** (0.03) 0.00
Croatia 15.77 2.75 Parent 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00
Denmark 12.99 3.69 Parent 0.02 (0.03) 0.49 Mother 0.02 (0.03) 0.50
Father 0.02 (0.03) 0.65
Germany 14.62 3.21 Parent 0.17 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.17 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.17 *** (0.03) 0.00
Hong(Kong 14.18 3.43 Parent 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00 Mother 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00
Father 0.23 *** (0.02) 0.00
Iceland 12.41 4.12 Parent 0.08 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.08 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.07 ** (0.03) 0.01
Italy 14.69 3.09 Parent 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00 Mother 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00
Father 0.24 *** (0.01) 0.00
Korea 14.80 2.64 Parent 0.16 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.16 *** (0.02) 0.00
Father 0.16 *** (0.02) 0.00
Luxembourg 14.17 3.79 Parent 0.18 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.18 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.17 *** (0.03) 0.00
Macao(China 14.54 3.68 Parent 0.19 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.20 *** (0.02) 0.00
Father 0.19 *** (0.02) 0.00
New Zealand 13.15 3.79 Parent 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00 Mother 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00
Father 0.20 *** (0.03) 0.00
Polanda 14.39 3.41 Parent n. a. n. a. (n. a.) n. a. Mother n. a. n. a. (n. a.) n. a.
Father n. a. n. a. (n. a.) n. a.
Portugal 16.23 2.54 Parent 0.20 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.20 *** (0.02) 0.00
Father 0.20 *** (0.02) 0.00
Qatar 13.44 4.04 Parent 0.26 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.25 *** (0.02) 0.00
Father 0.27 *** (0.02) 0.00
Turkey 16.85 2.46 Parent 0.33 *** (0.02) 0.00 Mother 0.33 *** (0.02) 0.00
Father 0.33 *** (0.02) 0.00

*p < 0.1. **p < 0.05. ***p < 0.01.

a
No information was available about the environmental concern of parents of Polish children.
72
, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo
generations are; some researchers instead have found that young
people exhibit less pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors
(Grnhj & Thgersen, 2009). Our results are in line with this latter
nding. The participants for this study were 15 years of age, a stage
at which attitudes rarely are well-developed and beliefs tend to be
less stable (Hess, 1994; Sears, 1986). Therefore, their environmental
attitudes and concerns may still be forming and subject to many
inuences. In addition, our ECI might be interpreted as a proxy for
behavioral intentions, such that it would be closer to a behavior
than an attitude measure. Even though it is attitudinal in nature,
concern includes an affective component (Rhead et al., 2015) that
may increase willingness to contribute to the solution of environ-
mental problems (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). The reports of lower
environmental concern thus are consistent with young people's
relatively minimal environmental behaviors (Grnhj & Thgersen,
2009).
The positive but moderate association between environmental
concern of children and parents suggests that parents are impor-
tant socialization agents. This association is slightly lower than a
quarter and it is quite similar to others that have been found in the
literature (Meeusen, 2014). Consequently, we conrm H1, which is
in line with the impressionable years theory (Krosnick & Alwin,
1989). Younger people have less stable beliefs and are more sus-
ceptible to others' inuences, including family (Dekovic, Wissink, &
Meijer, 2004). Therefore, policy makers can inuence children with
informative campaigns targeted either directly to them or to their
parents, who positively affect the environmental concern of their
children through intergenerational socialization. However, as pre-
vious studies note, this association may differ across families,
depending on aspects such as the degree of communication within
the family. Parents with similar environmental concern might in-
uence their children with varying intensities, depending on
whether they are talkative and persuasive or not (Meeusen, 2014).
Moreover, cultural or educational characteristics that parents and
their children already share could inuence their environmental
concern in the same direction, increasing the family-level similar-
ity. A deeper understanding of which factors motivate stronger
intergenerational transmissions thus would be an interesting
extension to our study.
We also provide new evidence of sex differences in environ-
mental concern, such that girls are more concerned than boys
(Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, 2010; Coertjens et al., 2010; Duarte
et al., 2016). This consistent result suggests several explanations. As
Arnocky and Stroink (2010) note, sex differences in environmental
concern are fully mediated by differences in emotional empathy,
such that women are more empathic than men. Similarly, Belanche
et al. (2015) nd evidence that women are more caring for others
and about the quality of life. It is reasonable to predict that more
caring people are also more concerned about environmental issues.
The intergenerational association effect is also greater for girls
than for boys. The nding that girls are more inuenced by parents'
concern is in line with literature that predicts sex differences in
personality traits (Schmitt et al., 2008; Sun & Zhang, 2006), such
that women tend to be more oriented to social relationships and
open to others' opinions. Female children then might be more
prone to discuss and talk about issues with their parents, leading
them to gain better understanding of their parents' environmental
concern, with a stronger resulting inuence than occurs for boys.
This nding also resonates with the previously introduced notion
that communication patterns within the family affect the inter-
generational transmission of environmental concern, such that
families with boys might communicate differently than families
with girls.
However, the parental sex patterns related to the intergenera-
tional association of environmental concern are less clear. Our
ndings offer some support for both the gender-specic socializ-
ation hypothesis and predictions of parents' equivalent socializ-
ation. For girls, the effect of the mother is slightly stronger, and for
boys, the effect of the father is slightly stronger. But at the same
time, the effects of both parents are quantitatively similar for girls
and for boys, but different across boys and girls (being higher for
girls). The quantitative differences related to the effects of both
parents for a child of the same sex thus are not signicant.
School socialization is also an important factor for the formation
of children's environmental concern. That is, informative cam-
paigns about environmental problems can increase environmental
concern among children, in line with Duarte et al.s (2016) nding
that school variables can signicantly explain differences in an
environmental attitude index. Policy makers might exploit the
synergies revealed by our study, especially considering that school-
based informative campaigns will have lasting effects by increasing
the environmental concern of both current students and subse-
quent generations, when these students spread their concern to
their children through intergenerational socialization processes
(Meeusen, 2014). Environmental campaigns at school could also
reach improved results by integrating the information into a more
general community effort that includes teachers and parents as
additional campaign targets (Barle
s, Escario, & Galbe, 2014). On the
other hand, we observe that students in public schools reported
higher levels of environmental concern. Although we may assume
that public schools could be more involved in environmental topics
or implement public policies regarding environmental issues more
promptly, understanding the role of school type in developing
environmental concern and attitudes deserves more attention in
future research. Several limitations also emerge from this study,
largely due to data issues. First, we used cross-sectional survey data
obtained from 15-year-old children, with the assumption that the
environmental concern relationship features some causal effect
from parents' environmental concern to their children, even
though some reverse causal inuence could also be possible
(Vaughan, Gack, Solorazano, & Ray, 2003). Longitudinal data could
clarify these causal inuences. Second, the PISA 2006 survey we
used lacks some important information, such as parents' existing
environmental attitudes and behaviors, how much time parents
spend with their children, and how much they discuss or exchange
ideas. Such information would offer a deeper understanding of the
relationship of parents' and children's environmental concern
(Meeusen, 2014). These PISA 2006 data, obtained from a survey
developed by the OECD (2009), were also developed for a purpose
other than our study; we did not participate in the development of
appropriate measurement scales for the variables we considered.
Third, it might be interesting to analyze the inuence of ethnicity,
nationality, or culture in more detail. We considered the cultural
possession index provided by PISA, but further research might
evaluate the inuence of cultural attitudes, norms, and practices
across the different countries (for example, socialization of women
is not xed as it may vary culturally or by country) or whether
parenting across diverse cultural groups affects the intergenera-
tional transmission of environmental concern. However, as the rst
study to investigate the relationship between parents' environ-
mental concern and the environmental concern of their children,
using homogeneous, nationally representative survey data for 16
countries, we provide an initial exploration of these topics. More-
over, we acknowledge the clustered nature of these data and
therefore took intraclass correlations within schools and countries
into account, using a hierarchical multilevel regression approach.
6. Conclusion
This exploratory study, using nationally representative data

, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo
surveys across several countries, reveals that the environmental
concern of parents relates positively to the environmental concern
of their children. This association largely afrms the parent
equivalent socialization hypothesis, in that it holds for both boys
and girls. However, girls are more sensitive to intergenerational
transmissions from their mothers and fathers than are boys.
Informative campaigns developed in schools contribute to increase
the environmental concern of children. These two ndings suggest
that it is possible to amplify the effects of informative campaigns by
including parents as targets. Doing so may increase their environ-
mental concern, which then should inuence the environmental
concern of their children. Using data with a more exible structure
and richer information, further research might control for addi-
tional factors to clarify and conrm the causal mechanisms of the
relationship of parents' and children's environmental concern.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specic grants from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
References
Acock, A. C., & Bengtson, V. L. (1978). On the relative inuence of mothers and fa-
thers: A covariance analysis of political and religious socialization. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 40(3), 519e530. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/350932.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179e211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)
90020-T.
Arcury, T. A., & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to
environmental problems. Environment and Behavior, 22, 387e407. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916590223004.
Arnocky, S., & Stroink, M. (2010). Gender differences in environmentalism: The
mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology,
16(9), 1e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.008.
Ballantyne, R., Fien, J., & Packer, J. (2001). Program effectiveness in facilitating
intergenerational inuence in environmental education: Lessons from the eld.
Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00958960109598657.

s, M. J., Escario, J. J., & Galbe, J. (2014). Predictors of driving under the inuence
Barle
of alcohol among Spanish adolescents [Predictores de la conduccio
n bajo los
efectos del alcohol entre los adolescentes espan ~ oles]. Adicciones, 26(2), 96e105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.11.
Belanche, D., Casalo
, L. V., & Flavi

an, C. (2012). Understanding the inuence of social
information sources on e-government adoption. Information Research-an In-
ternational Electronic Journal, 17(3), 531. http://InformationR.net/ir/17-3/
paper531.html.
Belanche, D., Casalo
, L. V., & Guinaliu, M. (2015). The effect of culture in forming e-
loyalty intentions: A cross-cultural analysis between Argentina and Spain.
BRQeBusiness Research Quarterly, 18(4), 275e292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.brq.2015.02.003.
Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and
empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on moti-
vation (pp. 179e226). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2011). Valuing the invaluable: Effects of individual, school and
cultural factors on the environmental values of children. Thesis. Instituut voor
Onderwijs-en Informatiewetenschappen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., & van Petegem, P. (2010). A cross-national perspective on youth
environmental attitudes. Environmentalist, 30(2), 133e144. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10669-009-9253-1.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367e383. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.
Carlsson, F., Lampi, E., Li, W., & Martinsson, P. (2014). Subjective well-being among
preadolescents and their parents e Evidence of intergenerational transmission
of well-being from urban China. Journal of Socio-Economics, 48, 11e18. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2013.10.003.
Casalo
, L. V., Flavi

an, C., & Guinalu, M. (2011). Understanding the intention to follow
the advice obtained in an online travel community. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(2), 622e633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.013.
Casalo
, L. V., Flavi
an, C., & Guinalu, M. (2013). New members' integration: Key
factor of success in online travel communities. Journal of Business Research,
66(6), 706e710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.007.
Coertjens, L., Boeve-de Pauw, J., de Maeyer, S., & van Petegem, P. (2010). Do schools
make a difference in their students' environmental attitudes and awareness?
Evidence from PISA 2006. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Ed-
ucation, 8(3), 497e522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9200-0.
Cronbach, L. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Row.
73
Dekovic, M., Wissink, I. B., & Meijer, A. M. (2004). The role of family and peer re-
lations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: Comparison of four ethnic groups.
Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 497e514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2004.06.010.
Dou, X., Walden, J. A., Lee, S., & Lee, J. Y. (2012). Does source matter? Examining
source effects in online product reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5),
1555e1563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.015.
Duarte, R., Escario, J. J., & Sanagustn, M. V. (2016). The inuence of the family, the
school, and the group on the environmental attitudes of European students.
Environmental Education Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13504622.2015.1074660 (in press).
Dunlap, D., & Jones, J. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measure-
ment issues. In D. Dunlap, & M. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
sociology (pp. 482e542). London: Greenwood Press.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425e442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.
Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of racism: The
role of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43(5), 906e909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrp.2009.05.014.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications
as determinants of sex differences in inuenceability: A meta-analysis of social
inuence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 1e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.90.1.1.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender
differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1),
33e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33.
Escario, J. J., & Wilkinson, A. V. (2015). The intergenerational transmission of
smoking across three cohabitant generations: A count data approach. Journal of
Community Health, 40(5), 912e919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-
0013-5.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 116(3), 429e456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
Grnhj, A., & Thgersen, J. (2009). Like father, like son? intergenerational trans-
mission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 414e421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2009.05.002.
Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Online Persuasion: An examination of
gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal inuence. Group Dy-
namics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 38e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
1089-2699.6.1.38.
Hess, T. M. (1994). Social cognition in adulthood: Aging-related changes in
knowledge and processing mechanisms. Developmental Review, 14(4), 373e412.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1015.
Hunter, L. M. (2000). A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and
behaviors of native-born and foreign-born U.S. Residents. Environment & Pop-
ulation, 21(6), 565e580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02436772.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective prob-
lems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(01),
57e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/420583.
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family
transmission reexamined. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782e799. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0022381609090719.

n de la conanza en equipos de trabajo
Jordan, P. (2015). El papel del lder en la gestio
virtuales. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Spain: University of Zaragoza.
Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental atti-
tude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27(3), 242e251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004.
Kaiser, F. G., Wo lng, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1e19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jevp.1998.0107.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 416e425. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.57.3.416.
Kulik, L. (2002). Like-sex versus opposite-sex effects in transmission of gender role
ideology from parents to adolescents in Israel. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
31(6), 451e457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020263120774.
Leppanen, J. M., Haahla, A. E., Lensu, A. M., & Kuitunen, M. T. (2012). Parent-child
similarity in environmental attitudes: A pairwise comparison. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education, 43(3), 162e176.
Levine, D. S., & Strube, M. J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions
and behaviors among college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3),
308e326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.604363.
Maineri, T., Barnett, E., Valdero, T., Unipan, J., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying:
The inuence of environmental concern on consumer buying. Journal of Social
Psychology, 137, 189e204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595430.
Meeusen, C. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of environmental concern:
The inuence of parents and communication patterns within the family. Journal
of Environmental Education, 45(2), 77e90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00958964.2013.846290.
Mendez, I. (2015). The effect of the intergenerational transmission of noncognitive
skills on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 46, 78e97. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.03.001.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid
74
, J.-J. Escario / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 65e74
L.V. Casalo
and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80e94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-
008-9192-2.
Noller, P., & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family. London: Routledge.
OECD. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
pisaproducts/42025182.pdf.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using
Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Rand, D. G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A. C., Capraro, V., & Barcelo, H. (2016). Social
heuristics and social Roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for
men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 389e396. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/xge0000154.
Remmerswaal, D., Muris, P., & Huijding, J. (2015). Transmission of cognitive bias and
fear from parents to children: An experimental study. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 45(5), 642e654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15374416.2014.987378.
Rhead, R., Elliot, M., & Upham, P. (2015). Assessing the structure of UK environ-
mental concern and its association with pro-environmental behaviour. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 43, 175e183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.
2015.06.002.
Ritter, A. M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G. L. R., Pereira, G. M., & Almeida, F. (2015).
Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging
country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 106(1), 507e520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066.
Rodrguez-Barreiro, L. M., Ferna
ndez-Manzanal, R., Serra, L. M., Carrasquer, J.,
Murillo, M. B., Morales, M. J., et al. (2013). Approach to a causal model between
attitudes and environmental behaviour. A graduate case study. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 48, 116e125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.029.
Sancho, F. M., Miguel, M. J., & Alda
s, J. (2011). Factors inuencing youth alcohol
consumption intention: An approach from consumer socialization theory.
Journal of Social Marketing, 1(3), 192e210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
20426761111170704.
Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The
role of knowledge, gender and background variables. Environment and Behavior,
22, 767e786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916590226003.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like
a woman? Sex differences in big ve personality traits across 55 cultures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168e182. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168.
Scott, D., & Willits, F. (1994). Environmental attitude and behavior: A Pennsylvania
survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239e260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001391659402600206.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Inuences of a narrow
data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515e530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.51.3.515.
Shen, J., & Saijo, T. (2008). Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic
characteristics and individual environmental concern: Evidence from
Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 42e50. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.003.
Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology
acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 53e78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.
Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. (2003). The effect of environmental
education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: A study
of intergenerational and intercommunity learning. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(3), 12e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958960309603489.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for di-
rections? Gender, social inuence, and their role in technology acceptance and
usage behavior. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 24(1),
115e136. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3250981.
Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel
reviews on consumer consideration. Tourism Management, 30(1), 123e127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.008.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specic
environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), 1580e1607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1992.tb01758.x.
Wilgenbusch, T., & Merrell, K. W. (1999). Gender differences in self-concept among
children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of multidimensional studies. School
Psychology Quarterly, 14(2), 101e120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0089000.
Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertisingdan oversight synthesis of
research: 1970e2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), 111e129.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environ-
mentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 443e457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177.