2026-10-13T06:04:54Z https://www.scidb.cn/oai

10.57760/sciencedb.psych.01129 2026-08-05T17:30:40Z

2026-08-05 Data：The dual effects of power distance on pro-environmental behavior: A system justification perspective doi:10.57760/sciencedb.psych.01129 en [Study 1 Dataset]Data SourcesIndependent Variable: Power Distance Index (PDI). Sourced from the official public website displaying Hofstede's cultural dimension indices for various countries (https://geerthofstede.com).Dependent Variable: Pro-environmental behavior. Sourced from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Round IV Environment Module (Environment IV, ISSP 2020). For detailed descriptions of pro-environmental behavior items in the ISSP 2020 questionnaire, please refer to the "General Procedure" Word document in the data files.Control Variables: Country-level control variables include total population, urbanization rate, and GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) for the year 2021 (the midpoint of the survey years). This data was primarily sourced from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org) and the International Monetary Fund (https://www.imf.org). Individual-level control variables include participants' age, gender, and years of education, which were collected through the ISSP 2020 questionnaire.[Study 2 Dataset]1. Research Design and ParticipantsThis study employed a between-subjects design with one factor and two levels (power distance priming: high power distance vs. low power distance).A total of 210 participants were recruited through the online platform Credamo. Among them, 2 participants who did not respond according to the instructions (i.e., responding based on real-world society) and 6 participants whose response times exceeded ± 2.5 standard deviations were excluded. Data from the final 202 participants were included in the analysis.2. Key Variables(1) Power Distance Manipulation: Divided into high power distance group and low power distance group.(2) Moral Disengagement in the Pro-environmental Domain: Comprising 8 items, scored on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher total scores indicate higher levels of moral disengagement (α = 0.93).(3) Authoritarian Submission in the Pro-environmental Domain: Adapted from the Authoritarian Submission Scale developed by Duckitt et al. (2010), with new items developed based on previous conceptualizations and analyses of authoritarian submission (Mallinas et al., 2020) and adapted to the Chinese social context for environmental protection scenarios. The scale comprises 6 items, scored on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher total scores indicate higher levels of authoritarian submission (α = 0.91).(4) Pro-environmental Behavioral Intention: Based primarily on Gong Wenjuan's (2008) Pro-environmental Behavior Scale (previously used in the 2003 and 2013 Chinese General Social Surveys), with additional new items adapted from Sun Yan's (2023, December) Pro-environmental Behavior Questionnaire. The new scale comprises 10 items, scored on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher total scores indicate higher pro-environmental behavioral intention (α = 0.95).(5) Perceived Power Distance Level: Based on the studies by Koo et al. (2024) and Zhang et al. (2010), two items were developed and scored on a 7-point scale: "1 = social hierarchy is important ... 7 = social equality is important." After reverse scoring, higher total scores indicate higher perceived power distance levels (r = 0.94, p < 0.001).[Study 3 Dataset]1. Research Design and ParticipantsStudy 3 employed a 2 (power distance: priming vs. control) × 2 (moral disengagement priming: high vs. low) between-subjects design.Participants were recruited from a normal university and a nearby science and engineering university (participants were allowed to freely forward the experiment link). A total of 164 datasets were collected. Using box plots and the 2.5 standard deviation criterion, 9 participants with abnormal response times (1,801s–12,555s) and 2 participants with irregular responses (donation amounts exceeding the upper limit) were excluded. Data from the final 153 participants were included in the analysis.2. Key Variables(1) Power Distance Manipulation: Divided into power distance priming group and power distance control group.(2) Perceived Power Distance Level: Based on items used by Zhang et al. (2010) with appropriate adjustments, scored on a 7-point scale: "1 = social hierarchy is important ... 7 = social equality is important." After reverse scoring, higher total scores indicate higher perceived power distance levels (α = 0.85).(3) Moral Disengagement Manipulation in the Pro-environmental Domain: Divided into high moral disengagement group and low moral disengagement group.(4) Moral Disengagement Level: Same as Study 2 (α = 0.88).(5) Pro-environmental Behavior Measurement: Measured using a donation paradigm (Vesely & Klöckner, 2018). Participants were introduced to the "China Green Foundation" and could voluntarily decide to donate a portion of their participant fee to this environmental organization. The pro-environmental behavior indicator was the donation amount of the participant fee.[Study 4 Dataset]1. Research Design and ParticipantsStudy 4 employed a 2 (power distance: priming vs. control) × 2 (authoritarian submission: priming vs. control) between-subjects design.Participants were recruited from a normal university and a nearby science and engineering university (participants were allowed to freely forward the experiment link). A total of 192 participants were recruited. According to box plots and the 2.5 standard deviation rule, 12 participants with excessively long response times (2,040 seconds–6,705 seconds) were excluded. Data from the final 180 participants were included in the analysis.3. Key Variables(1) Power Distance Manipulation: Divided into power distance priming group and power distance control group.(2) Perceived Power Distance Level: Same as Study 3 (α = 0.86).(3) Authoritarian Submission Manipulation in the Pro-environmental Domain: Divided into authoritarian submission priming group and authoritarian submission control group.(4) Authoritarian Submission Tendency: One item was selected from the pro-environmental authoritarian submission scale used in Study 2 that best reflected system-justification tendencies. Higher scores indicate higher system-justification tendencies within authoritarian submission.(5) Pro-environmental Behavior Measurement: Based on the task-donation paradigm by Gulliver et al. (2020), participants were presented with information about a domestic environmental organization, accompanied by an image of its official website. Participants could choose to answer any number of mental arithmetic problems or skip this section (without affecting final compensation). After the experiment, the experimenter would randomly select one participant's questionnaire and donate to the organization based on their performance. The donation rule was 2 RMB per correct answer, with a total of 50 mental arithmetic problems and a maximum donation of 100 RMB. power distance; pro-environmental behavior; moral disengagement; authoritarian submission; system justification theory zhu zi heng Li Jing EMBARGO https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ dataset Science Data Bank