The Role of The Individualism-Collectivism Dimension in Shaping Policy-Support for EU Disaster-Relief

The Role of The Individualism-Collectivism Dimension in Shaping Policy-Support for EU Disaster-Relief | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Role of The Individualism-Collectivism Dimension in Shaping Policy-Support for EU Disaster-Relief Jude Holland Phelan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Climate change (CC) poses an urgent global challenge, its impact increasingly requiring coordinated policy response. While cultural values have been shown to play a potentially strong role in shaping political attitudes and behaviours, the role of individualism-collectivism (I-C) has primarily been examined against mitigative rather than adaptive CC attitudes – and is even further limited within the European context. As the EU expands its role in adaptive climate policy implementation, understanding national cultural drivers of policy support for EU-led disaster relief becomes increasingly pertinent. Methods This study conducted a secondary quantitative analysis of the relationship between national levels of individualism and attitudinal variables measuring support for EU-coordinated disaster relief policy. The study utilised national individualism scores and Eurobarometer survey data, and then integrated multiple regression models to incorporate appropriate control variables. Results The analysis revealed that individualism was significantly positively correlated with support for intra-EU disaster relief policy. Conversely, there was no significant relationship between individualism and general support for coordinated EU response to disasters. Conclusion The findings refuted the notion that individualism led to an outright opposition towards CC policy, and pointed towards the value in distinguishing between mitigatory and adaptive climate change policy. Further research using a larger sample of countries, or utilising an individual-level methodological approach may be beneficial, in order to increase the sample and statistical power of the analysis. Social science/Environmental studies Social science/Politics and international relations Social science/Social policy individualism collectivism disaster relief adaptive climate policy 1. Introduction Despite the increasing salience of climate change (CC) as a pressing issue facing the earth and its population, any efforts as of yet in addressing either its causes or effects have remained markedly insufficient (Hale, 2024). This discrepancy has prompted a growing body of research exploring why salience has not translated into effective action. This has included the exploration of the role of cultural dimensions within CC-related attitudes and action – although within this there has primarily been a focus on mitigatory CC action and policy, with far less attention given to adaptive responses. Cultural dimensions, through ongoing socialisation, undoubtedly play a role in shaping individuals’ values, and their resulting behaviour (Spong, 2019, Hodgson, 2007). Nonetheless, there remains limited literature focusing on how cultural factors act as drivers of attitudes towards adaptive forms of CC policy – namely, disaster response. One such cultural dimension is individualism-collectivism (I-C) . This dimension reflects the extent to which societies prioritise individual autonomy versus group cohesion and shared responsibility (Triandis, 1995). Although I-C has been widely studied in relation to other elements of political attitudes and preferences (Scott, 1972, Ashton et al., 2005, Pitlik and Rode, 2017), and more briefly touched upon regarding its implications for CC-related attitudes, its relationship with disaster relief policy support sits within a distinct gap in the literature. While the existing literature identifies I-C as a salient cultural dimension influencing individual attitudes, it also highlights the need for further research to deepen our understanding of this relationship. Findings within this emerging literature are mixed. Some studies suggest that collectivist populations exhibit stronger pro-environmental attitudes, driven by an increased sense of shared responsibility and concern for collective welfare (Kim and Choi, 2005, Shi et al., 2015). Others, however, highlight the potential for individualism to promote agency, personal efficacy, and alignment between personal beliefs and behaviour (Eom et al., 2016, Oyserman et al., 2002). Similarly, while some research links individualism with scepticism or opposition to CC-related policy (Leiserowitz, 2006), the specific mechanisms and policy types implicated by these attitudes remain insufficiently explored. Accordingly, this study aims to take a more targeted approach, furthering the understanding of how national-level I-C interacts with populations’ attitudes towards adaptive CC-related policy, within the European context. Specifically, this study will place a focus on the relationship between I-C attitudes towards/support for EU CC-related disaster response policy. This focus will allow for a novel understanding of how I-C can interact with disaster response adaptive CC policy. Drawing upon the existing literature examining the relationship between I-C and CC attitudes and behaviours, I predict that heightened national individualism will not be associated with increased support for EU coordinated response to disasters (H1); and furthermore, that heightened national individualism will be indicative of increased opposition for EU coordinated response to disasters (H2). Using cross-national survey data, I find that while individualism is positively correlated with support for intra-EU disaster relief policy, there is no significant relationship between I-C and general support for coordinated EU response to disasters. The paper proceeds as follows: the ‘Literature Review’ introduces I-C as a cultural dimension, and gives an overview of the existing literature connecting this dimension with CC attitudes and behaviour. The ‘Methodology’ outlines the data sources and methodology utilised within this data analysis. Section ‘Findings’ discusses the descriptive results of the analysis. Finally, within the ‘Discussion and Conclusions’, the findings are discussed, alongside their implications (both generally and directly on future policy formation), and some concluding notes are drawn. 2. Literature Review Individualism and collectivism (I-C) as a cultural dimension have taken up an increasing space within the climate change (CC) literature, due to the way in which they shape how individuals and societies perceive, respond to, and address environmental challenges. This cultural dimension has been studied in its capacity to influence not only personal attitudes towards CC but also broader societal trends, including policy support, perceived responsibility, and behavioural tendencies. While individualist cultures’ emphasis on autonomy and personal choice can result in a scepticism toward CC action, their governments are thought to be more successful in implementing pro-environmental policy. Opposingly, while collectivist cultures’ high degree of shared responsibility seemingly fosters a greater sense of environmental responsibility, their weaker governance does not mirror this in overall CC policy performance. The following review builds upon Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework to examine the conceptual foundation of the I-C dimension and its role in climate change research. It explores how these cultural values shape risk perception, responsibility attribution, and engagement with pro-environmental behaviours. Additionally, it considers the implications of the I-C dimension for climate inaction, policy resistance, and the broader disconnect between climate concern and policy implementation. By synthesising key findings from studies within the wider literature, this review highlights the interplay between cultural values and climate attitudes (along with its policy implications). 2.1 Conceptualising the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) Dimension Hofstede’s (1980) seminal work on cultural dimensions is the most prominent literature within the conceptualisation of the individualism-collectivism (I-C) dimension. He defines individualism as the prioritisation of individual goals over group goals, alongside an emphasis on self-reliance. Conversely, collectivism denotes the prioritisation of goals and needs of a given in-group over an individual’s (Hofstede, 1980, 2001, 2011). Individualism and collectivism are not dichotomous concepts, but exist on a spectrum. Triandis (2001), for example, distinguished between vertical and horizontal orientations of individualism and collectivism, while Kahan adapted the framework into hierarchical individualists and egalitarian communitarians (which itself is an adaptation of Douglas and Wildavsky’s (1982b) individualism-hierarchy dimension)(Kahan, 2010, Kahan et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2012). Such uses of augmented frameworks are limited (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2022) or used proprietarily by authors (Kahan), but suggest the potential value of a more nuanced operationalisations. The I-C dimension has become increasingly prominent within the literature. Classically explored as a cultural factor in and of itself (Scott, 1972, Hofstede, 1980, Hui, 1988, Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990), it is increasingly applied alongside its potential implications for other cultural factors (Triandis, 1995, Triandis and Gelfand, 2012). In fact, this singular dimension has been identified as being the most successful way in understanding cultural variation across different societies (Oyserman et al., 2002, Kashima and Kashima, 2003). Such claims provide more-than-apt justification for the continued research on the implications of the I-C dimension, including how it may help us understand people’s attitudes towards CC-related policy. Studies have explored how I-C interacts with individual-level climate beliefs such as denial, concern, or perceived personal responsibility (Goldwert et al., 2024, Kim and Choi, 2005, Kahan et al., 2012). While findings are mixed, collectivism is often associate with greater CC concern and a stronger sense of personal responsibility due to heightened group-oriented values (Shi et al., 2015). Although this research primarily concerns personal mitigatory behaviour, it highlights the importance of cultural dimensions in shaping attitudes towards collective challenges – offering context for understanding support for supranational responses to CC-related crises. 2.2 Individualism as a Barrier to Collective Policy Support A growing literature explores attitudes toward CC action – who should be taking action and what should this consist of (Wells et al., 2011, Clancy and Solomon, 2015). While links between pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour remain debated (Kim and Choi, 2005, Sherman et al., 2022), I-C appears to help in understanding this relationship. Xiang et al. (2019) establish a pathway between individualism and climate inaction. They do this by showing a correlation between high levels of individualism and increased perception of CC as intractable, which then leads to higher levels of climate inaction. This can be seen within a subsect of the literature which utilises psychological mechanisms to help understand how individualism/collectivism impacts attitudes towards CC action (Chen et al., 1999, Kahan et al., 2012, Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982a). This links to research on “Cultural Cognition Theory” (CCT), which posits that individuals’ perceptions of risk form in ways that reflect and reinforce their cultural values and group identities (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982a, Kahan et al., 2009). Through this lens, individualists, typically prioritising autonomy, free market, and limited government intervention, are inclined to perceive large-scale, state-led efforts to address CC as threatening to their cultural worldview (Kahan, 2010, Kahan et al., 2012). This can result in both scepticism toward collective action and reduced support for government-led climate policy. Thus, CCT offers a theoretical basis for expecting cultural individualism to act as a potential barrier to collective CC policy support. Importantly, pro-environmental behaviour can be understood as extending past people’s individual pro-ecological behaviour to support for CC policy (Pham et al., 2024, Stoutenborough et al., 2014). Individualist societies have been argued as prone to a “wishful thinking phase of opinion formation (Yankelovich, 1991, Yankelovich, 2002), within which they still think that their perceived problem of CC can be adequately addressed by someone else (government, other countries etc.) without them individually having to change their priorities or contradict their own self-interest. This grounds the next prediction that I make for this study: H1: Positing CC policy support as a form of pro-environmental behaviour, it is expected that heightened national individualism will not be associated with an increased degree of support for coordinate disaster relief policy, through the lens of this wishful thinking thesis. Furthermore, studies have argued that individualism is highly predictive of CC policy opposition – more so even than both political party affiliation or political ideology (Ballew et al., 2020, Leiserowitz, 2006, Smith and Leiserowitz, 2014). In a study examining the extent to which Americans’ climate policy preferences were moderated by individuals’ values, Leiserowitz (2006) showed how stronger individualism was indicative of increased opposition towards climate policies. This is argued to be a result of general resistance to government intervention and preference for market-based solutions (characteristics theoretically aligned with individualism) leading to opposition towards CC policies. Based on this, a final prediction is made, pertaining to the relationship between I-C and CC policy support: H2: Beyond a lack of increase of policy support, individualism will be correlated with a significant decrease in positive attitudes towards CC policy. While these hypotheses examine the role of cultural individualism in shaping CC-related attitudes, it is worth noting that the implications of such attitudes for actual policy outcomes are somewhat contested. As will be discussed in the forthcoming policy performance section of this review, some scholars have suggested that structural or institutional features of individualist cultures, such as robust governance, may be more significant in their influence on policy outcomes than public attitudes themselves (Vu, 2023). 2.3 I-C and CC Policy Performance Having examined the affect of I-C on climate action and inaction, it is intuitive to move to looking at if/how this affects actual policy performance on a national and international scale. According to assumptions within norm diffusion models (Risse and Sikkink, 1999) as well as the ‘policy cycle’ (Kingdon and Stano, 1984, Lasswell and Lerner, 1951, Howlett and Ramesh, 2005), increased public salience of climate change as a problem should lead to more successful implementation of policy addressing this problem. This would further indicate that countries with a more pro-environmental public should have more success in implementing corresponding policy. Vu (2023), analysing 92 countries, found a positive correlation between national individualism and successful climate change policy performance. This finding presents an interesting contrast to H2, which predict that individualism is associated with lower perceived personal responsibility to reduce CC and reduced support for CC-related policy, raising the question of the extent of the role of public attitudes and policy support in creating substantive policy change. If H2 is confirmed, this would suggest that other biproducts of cultural individualism (e.g., governance strength) are more influential of policy change than public attitudinal differences. 2.4 Policy and Messaging Strategies Within Countries Spanning the I-C Divide This raises the question of how to address this policy performance disparity, considering the cultural factors at play. This has created a space within the literature addressing various challenges faced in crafting policies and messaging strategies that cater to cultural differences spanning the I-C divide. Research highlights the strength of tailored approaches that align with prevailing cultural values in enhancing policy effectiveness (Vu, 2023). Additionally, if the hypotheses tested in this study are confirmed, they have significant implications for CC policy and communication strategies. Cohen et al. (2000, 2007) demonstrate that people are more receptive to policy initiatives when information is framed in a way that affirms, rather than threatens their existing beliefs. Thus, if the expectations of this study hold, they have implications for the communication of CC policy strategies. Accounting for the tendency of populations to support/oppose types of CC policy (H2) have direct implications for formulating and messaging policies catered to specific populations. Understanding and incorporating these factors, alongside the broader optimal policy strategies based on individualism-collectivism, will enhance the potential effectiveness of climate policy development and messaging. As CC intensifies, understanding cultural drivers of policy support will be increasingly important in designing effective policy interventions that resonate across different societal contexts. 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction This study examines the relationship between the I-C dimension, on a national-level, and adaptive CC policy attitudes, measured through aggregated individual-level survey data, focusing on support for coordinated EU disaster relief. In line with research aims, a secondary quantitative analysis examines national individualism scores against Eurobarometer survey data to establish a deeper understanding of how cultural-level factors have the potential to shape support for policy addressing largescale, environmental challenges. 3.2 Data sources 3.2.1 Individualism index The independent variable – national-level individualism – is drawn from the Country Comparison Tool (The Culture Factor Group, 2023), an index which assigns countries scores on a 0-100 across Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions (including individualism.) The latest index scores will be utilised, updated October 16, 2023. The scores are derived from survey responses collected through large-scale, cross-national studies such as the World Values Survey (WVS) and within the literature. The individualism scores for the countries in this study range from 42 to 100 on a 0–100 scale, with a mean score of approximately 67.4 and standard deviation of 14.8, indicating the sample skews moderately individualistic. 3.2.2 Climate change-related attitudes Support for coordinated-EU disaster relief policy is measured using data from the Special Eurobarometer 541 (European Union, 2025). This study uses individual-level data from the Eurobarometer dataset to construct a composite scale of support for coordinated EU disaster relief. This survey was conducted in September-October 2023, aligning with the latest available I-C scores used (updated October, 2023), ensuring temporal consistency. Table 1 and 2 seen below outlines the sample of respondents to the Special Eurobarometer 541 survey. After excluding Cyprus (n=503) due to missing I-C data, the final sample included 25,975 respondents. 3.3 Variables All variables included within this study were chosen in line with the research aims of best understanding the relationship between the I-C cultural dimension and adaptive CC-policy support. They can be thought of within three sub-groups of variables within the context of this research project: (a) national individualism index (independent variable); (b) Eurobarometer survey questions (dependent variables); and (c) control variables. Because the survey questions were converted to country-level data, and being analysed on this level, country level control variables could be introduced from various data sources without problems arising for the analysis. 3.3.1 National individualism index This score attributed to each country within the Country Comparison Tool acted as the central, independent variable within this study. 3.3.2 Climate change-related attitudes Three Special Eurobarometer 541 questions were adopted to measure attitudes towards EU coordinated response against disasters: QC6.1, “When a disaster strikes in an EU country that is too big to deal with on their own, other EU countries should provide help”; QC6.2, “When a disaster strikes in a country outside the EU that is too big to deal with on their own, EU countries should provide help”; and QC6.3, “To deal more effectively with disasters and crises in the future, coordinated EU action should be increased.” Upon observing high correlation between the answers to these questions, and a high Cronbach’s Alpha for all three items (a = 0.8), a Likert scale was created, as a new, more robust variable measuring general positive or negative sentiment towards EU coordinated response against disasters. Although this new variable would be more robust, and take precedent in drawing implications of findings, each item in the scale was also analysed individually against national individualism to examine whether any more nuanced relationships could be observed regarding specific aspects of EU coordinated response. While the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.8 indicates strong internal consistency among the survey items, it does not reach the height of precluding meaningful variation between each. Additionally, observed discrepancies in the relationship between individualism and the individual items further justify examining each measure separately, rather than relying solely on the composite scale. Although the Eurobarometer measures used in this study do not explicitly reference CC, the European Commission increasingly frame the ERCC as central to the EU’s response to climate-related emergencies (European Commission, 2024b). 3.3.3 Control Variables At this point of the analysis, a number of control variables were incorporated. This was to ensure that any significant relationships observed had not been unduly influenced by other national-level factors. Given that attitudinal variables can be highly susceptible to influence from an array of cultural and political conditions, controlling for highly salient variables helped to isolate the specific effect of I-C. Carbon emissions Some studies have examined CC attitudes across countries with varying GDP, often suggesting that higher GDP countries host populations with lower concern and sense of personal responsibility towards CC. Explanations such as increased psychological distance (Spence et al., 2012), and lower vulnerability from CC effects (Ward and Shively, 2012, Abdelzaher et al., 2020) have been suggested, directly implicating the research aims of this study. To account for this, a control variable was incorporated which accounts for national levels of carbon emissions (MtCO2) in 2023 (Global Carbon Atlas, 2023). Education There is also a large literature looking at the impact of education level on political attitudes, including CC policy support. To control for this, mean years of schooling was included, utilising the Human Development Index (Human Development Reports, 2022). GDP Additionally, national GDP was controlled for (International Monetary Fund, 2023), the significance of this being emphasised within the literature (Nauges et al., 2021, Malik et al., 2024). National GDP levels from 2023 were taken to align with the collection period of the survey responses in the core data sources of this research. 3.4 Analysis Strategy Analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., 2023). In order to meet the aims of the study, data analysis was organised into two phases to initially assess individual relationships between the independent and dependent variables; and then to incorporate control variables. Individualism scores and control variables were manually inputted into a dataset. This was viable as these variables were being taken from their respective data sources as country level measures. 3.4.1 Independent relationship analysis of I-C and policy support Individual Eurobarometer survey responses were downloaded as a raw data set. This dataset contained the three variables referenced earlier in relation to attitudes towards EU coordinated action to disasters. Responses were measured on a scale from 1-5 (1 = “Totally agree”… 4 = “Totally disagree”, 5 = “Don’t know”). “Don’t know” responses were excluded as missing values. At this point, scores were calculated to establish mean responses for each question, aggregated by country to transform the individual-level data into country-level data. The aggregated data provided a measure of general sentiment towards EU coordinated response against disasters, while still allowing each item to be analysed separately to observe potential nuances in the relationship between individualism and specific policy dimensions. 3.4.2 Multiple Regression Analysis Standard multiple regression models assessed the relationship between individualism and policy support, controlling for carbon emissions, GDP, and education. 4. Findings 4.1 Introduction The aims of this study were to test for a relationship between the national level Individualism-Collectivism (I-C), as a cultural dimension, and individuals’ support for adaptive CC-policy, adopting a country-level analytical approach. This study additionally aimed to test the robustness of any relationship found by incorporating a number of control variables. Based on the sources established in the prior chapter, the analysis and findings below have been structured into the following stages to systematically address the stated research aims: 1.1 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated response from EU countries in dealing with disasters potentially caused by CC? 1.2 Do any relationships found in achieving research aim 1.1 remain significant when accounting for control variables? 4.2.1 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated EU disaster relief policy? The next step in the analysis sought to identify the relationship between national individualism and attitudes towards EU collective action, using the scale of survey questions established within the previous chapter. The correlation analysis here sought to examine this relationship. Upon doing so, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r = -0.296) was calculated. However, this correlation is not statistically significant (p = 0.142). Given the sample size (n = 26), further research including a larger sample of EU countries could help in confirming the presence or absence of a meaningful association between these variables. Equally examining individual-level data between I-C and these attitudes could expand the sample size, potentially allowing for similar inferences to be made. Although a Likert scale was created to establish a more robust measure of attitudes towards disaster response action from EU countries, a test was run for the correlation between I-C and the survey question responses individually. While any findings resulting from this would not be as robust, they could potentially assist in creating a more nuanced understanding of a relationship between national I-C and peoples’ attitudes towards specific policy responses to crises and disasters. The correlation found is between national individualism and disagreement with each of the statements in question. A significant negative correlation was found between individualism and intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) (r = -0.541, p = 0.004), indicating that individuals from more individualistic countries are less likely to disagree with the statement made in this question. In turn, this indicates that these populations are more likely to support this sentiment, that EU countries should provide aid to fellow EU member states during disasters. However, individualism was not statistically significantly correlated with the variables, QC6.2 (r = -0.139, p = 0.499) or QC6.3 (r = -0.007, p = 972). This suggests that individualism does not have a meaningful relationship with support for: (a) EU countries assisting countries that have been struck by disasters outside the EU; or (b) coordinated EU action being increased to be better equipped to deal with disasters. These findings indicate that individualism may influence attitudes towards intra-EU solidarity in tackling disasters, but does not appear to extend to disaster relief to non-EU member states, or significant expansion of the EU coordinated response programme. 4.2.2 Does this relationship remain significant when accounting for control variables? The second phase of regression modelling within this analysis followed the same approach as the first, with the same control variables introduced. Here, this was to test the strength of the other significant relationship within the initial phases of the analysis: national individualism and agreement with the Eurobarometer survey question QC6.1, “When a disaster strikes in an EU country that is too big to deal with on their own, other EU countries should provide help.” Carbon emissions Within this model, the dependent variable was intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1), while the independent variables used were individualism and national carbon emissions. The adjusted R 2 of this model is 0.304, indicating that 30.4% of the variance in support for intra-EU disaster relief is explained by individualism and carbon emissions, suggesting moderate collective explanatory power. Controlling for national carbon emissions, individualism remained significantly predictive of the Eurobarometer measure (β = -.562, p = .003). Opposingly, carbon emissions saw a statistically insignificant relationship within the model (β = .259, p = .136). With a high level of overall model significance (F(2,23) = 6.453, p = .006), we can deduct that this significance stems from the role of individualism, rather than that played by national carbon emissions. Mean years of schooling This model similarly utilised intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) as its dependent variable, and individualism and mean years of schooling as independent variables. Here, a lower degree of collective explanatory power is revealed (R 2 = 0.239), meaning that 23.9% of the variance in support for EU disaster relief amongst other EU countries can be explained by these variables collectively. After controlling for national mean years of schooling, I-C remained statistically significantly predictive of the attitudes measured by QC6.1 (β = -.515, p = .01). On the other hand, mean years of schooling did not play a significant role predicting this attitudinal measure (β = -.086, p = .644). This model also had overall significance (F(2, 23) = 4.92, p = 0.017), which can be explained by the role of individualism rather than that of the education variable. GDP In this model, controlling for GDP, intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) acted as the dependent variable, while individualism and national GDP were the independent variables. Individualism and GDP have a moderate degree of combined explanatory power, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.280, meaning that 28% of the variance in support for disaster relief within the EU from other EU countries is explained by individualism and GDP combined. Controlling for the role of GDP, individualism still plays a statistically significant role in predicting the attitudinal measure (β = -.592, p = .003). The role of GDP alone is insignificant within this model, and in shaping the dependent attitudinal variable (β = .217, p = .227). This model can be deemed as being significant (F(2, 23) = 5.853, p = .009) with p < .01. Summary of findings Illustrated in Table 3, across all three models outlined, individualism consistently remained a significant predictor of support for intra-EU disaster relief (QC6.1). The standardized beta coefficients for individualism ranged from β = -0.515 to β = -0.592, with all p-values below or equal 0.01, confirming the robustness of this relationship. In contrast, none of the control variables had a statistically significant effect on support for intra-EU disaster relief. 5. Discussion 5.1 Introduction Through an examination of I-C as a cultural dimension and a set of CC-related survey answers, the current study sought to understand whether I-C had a significant relationship with support for adaptive CC-policy within the European context. Here, the implications of the previously outlined findings will be presented. This will include a discussion of the hypotheses which were rejected and accepted within this study, and the implications this had for the theories that formed them. This will lead to a briefer look of the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and CC policy success, and the place of this study within that discussion. Finally, policy and messaging strategies will be considered, looking at how the findings here add some clarity to existing literature. 5.2 I-C and EU coordinated disaster response policy support This study aimed to examine the relationship between I-C in European countries and peoples’ attitudes towards EU coordinated disaster response. This was assessed through a composite scale measuring support for different forms of EU collective action in response to large-scale disasters. While these measures do not explicitly refer to CC, they implicate disaster response policy frameworks increasingly mobilised in the context of CC-related emergencies. Thus, acknowledging this as a methodological limitation, this measure served as a partial proxy for attitudes towards adaptive CC policy. The analysis revealed no significant relationship between I-C and attitudes towards EU coordinated response. This aligns with the expectations of the hypothesis informed by Yankelovich’s ( 1991 , 2002 ) “wishful thinking” theory, which suggests that populations in more individualistic cultures would not demonstrate an increased degree of support for CC-related policy. This seemingly supports the claim that highly individualistic countries are susceptible to this wishful thinking phase, in which people think that a perceived problem (in this case, CC) can be adequately addressed by someone else. This in turn prevents people from expressing support for EU coordinated response against disasters. Although the survey items measured do not explicitly measure support for “CC policy,” this lack of association can still be interpreted as tentatively supportive of the hypothesis – especially insofar as the policies in question address CC implications indirectly. Importantly, this is distinct from active policy opposition, as this wishful thinking phase suggests a period of apathy towards a problem, rather than outward opposition towards policy which seeks to address the problem. However, based on the additional literature which associated individualism and increased CC policy opposition, this study hypothesised that, in turn, individualism would be positively associated with negative attitudes towards EU coordinated disaster response. However, the findings show no significant correlation between individualism and this attitudinal measure. Leiserowitz ( 2006 ), in demonstrating the correlation between individualism and CC policy opposition within an American sample, similarly cites the wishful thinking theory as a way of understanding this opposition to CC policy. At first glance, this might appear to contradict the findings of the present study. However, it may be better understood by considering the type of CC policy being measured in each study. In this study, the policies measured – EU-coordinated disaster response – do not impose direct personal costs or behavioural requirements (beyond expressing support/voting for) on individuals, but rather assess support for intergovernmental cooperation. In contrast, in Leiserowitz’s study, the CC policies described to participants included those which would impose civil restrictions, such as restrictions on fossil fuel burning. These are policies which have the potential to directly impact individuals after their implementation. This demonstrates how this study supports the notion that individualist countries are susceptible to a wishful thinking phase. However, it suggests reasoning for its differing implications on support for different types of CC policy. Applying this interpretation to wishful thinking theory, this may suggest that cultural individualism will (a) be correlated with higher opposition to policies with potentially disadvantageous implications for civilians, and (b) not be significantly correlated with policies which address CC without having potentially disadvantageous implications for civilians. This indicates the importance of distinguishing between these different types of CC policies. A potential way of conceptualising this divide is between mitigatory policies (which aim to reduce the causes of CC, often through behavioural or economic restrictions) and adaptive policies (which focus on managing the impacts of CC, such as in the case of this studies’ measures.). This distinction may also explain why Kahan’s (1997; 2008 ; 2010 ) notion of “cultural cognition theory” (CCT) – which associates individualism with heightened scepticism towards CC policy – does not appear to be applicable in the context of this study. The supposed role of CCT in the relationship between I-C and CC policy support is premised upon policy which hinders free commerce and industry, which implies mitigatory policy (such as carbon taxes or industry regulations) rather than adaptive policies. Thus, separating pro-environmental (mitigatory) policy and disaster relief (adaptive) policy is a viable way of understanding this distinction. The difference between the findings in this study and those common in the literature could indicate that there is a discrepancy in how I-C impacts peoples’ attitudes towards mitigation policy and adaption policy. Future studies looking at this relationship could include a wider range of attitudinal measures which include CC policies that are both mitigatory and adaptive. This underscores the importance of distinguishing between different forms of climate change-related policy. This lens highlights the absence of literature on the relationship between I-C and support for adaptive CC policy, suggesting that the relationship between individualism and CC policy support may be mediated by the perceived implications of the policy for individual autonomy or economic freedom. By incorporating adaptive CC policy measures into future studies, we could greatly enhance our understanding of the relationship between I-C and policy support, and the aspects of certain policies which can mediate this relationship. 5.3 Implications for policy success The findings are illustrative of the relationship between cultural dimensions and CC-related policy support. Vu ( 2023 ) found that high national individualism was indicative of a higher degree of success of CC policy. Due to the disconnect between pro-environmental attitudes and CC policy in the literature, the role of CC attitudes driving CC policy was minimised in lieu of other factors (such as gender and governance strength driving successful CC policy.) However, the rejection of H2 suggests that this notion of a disconnect may not be accurate. While this hypothesis suggested that other factors outweighed attitudes in driving policy, the findings of this study suggest that individualism is predictive of pro-environmental attitudes and policy success, which may have the ability to compliment each other. While this focus does not lie strictly within the remit of this study, this discrepancy between the literature and the findings within this study suggest that further examination of individualism as a driver of CC policy success (considering attitudes) could be of value. Moreover, the unique significance of the QC6.1 item – measuring support for intra-EU disaster relief policy – adds an additional aspect to the discussion of the role of I-C within CC-related policy performance. That this specific measure showed a significant relationship with individualism suggests that certain forms of adaptive CC-related policy may be more culturally resonant than others, particularly as in this case, where the policy is framed as reciprocal, intra-group support. This has potential implications for policy performance (insofar as policy support is indicative of policy success), as it highlights that individualist populations may be more receptive of adaptive CC-related policies when they are framed as potentially benefitting their own country or collective identity, such as the EU. 5.4 Policy & messaging recommendations The findings of this study also have implications for how we approach tailoring policy and messaging strategies to countries across the I-C dimension, considering there is strong evidence showing that people’s receptiveness to policy initiatives can be largely conditioned on framing which affirms their values (Cohen et al., 2000 ; 2007 ). The findings relating to H1 and H2 offer insights for policy formation. The absence of a strong I-C effect suggests the I-C as a cultural dimension does not act as a barrier to public support for this form of adaptive policy, and thus, is not of much value in considering for policymakers. However, the QC6.1 item – asking respondents whether EU countries should provide disaster relief to other EU countries overwhelmed by disasters – did reveal a significant positive relationship with individualism when analysed independently. This indicates that support for intra-EU disaster relief, as a more specific form of adaptive policy, may be more susceptible to influence from cultural values in a way that or less-context specific policies are not. Considering this, policymakers should account for not only the content of CC-related policies, but also how solidarity and group affiliation are framed, as these may mediate the public support necessary for effective implementation. Furthermore, this finding could prompt future research exploring how perceived in-group membership (e.g., within the EU) interacts with the I-C dimension in shaping support for specific types of adaptive policy. Further exploration of this dynamic could offer valuable insights for tailoring policy framing and messaging strategies at national and supranational levels. 5.5 Limitations This study ran into a number of limitations which should be noted. Acknowledging these is crucial for a balanced interpretation of findings, and the implications of findings. In future similar studies these should be sought to be addressed or accounted for. 5.5.1 Sample size issues This study relied on country-level I-C measures compared with individual-level survey data, reducing sample size and statistical power. In addition, the focus on a European sample limited variation in I-C values compared to a global sample. Future studies could use individual-level cultural data or expand to non-European contexts to improve robustness 5.5.2 Measurement Issues As mentioned, the Eurobarometer variables used did not explicitly measure just CC-implicated disasters. In future studies, the use of measures which more explicitly addressed CC-implicated disasters may prompt a different set of findings. However, equally, it could be argued that shifting the framing of a measure to explicitly refer to “disasters caused by climate change” could skew individual’s responses unduly. CC is resulting in a vast increase in these types of disasters, as is outlined by the European Commission ( 2024a ) in their discussion of their coordinated action against disasters. As such, CC is inherently and increasingly implicated in the discussion of these policies, whether or not it is explicitly stated in the variables measuring opinions on them. However, running reframed questions, directly referencing CC, could corroborate the importance of framing in policy messaging – that is, if the results were significantly altered as has been suggested they could be. 5.6 Conclusion This study set out to explore the relationship between I-C and support for coordinated EU disaster-relief policy across European countries. In analysing national-level individualism scores with aggregated individual-level survey data, this research contributed to the very limited discussion on the cultural drivers of adaptive CC-policy support. No significant relationship was found between I-C and support for coordinated EU disaster relief policy. While this aligns with H1, that individualist would not demonstrate increased support for CC-related policies (consistent with “wishful thinking” theory), it contradicts H2, which proposed that individualist populations would express active opposition to CC-related policy. This finding led to a discussion of mitigatory versus adaptive CC policy, and consequently how the type of policy may act in a mediating role in the relationship between I-C and support for CC-related policy. The findings of this study additionally highlight that I-C not only have potential to influence attitudes but may also condition the effectiveness of policy messaging strategies. In this respect, individualist cultures may be more receptive to policies which emphasise personal agency and responsibility, while collectivist societies are likely to respond more effectively to messaging grounding in social norms and collective obligation. These recommendations, while offering broad insights into potential alignment between cultural values and CC policy and communication strategies, are necessarily broad. Future work should explore how these insights play out in specific national contexts to inform more targeted and effective policy design based on national I-C. Although this study faced some limitations in scope – namely due to sample size, regional focus, and methodological reliance on available survey measures – it acts as a valuable contribution to the literature and a basis for future research. Ultimately, this study reinforces the importance of considering the I-C dimension in understanding CC-related attitudes, and in how this may impact policy messaging and receptivity. Ethics Statement This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors Declarations Ethics Statement This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors Funding: None Author Contribution J.H.P. research, wrote, and reviewed the manuscript Acknowledgement Dr Philip Curry (supervised my research process, although not carrying out any research) Data Availability This study is based on Eurobarometer data available from the GESIS Data Archive ( [https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer](https:/www.gesis.org/eurobarometer) ). The derived datasets and analysis scripts used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References ABDELZAHER DM, MARTYNOV A, ZAHER AMA (2020) Vulnerability to climate change: Are innovative countries in a better position? Res Int Bus Finance 51:101098 ASHTON MC, MAIO DANSOHA, ESSES GR (2005) 2005 V. M., BOND, M. H. & KEUNG, D. K. Y. Two dimensions of political attitudes and their individual difference correlates: A cross-cultural perspective. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ, 1–29 BALLEW MT, GOLDBERG PEARSONAR, M. H., ROSENTHAL, S. A., LEISEROWITZ A (2020) Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob Environ Change 60:102024 CHEN S, DUCKWORTH K, CHAIKEN S (1999) Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychol Inq 10:44–49 CLANCY CP, SOLOMON SB (2015) A Survey on Climate Change: How Beliefs Shape Responsibility. J Environ Resource Econ Colby 2:21 COHEN GL, ARONSON J, STEELE CM (2000) When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26:1151–1164 COHEN GL, BASTARDI SHERMANDK, HSU A, MCGOEY L, M., ROSS L (2007) Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. J Personal Soc Psychol 93:415 DOUGLAS M, WILDAVSKY A (1982a) How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process Wiley Online Library DOUGLAS M, WILDAVSKY A (1982b) How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process 1. Wiley Online Library EOM K, KIM HS, SHERMAN DK, ISHII K (2016) Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychol Sci 27:1331–1339 EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2024a) Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) [Online]. European Commission: European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Available: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc_en [Accessed December 4 2024] EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2024b) #TogetherOneStepAhead [Online]. European Commission: European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Available: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/resources-campaigns/campaigns/together-one-step-ahead-climate-disasters_en#:~:text=When%20countries%20in%20Europe%20and,of%20the%20EU's%20disaster%20response . [Accessed December 4 2024] EUROPEAN UNION (2025) About Eurobarometer [Online]. europa.eu. Available: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/about/eurobarometer [Accessed February 12 2025] GLOBAL CARBON ATLAS (2023) Global Carbon Atlas [Online]. globalcarbonatlas.org. Available: https://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/ [Accessed March 18 2025] GOLDWERT D, BAO YE, DOELL KC, VAN BAVEL JJ, VLASCEANU M (2024) The effects of climate action interventions along cultural individualism-collectivism. OSF HALE T (2024) Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time. Princeton University Press HODGSON GM (2007) Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organ Stud 28:95–116 HOFSTEDE G (1980) Culture and organizations. Int Stud Manage Organ 10:15–41 HOFSTEDE G (2001) Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA HOFSTEDE G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings Psychol Cult 2:8 HOWLETT M, RAMESH M (2005) The policy cycle: a model of post-Machiavellian policy making? Australian J Public Adm 64:3–13 HUI CH (1988) Measurement of individualism-collectivism. J Res Pers 22:17–36 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS (2022) Human Development Index (HDI) [Online]. United Nations Development Programme. Available: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI [Accessed March 19 2025] IBM CORP (2023) IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh. 29.0.2.0 Armonk ed. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (2023) GDP, current prices [Online]. imf.org Available: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/EUQ [Accessed March 22 2025] KAHAN D (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463:296–297 KAHAN D, PETERS E, BRAMAN D, SLOVIC P, WITTLIN M, LARRIMORE OUELLETTE L, MANDEL G 2011a. The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: Culture conflict, rationality conflict, and climate change KAHAN DM (2008) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. HANDBOOK OF RISK THEORY, S. Roeser, ed., Forthcoming, Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper KAHAN DM, BRAMAN D, SLOVIC P, GASTIL J, COHEN G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90 KAHAN DM, JENKINS-SMITH H, BRAMAN D (2011b) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174 KAHAN DM, PETERS E, WITTLIN M, SLOVIC P, OUELLETTE LL, BRAMAN D, MANDEL G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim change 2:732–735 KASHIMA Y, KASHIMA ES (2003) Individualism, GNP, climate, and pronoun drop: Is individualism determined by affluence and climate, or does language use play a role? J Cross-Cult Psychol 34:125–134 KIM Y, CHOI SM (2005) Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Adv Consum Res 32:592 KINGDON JW, STANO E (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown Boston LASSWELL HD, LERNER D (1951) The policy orientation. Communication researchers and policy–making , 85–102 LEISEROWITZ A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45–72 LYNN J, PEEVA N (2021) Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle. Clim Change 169:18 MALIK TH, YAZAR, O. H., YANG Z (2024) National wealth, cultural moderators and pollution mortality: a panel analysis of 170 countries. Digit Econ Sustainable Dev 2:11 NARTOVA-BOCHAVER SK, DONAT M, KORNEEV UCARGK, HEIDMETS AA, KAMBLE ME, LARIONOW SKHACHATRYANNKRYAZHIV (2022) P. & RODRÍGUEZ-GONZÁLEZ, D. The role of environmental identity and individualism/collectivism in predicting climate change denial: Evidence from nine countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 84, 101899 NAUGES C, WHEELER, S. A., FIELDING KS (2021) The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: The mediating role of control. Environ Dev Sustain, 1–23 OYSERMAN D, COON HM, KEMMELMEIER M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol Bull 128:3 PHAM HN, THAI, N. T., HEFFERNAN, T. W., REYNOLDS N (2024) Environmental policies and the promotion of pro-environmental consumer behavior: a systematic literature review. J Macromarketing 44:30–58 PITLIK H, RODE M (2017) Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes. J Institutional Econ 13:575–598 RISSE T, SIKKINK K (1999) The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction. Camb Stud Int Relations 66:1–38 SCHWARTZ SH, BILSKY W (1990) Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. J Personal Soc Psychol 58:878 SCOTT JC (1972) Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. Am Polit Sci Rev 66:91–113 SHERMAN DK, HANDY UPDEGRAFFJA, EOM MS, K., KIM HS (2022) Beliefs and social norms as precursors of environmental support: The joint influence of collectivism and socioeconomic status. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 48:463–477 SHI J, VISSCHERS, V. H. M., SIEGRIST M (2015) Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Anal 35:2183–2201 SMITH N, LEISEROWITZ A (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 34:937–948 SPENCE A, POORTINGA W, PIDGEON N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis: Int J 32:957–972 SPONG H (2019) Individuality and habits in institutional economics. J Institutional Econ 15:791–809 STOUTENBOROUGH JW, BROMLEY-TRUJILLO R, VEDLITZ A (2014) Public support for climate change policy: consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across specific policy alternatives. Rev Policy Res 31:555–583 THE CULTURE FACTOR GROUP (2023) Country Comparison Tool [Online]. Available: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool [Accessed February 16 2025] TRIANDIS HC (1995) Individualism & collectivism. Westview, Boulder, CO, US TRIANDIS HC (2001) Individualism-collectivism and personality. J Pers 69:907–924 TRIANDIS HC, GELFAND MJ (2012) A theory of individualism and collectivism. Handb Theor social Psychol, 2 VU TV (2023) Individualism and climate change policies: International evidence. J Econ Dev 25:22–36 WARD P, SHIVELY G (2012) Vulnerability, income growth and climate change. World Dev 40:916–927 WELLS VK, PONTING, C. A., PEATTIE K (2011) Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility. J Mark Manage 27:808–833 XIANG P, ZHANG H, ZHOU GENGL, K., WU Y (2019) Individualist–collectivist differences in climate change inaction: The role of perceived intractability. Front Psychol 10:187 YANKELOVICH D (1991) Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. (No Title YANKELOVICH D (2002) The seven stages of public opinion. 7. Appendices 4.3 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated response from EU countries in dealing disasters potentially caused by CC? Tables Tables 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 06 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 30 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 21 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7775352","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":546062531,"identity":"054706b1-95c9-4608-8e3d-8e1cf2f8ea9c","order_by":0,"name":"Jude Holland Phelan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Trinity College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jude","middleName":"Holland","lastName":"Phelan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-03 17:23:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96148108,"identity":"60c3919f-250e-4cb3-90c6-034e71eda0cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":330171,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TheroleoftheindividualismcollectivismdimensioninshapingpolicysupportforEUdisasterrelief.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/f1391e9b9a868dce88732f68.docx"},{"id":96148128,"identity":"f1785366-718d-4a44-a3cd-a017b22dc0d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:05","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":233739,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/aeccbede35addb57075fd242.docx"},{"id":96148130,"identity":"9dc7b941-28df-451b-bb34-d7ba6bbebad7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:05","extension":"json","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"80ab5dbf0ff244beb442629a93ece3e0.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/9c370fe97fabe776154a451d.json"},{"id":96148132,"identity":"3038762d-31ea-4339-84f0-858d8ee1476d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:05","extension":"sav","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":469256,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"isolatedeurobarometerrawdata.sav","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/3d92c4b73bd93653ad2eb85a.sav"},{"id":96148135,"identity":"10f67e53-c1b5-43b7-b01a-bee8df85f725","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:06","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":161169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"80ab5dbf0ff244beb442629a93ece3e01enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/5d2144ccb4488e2524518fae.xml"},{"id":96148106,"identity":"c3865d04-ab0d-4225-862f-ce0fcf10faad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":603021,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/56ff85a71f0d5a48a072b408.jpeg"},{"id":96148089,"identity":"726413a4-476c-45e4-87fd-52d501804072","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/bb4c30d860d312c834f28e2c.jpeg"},{"id":96148133,"identity":"697ddaca-fbb6-4bb8-bbdf-41e167bcab68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:06","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":586513,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/71bab45b6c01b5c74c756fb2.jpeg"},{"id":96148126,"identity":"fc7fb89f-fde8-4c17-97cd-78c8d9ae40b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":42141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/e6244ff2dccd69aafa6ef402.jpeg"},{"id":96250327,"identity":"cb806877-cfc0-41f5-bd45-fedf8c538eac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:38:08","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":313178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/ae5017a5215fcd9d6ecb2e70.png"},{"id":96148134,"identity":"1d079bba-4dbe-4fc4-8558-432fd1d263b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:06","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":935,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/a99d6e959a43ac6724bfa157.png"},{"id":96148137,"identity":"7df532e7-2ab1-4f67-af7e-e3c4d36346c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:07","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":318843,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/fd1877dabd56899adcdc89de.png"},{"id":96148120,"identity":"5a54ca8f-56ed-45d7-8516-b73581498b59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9297,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/2a74e06cb2295f6193f103cf.png"},{"id":96148088,"identity":"c78b5722-b312-4e4f-b812-2d8c240e0e81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"xml","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":158555,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"80ab5dbf0ff244beb442629a93ece3e01structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/8edee8bae6519851eaf1cd9c.xml"},{"id":96148107,"identity":"13d10fb4-ec76-4e2b-b09b-4e37f3905010","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"html","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":172059,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/0de01d4a5ddbb5209cdd5419.html"},{"id":96256305,"identity":"7334db16-6708-4e83-beba-2b8df6999a7b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:49:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1091158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/a29d4a04-089f-4178-8116-e39f67c9397e.pdf"},{"id":96148109,"identity":"9ac64937-53a9-4382-bea8-53338beb2d0c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:04","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":31895,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/0f27f737d6feb73167afbd42.docx"},{"id":96148129,"identity":"7a4320b1-33a8-4cd8-a8f7-c2ec496296f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-18 06:54:05","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":233739,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7775352/v1/ca317af6fbd8a7a899b04459.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Role of The Individualism-Collectivism Dimension in Shaping Policy-Support for EU Disaster-Relief","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite the increasing salience of climate change (CC) as a pressing issue facing the earth and its population, any efforts as of yet in addressing either its causes or effects have remained markedly insufficient (Hale, 2024). This discrepancy has prompted a growing body of research exploring why salience has not translated into effective action. This has included the exploration of the role of cultural dimensions within CC-related attitudes and action – although within this there has primarily been a focus on mitigatory CC action and policy, with far less attention given to adaptive responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultural dimensions, through ongoing socialisation, undoubtedly play a role in shaping individuals’ values, and their resulting behaviour (Spong, 2019, Hodgson, 2007). Nonetheless, there remains limited literature focusing on how cultural factors act as drivers of attitudes towards adaptive forms of CC policy – namely, disaster response. One such cultural dimension is \u003cem\u003eindividualism-collectivism (I-C)\u003c/em\u003e. This dimension reflects the extent to which societies prioritise individual autonomy versus group cohesion and shared responsibility (Triandis, 1995). Although I-C has been widely studied in relation to other elements of political attitudes and preferences (Scott, 1972, Ashton et al., 2005, Pitlik and Rode, 2017), and more briefly touched upon regarding its implications for CC-related attitudes, its relationship with disaster relief policy support sits within a distinct gap in the literature. While the existing literature identifies I-C as a salient cultural dimension influencing individual attitudes, it also highlights the need for further research to deepen our understanding of this relationship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings within this emerging literature are mixed. Some studies suggest that collectivist populations exhibit stronger pro-environmental attitudes, driven by an increased sense of shared responsibility and concern for collective welfare (Kim and Choi, 2005, Shi et al., 2015). Others, however, highlight the potential for individualism to promote agency, personal efficacy, and alignment between personal beliefs and behaviour (Eom et al., 2016, Oyserman et al., 2002). Similarly, while some research links individualism with scepticism or opposition to CC-related policy (Leiserowitz, 2006), the specific mechanisms and policy types implicated by these attitudes remain insufficiently explored.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, this study aims to take a more targeted approach, furthering the understanding of how national-level I-C interacts with populations’ attitudes towards adaptive CC-related policy, within the European context. Specifically, this study will place a focus on the relationship between I-C attitudes towards/support for EU CC-related disaster response policy. This focus will allow for a novel understanding of how I-C can interact with disaster response adaptive CC policy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing upon the existing literature examining the relationship between I-C and CC attitudes and behaviours, I predict that heightened national individualism will not be associated with increased support for EU coordinated response to disasters (H1); and furthermore, that heightened national individualism will be indicative of increased opposition for EU coordinated response to disasters (H2). Using cross-national survey data, I find that while\u0026nbsp;individualism is positively correlated with support for intra-EU disaster relief policy, there is no significant relationship between I-C and general support for coordinated EU response to disasters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe paper proceeds as follows: the ‘Literature Review’ introduces I-C as a cultural dimension, and gives an overview of the existing literature connecting this dimension with CC attitudes and behaviour. The ‘Methodology’ outlines the data sources and methodology utilised within this data analysis. Section ‘Findings’ discusses the descriptive results of the analysis. Finally, within the ‘Discussion and Conclusions’, the findings are discussed, alongside their implications (both generally and directly on future policy formation), and some concluding notes are drawn.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndividualism and collectivism (I-C) as a cultural dimension have taken up an increasing space within the climate change (CC) literature, due to the way in which they shape how individuals and societies perceive, respond to, and address environmental challenges. This cultural dimension has been studied in its capacity to influence not only personal attitudes towards CC but also broader societal trends, including policy support, perceived responsibility, and behavioural tendencies. While individualist cultures\u0026rsquo; emphasis on autonomy and personal choice can result in a scepticism toward CC action, their governments are thought to be more successful in implementing pro-environmental policy. Opposingly, while collectivist cultures\u0026rsquo; high degree of shared responsibility seemingly fosters a greater sense of environmental responsibility, their weaker governance does not mirror this in overall CC policy performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following review builds upon Hofstede\u0026rsquo;s cultural dimensions framework to examine the conceptual foundation of the I-C dimension and its role in climate change research. It explores how these cultural values shape risk perception, responsibility attribution, and engagement with pro-environmental behaviours. Additionally, it considers the implications of the I-C dimension for climate inaction, policy resistance, and the broader disconnect between climate concern and policy implementation. By synthesising key findings from studies within the wider literature, this review highlights the interplay between cultural values and climate attitudes (along with its policy implications).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886600\"\u003e2.1 Conceptualising the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) Dimension\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHofstede\u0026rsquo;s (1980) seminal work on cultural dimensions is the most prominent literature within the conceptualisation of the individualism-collectivism (I-C) dimension. He defines individualism as the prioritisation of individual goals over group goals, alongside an emphasis on self-reliance. Conversely, collectivism denotes the prioritisation of goals and needs of a given in-group over an individual\u0026rsquo;s (Hofstede, 1980, 2001, 2011).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividualism and collectivism are not dichotomous concepts, but exist on a spectrum. Triandis (2001), for example, distinguished between vertical and horizontal orientations of individualism and collectivism, while Kahan adapted the framework into \u003cem\u003ehierarchical individualists\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eegalitarian communitarians\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(which itself is an adaptation of Douglas and Wildavsky\u0026rsquo;s (1982b) \u003cem\u003eindividualism-hierarchy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003edimension)(Kahan, 2010, Kahan et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2012). Such uses of augmented frameworks are limited (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2022) or used proprietarily by authors (Kahan), but suggest the potential value of a more nuanced operationalisations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe I-C dimension has become increasingly prominent within the literature. Classically explored as a cultural factor in and of itself (Scott, 1972, Hofstede, 1980, Hui, 1988, Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990), it is increasingly applied alongside its potential implications for other cultural factors (Triandis, 1995, Triandis and Gelfand, 2012). In fact, this singular dimension has been identified as being the most successful way in understanding cultural variation across different societies (Oyserman et al., 2002, Kashima and Kashima, 2003). Such claims provide more-than-apt justification for the continued research on the implications of the I-C dimension, including how it may help us understand people\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards CC-related policy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies have explored how I-C interacts with individual-level climate beliefs such as denial, concern, or perceived personal responsibility (Goldwert et al., 2024, Kim and Choi, 2005, Kahan et al., 2012). While findings are mixed, collectivism is often associate with greater CC concern and a stronger sense of personal responsibility due to heightened group-oriented values (Shi et al., 2015). Although this research primarily concerns personal mitigatory behaviour, it highlights the importance of cultural dimensions in shaping attitudes towards collective challenges \u0026ndash; offering context for understanding support for supranational responses to CC-related crises.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886601\"\u003e2.2 Individualism as a Barrier to Collective Policy Support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA growing literature explores attitudes toward CC action \u0026ndash; who should be taking action and what should this consist of (Wells et al., 2011, Clancy and Solomon, 2015). While links between pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour remain debated (Kim and Choi, 2005, Sherman et al., 2022), I-C appears to help in understanding this relationship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eXiang et al. (2019) establish a pathway between individualism and climate inaction. They do this by showing a correlation between high levels of individualism and increased perception of CC as intractable, which then leads to higher levels of climate inaction. This can be seen within a subsect of the literature which utilises psychological mechanisms to help understand how individualism/collectivism impacts attitudes towards CC action (Chen et al., 1999, Kahan et al., 2012, Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982a). This links to research on \u0026ldquo;Cultural Cognition Theory\u0026rdquo; (CCT), which posits that individuals\u0026rsquo; perceptions of risk form in ways that reflect and reinforce their cultural values and group identities (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982a, Kahan et al., 2009).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough this lens, individualists, typically prioritising autonomy, free market, and limited government intervention, are inclined to perceive large-scale, state-led efforts to address CC as threatening to their cultural worldview (Kahan, 2010, Kahan et al., 2012). This can result in both scepticism toward collective action and reduced support for government-led climate policy. Thus, CCT offers a theoretical basis for expecting cultural individualism to act as a potential barrier to collective CC policy support.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, pro-environmental behaviour can be understood as extending past people\u0026rsquo;s individual pro-ecological behaviour to support for CC policy (Pham et al., 2024, Stoutenborough et al., 2014). Individualist societies have been argued as prone to a \u0026ldquo;wishful thinking phase of opinion formation (Yankelovich, 1991, Yankelovich, 2002), within which they still think that their perceived problem of CC can be adequately addressed by someone else (government, other countries etc.) without them individually having to change their priorities or contradict their own self-interest. This grounds the next prediction that I make for this study:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH1: Positing CC policy support as a form of pro-environmental behaviour, it is expected that heightened national individualism will not be associated with an increased degree of support for coordinate disaster relief policy, through the lens of this wishful thinking thesis.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, studies have argued that individualism is highly predictive of CC policy opposition \u0026ndash; more so even than both political party affiliation or political ideology (Ballew et al., 2020, Leiserowitz, 2006, Smith and Leiserowitz, 2014). In a study examining the extent to which Americans\u0026rsquo; climate policy preferences were moderated by individuals\u0026rsquo; values, Leiserowitz (2006) showed how stronger individualism was indicative of increased opposition towards climate policies. This is argued to be a result of general resistance to government intervention and preference for market-based solutions (characteristics theoretically aligned with individualism) leading to opposition towards CC policies. Based on this, a final prediction is made, pertaining to the relationship between I-C and CC policy support:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH2: Beyond a lack of increase of policy support, individualism will be correlated with a significant decrease in positive attitudes towards CC policy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile these hypotheses examine the role of cultural individualism in shaping CC-related attitudes, it is worth noting that the implications of such attitudes for actual policy outcomes are somewhat contested. As will be discussed in the forthcoming policy performance section of this review, some scholars have suggested that structural or institutional features of individualist cultures, such as robust governance, may be more significant in their influence on policy outcomes than public attitudes themselves (Vu, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886602\"\u003e2.3 I-C and CC Policy Performance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving examined the affect of I-C on climate action and inaction, it is intuitive to move to looking at if/how this affects actual policy performance on a national and international scale. According to assumptions within norm diffusion models (Risse and Sikkink, 1999) as well as the \u0026lsquo;policy cycle\u0026rsquo; (Kingdon and Stano, 1984, Lasswell and Lerner, 1951, Howlett and Ramesh, 2005), increased public salience of climate change as a problem should lead to more successful implementation of policy addressing this problem. This would further indicate that countries with a more pro-environmental public \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e have more success in implementing corresponding policy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVu (2023), analysing 92 countries, found a positive correlation between national individualism and successful climate change policy performance. This finding presents an interesting contrast to H2, which predict that individualism is associated with lower perceived personal responsibility to reduce CC and reduced support for CC-related policy, raising the question of the extent of the role of public attitudes and policy support in creating substantive policy change. If H2 is confirmed, this would suggest that other biproducts of cultural individualism (e.g., governance strength) are more influential of policy change than public attitudinal differences. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886603\"\u003e2.4 Policy and Messaging Strategies Within Countries Spanning the I-C Divide\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis raises the question of how to address this policy performance disparity, considering the cultural factors at play. This has created a space within the literature addressing various challenges faced in crafting policies and messaging strategies that cater to cultural differences spanning the I-C divide. Research highlights the strength of tailored approaches that align with prevailing cultural values in enhancing policy effectiveness\u0026nbsp;(Vu, 2023). Additionally, if the hypotheses tested in this study are confirmed, they have significant implications for CC policy and communication strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCohen et al. (2000, 2007) demonstrate that people are more receptive to policy initiatives when information is framed in a way that affirms, rather than threatens their existing beliefs.\u0026nbsp;Thus, if the expectations of this study hold, they have implications for the communication of CC policy strategies. Accounting for the tendency of populations to support/oppose types of CC policy (H2) have direct implications for formulating and messaging policies catered to specific populations. Understanding and incorporating these factors, alongside the broader optimal policy strategies based on individualism-collectivism, will enhance the potential effectiveness of climate policy development and messaging. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs CC intensifies, understanding cultural drivers of policy support will be increasingly important in designing effective policy interventions that resonate across different societal contexts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Methodology","content":"\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Introduction\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examines the relationship between the I-C dimension, on a national-level, and adaptive CC policy attitudes, measured through aggregated individual-level survey data, focusing on support for coordinated EU disaster relief. In line with research aims, a secondary quantitative analysis examines national individualism scores against Eurobarometer survey data to establish a deeper understanding of how cultural-level factors have the potential to shape support for policy addressing largescale, environmental challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886606\"\u003e3.2 Data sources \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886607\"\u003e3.2.1 Individualism index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe independent variable \u0026ndash; national-level individualism \u0026ndash; is drawn from the \u003cem\u003eCountry Comparison Tool\u003c/em\u003e (The Culture Factor Group, 2023), an index which assigns countries scores on a 0-100 across Hofstede\u0026rsquo;s five cultural dimensions (including individualism.) The latest index scores will be utilised, updated October 16, 2023. The scores are derived from survey responses collected through large-scale, cross-national studies such as the World Values Survey (WVS) and within the literature.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe individualism scores for the countries in this study range from 42 to 100 on a 0\u0026ndash;100 scale, with a mean score of approximately 67.4 and standard deviation of 14.8, indicating the sample skews moderately individualistic.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886608\"\u003e3.2.2 Climate change-related attitudes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupport for coordinated-EU disaster relief policy is measured using data from the Special Eurobarometer 541 (European Union, 2025). This study uses individual-level data from the Eurobarometer dataset to construct a composite scale of support for coordinated EU disaster relief. This survey was conducted in September-October 2023, aligning with the latest available I-C scores used (updated October, 2023), ensuring temporal consistency. Table 1 and 2 seen below outlines the sample of respondents to the Special Eurobarometer 541 survey. After excluding Cyprus (n=503) due to missing I-C data, the final sample included 25,975 respondents.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886609\"\u003e3.3 Variables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll variables included within this study were chosen in line with the research aims of best understanding the relationship between the I-C cultural dimension and adaptive CC-policy support. They can be thought of within three sub-groups of variables within the context of this research project: (a) national individualism index (independent variable); (b) Eurobarometer survey questions (dependent variables); and (c) control variables. Because the survey questions were converted to country-level data, and being analysed on this level, country level control variables could be introduced from various data sources without problems arising for the analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886610\"\u003e3.3.1 National individualism index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis score attributed to each country within the Country Comparison Tool acted as the central, independent variable within this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886611\"\u003e3.3.2 Climate change-related attitudes \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree Special Eurobarometer 541 questions were adopted to measure attitudes towards EU coordinated response against disasters: QC6.1, \u0026ldquo;When a disaster strikes in an EU country that is too big to deal with on their own, other EU countries should provide help\u0026rdquo;; QC6.2, \u0026ldquo;When a disaster strikes in a country outside the EU that is too big to deal with on their own, EU countries should provide help\u0026rdquo;; and QC6.3, \u0026ldquo;To deal more effectively with disasters and crises in the future, coordinated EU action should be increased.\u0026rdquo; Upon observing high correlation between the answers to these questions, and a high Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha for all three items (a = 0.8), a Likert scale was created, as a new, more robust variable measuring general positive or negative sentiment towards EU coordinated response against disasters. Although this new variable would be more robust, and take precedent in drawing implications of findings, each item in the scale was also analysed individually against national individualism to examine whether any more nuanced relationships could be observed regarding specific aspects of EU coordinated response. While the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha of 0.8 indicates strong internal consistency among the survey items, it does not reach the height of precluding meaningful variation between each. Additionally, observed discrepancies in the relationship between individualism and the individual items further justify examining each measure separately, rather than relying solely on the composite scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the Eurobarometer measures used in this study do not explicitly reference CC, the European Commission increasingly frame the ERCC as central to the EU\u0026rsquo;s response to climate-related emergencies (European Commission, 2024b).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886612\"\u003e3.3.3 Control Variables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt this point of the analysis, a number of control variables were incorporated. This was to ensure that any significant relationships observed had not been unduly influenced by other national-level factors. Given that attitudinal variables can be highly susceptible to influence from an array of cultural and political conditions, controlling for highly salient variables helped to isolate the specific effect of I-C.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarbon emissions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome studies have examined CC attitudes across countries with varying GDP, often suggesting that higher GDP countries host populations with lower concern and sense of personal responsibility towards CC. Explanations such as increased \u003cem\u003epsychological distance\u003c/em\u003e (Spence et al., 2012), and lower vulnerability from CC effects (Ward and Shively, 2012, Abdelzaher et al., 2020) have been suggested, directly implicating the research aims of this study. To account for this, a control variable was incorporated which accounts for national levels of carbon emissions (MtCO2) in 2023 (Global Carbon Atlas, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is also a large literature looking at the impact of education level on political attitudes, including CC policy support. To control for this, \u003cem\u003emean years of schooling\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewas included, utilising the Human Development Index (Human Development Reports, 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGDP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, national GDP was controlled for (International Monetary Fund, 2023), the significance of this being emphasised within the literature (Nauges et al., 2021, Malik et al., 2024). National GDP levels from 2023 were taken to align with the collection period of the survey responses in the core data sources of this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886613\"\u003e3.4 Analysis Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., 2023). In order to meet the aims of the study, data analysis was organised into two phases to initially assess individual relationships between the independent and dependent variables; and then to incorporate control variables. Individualism scores and control variables were manually inputted into a dataset. This was viable as these variables were being taken from their respective data sources as country level measures.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886614\"\u003e3.4.1 Independent relationship analysis of I-C and policy support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividual Eurobarometer survey responses were downloaded as a raw data set. This dataset contained the three variables referenced earlier in relation to attitudes towards EU coordinated action to disasters. Responses were measured on a scale from 1-5 (1 = \u0026ldquo;Totally agree\u0026rdquo;\u0026hellip; 4 = \u0026ldquo;Totally disagree\u0026rdquo;, 5 = \u0026ldquo;Don\u0026rsquo;t know\u0026rdquo;). \u0026ldquo;Don\u0026rsquo;t know\u0026rdquo; responses were excluded as missing values.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt this point, scores were calculated to establish mean responses for each question, aggregated by country to transform the individual-level data into country-level data. The aggregated data provided a measure of general sentiment towards EU coordinated response against disasters, while still allowing each item to be analysed separately to observe potential nuances in the relationship between individualism and specific policy dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886615\"\u003e3.4.2 Multiple Regression Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStandard multiple regression models assessed the relationship between individualism and policy support, controlling for carbon emissions, GDP, and education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings ","content":"\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886617\"\u003e4.1 Introduction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aims of this study were to test for a relationship between the national level Individualism-Collectivism (I-C), as a cultural dimension, and individuals\u0026rsquo; support for adaptive CC-policy, adopting a country-level analytical approach. This study additionally aimed to test the robustness of any relationship found by incorporating a number of control variables. Based on the sources established in the prior chapter, the analysis and findings below have been structured into the following stages to systematically address the stated research aims:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.1 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated response from EU countries in dealing with disasters potentially caused by CC?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.2 Do any relationships found in achieving research aim 1.1 remain significant when accounting for control variables?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc209886618\"\u003e4.2.1 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated EU disaster relief policy?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe next step in the analysis sought to identify the relationship between national individualism and attitudes towards EU collective action, using the scale of survey questions established within the previous chapter. The correlation analysis here sought to examine this relationship. Upon doing so, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r = -0.296) was calculated. However, this correlation is not statistically significant (p = 0.142). Given the sample size (n = 26), further research including a larger sample of EU countries could help in confirming the presence or absence of a meaningful association between these variables. Equally examining individual-level data between I-C and these attitudes could expand the sample size, potentially allowing for similar inferences to be made. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough a Likert scale was created to establish a more robust measure of attitudes towards disaster response action from EU countries, a test was run for the correlation between I-C and the survey question responses individually. While any findings resulting from this would not be as robust, they could potentially assist in creating a more nuanced understanding of a relationship between national I-C and peoples\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards specific policy responses to crises and disasters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation found is between national individualism and \u003cem\u003edisagreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewith each of the statements in question. A significant negative correlation was found between individualism and intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) (r = -0.541, p = 0.004), indicating that individuals from more individualistic countries are less likely to disagree with the statement made in this question. In turn, this indicates that these populations are more likely to support this sentiment, that EU countries should provide aid to fellow EU member states during disasters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, individualism was not statistically significantly correlated with the variables, QC6.2 (r = -0.139, p = 0.499) or QC6.3 (r = -0.007, p = 972). This suggests that individualism does not have a meaningful relationship with support for: (a) EU countries assisting countries that have been struck by disasters outside the EU; or (b) coordinated EU action being increased to be better equipped to deal with disasters. These findings indicate that individualism may influence attitudes towards intra-EU solidarity in tackling disasters, but does not appear to extend to disaster relief to non-EU member states, or significant expansion of the EU coordinated response programme. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc209886619\"\u003e4.2.2 Does this relationship remain significant when accounting for control variables?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second phase of regression modelling within this analysis followed the same approach as the first, with the same control variables introduced. Here, this was to test the strength of the other significant relationship within the initial phases of the analysis: national individualism and agreement with the Eurobarometer survey question QC6.1, \u0026ldquo;When a disaster strikes in an EU country that is too big to deal with on their own, other EU countries should provide help.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarbon emissions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this model, the dependent variable was intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1), while the independent variables used were individualism and national carbon emissions. The adjusted R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of this model is 0.304, indicating that 30.4% of the variance in support for intra-EU disaster relief is explained by individualism and carbon emissions, suggesting moderate collective explanatory power.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eControlling for national carbon emissions, individualism remained significantly predictive of the Eurobarometer measure (\u0026beta; = -.562, p = .003). Opposingly, carbon emissions saw a statistically insignificant relationship within the model (\u0026beta; = .259, p = .136).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith a high level of overall model significance (F(2,23) = 6.453, p = .006), we can deduct that this significance stems from the role of individualism, rather than that played by national carbon emissions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean years of schooling\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis model similarly utilised intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) as its dependent variable, and individualism and mean years of schooling as independent variables. Here, a lower degree of collective explanatory power is revealed (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.239), meaning that 23.9% of the variance in support for EU disaster relief amongst other EU countries can be explained by these variables collectively.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter controlling for national mean years of schooling, I-C remained statistically significantly predictive of the attitudes measured by QC6.1 (\u0026beta; = -.515, p = .01). On the other hand, mean years of schooling did not play a significant role predicting this attitudinal measure (\u0026beta; = -.086, p = .644).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis model also had overall significance (F(2, 23) = 4.92, p = 0.017), which can be explained by the role of individualism rather than that of the education variable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGDP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this model, controlling for GDP, intra-EU disaster relief attitudes (QC6.1) acted as the dependent variable, while individualism and national GDP were the independent variables. Individualism and GDP have a moderate degree of combined explanatory power, with an adjusted R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of 0.280, meaning that 28% of the variance in support for disaster relief within the EU from other EU countries is explained by individualism and GDP combined.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eControlling for the role of GDP, individualism still plays a statistically significant role in predicting the attitudinal measure (\u0026beta; = -.592, p = .003). The role of GDP alone is insignificant within this model, and in shaping the dependent attitudinal variable (\u0026beta; = .217, p = .227).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis model can be deemed as being significant (F(2, 23) = 5.853, p = .009) with p \u0026lt; .01.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of findings\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIllustrated in Table 3, across all three models outlined, individualism consistently remained a significant predictor of support for intra-EU disaster relief (QC6.1). \u0026nbsp;The standardized beta coefficients for individualism ranged from \u0026beta; = -0.515 to \u0026beta; = -0.592, with all p-values below or equal 0.01, confirming the robustness of this relationship. \u0026nbsp;In contrast, none of the control variables had a statistically significant effect on support for intra-EU disaster relief.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Introduction\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough an examination of I-C as a cultural dimension and a set of CC-related survey answers, the current study sought to understand whether I-C had a significant relationship with support for adaptive CC-policy within the European context. Here, the implications of the previously outlined findings will be presented. This will include a discussion of the hypotheses which were rejected and accepted within this study, and the implications this had for the theories that formed them. This will lead to a briefer look of the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and CC policy success, and the place of this study within that discussion. Finally, policy and messaging strategies will be considered, looking at how the findings here add some clarity to existing literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 I-C and EU coordinated disaster response policy support\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to examine the relationship between I-C in European countries and peoples\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards EU coordinated disaster response. This was assessed through a composite scale measuring support for different forms of EU collective action in response to large-scale disasters. While these measures do not explicitly refer to CC, they implicate disaster response policy frameworks increasingly mobilised in the context of CC-related emergencies. Thus, acknowledging this as a methodological limitation, this measure served as a partial proxy for attitudes towards adaptive CC policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed no significant relationship between I-C and attitudes towards EU coordinated response. This aligns with the expectations of the hypothesis informed by Yankelovich\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ldquo;wishful thinking\u0026rdquo; theory, which suggests that populations in more individualistic cultures would not demonstrate an increased degree of support for CC-related policy. This seemingly supports the claim that highly individualistic countries are susceptible to this wishful thinking phase, in which people think that a perceived problem (in this case, CC) can be adequately addressed by someone else. This in turn prevents people from expressing support for EU coordinated response against disasters. Although the survey items measured do not explicitly measure support for \u0026ldquo;CC policy,\u0026rdquo; this lack of association can still be interpreted as tentatively supportive of the hypothesis \u0026ndash; especially insofar as the policies in question address CC implications indirectly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, this is distinct from active policy opposition, as this wishful thinking phase suggests a period of apathy towards a problem, rather than outward opposition towards policy which seeks to address the problem. However, based on the additional literature which associated individualism and increased CC policy opposition, this study hypothesised that, in turn, individualism would be positively associated with negative attitudes towards EU coordinated disaster response. However, the findings show no significant correlation between individualism and this attitudinal measure. Leiserowitz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), in demonstrating the correlation between individualism and CC policy opposition within an American sample, similarly cites the wishful thinking theory as a way of understanding this opposition to CC policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt first glance, this might appear to contradict the findings of the present study. However, it may be better understood by considering the type of CC policy being measured in each study. In this study, the policies measured \u0026ndash; EU-coordinated disaster response \u0026ndash; do not impose direct personal costs or behavioural requirements (beyond expressing support/voting for) on individuals, but rather assess support for intergovernmental cooperation. In contrast, in Leiserowitz\u0026rsquo;s study, the CC policies described to participants included those which would impose civil restrictions, such as restrictions on fossil fuel burning. These are policies which have the potential to directly impact individuals after their implementation. This demonstrates how this study supports the notion that individualist countries are susceptible to a wishful thinking phase. However, it suggests reasoning for its differing implications on support for different types of CC policy. Applying this interpretation to wishful thinking theory, this may suggest that cultural individualism will (a) be correlated with higher opposition to policies with potentially disadvantageous implications for civilians, and (b) not be significantly correlated with policies which address CC without having potentially disadvantageous implications for civilians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis indicates the importance of distinguishing between these different types of CC policies. A potential way of conceptualising this divide is between \u003cem\u003emitigatory\u003c/em\u003e policies (which aim to reduce the causes of CC, often through behavioural or economic restrictions) and \u003cem\u003eadaptive\u003c/em\u003e policies (which focus on managing the impacts of CC, such as in the case of this studies\u0026rsquo; measures.). This distinction may also explain why Kahan\u0026rsquo;s (1997; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) notion of \u0026ldquo;cultural cognition theory\u0026rdquo; (CCT) \u0026ndash; which associates individualism with heightened scepticism towards CC policy \u0026ndash; does not appear to be applicable in the context of this study. The supposed role of CCT in the relationship between I-C and CC policy support is premised upon policy which hinders free commerce and industry, which implies mitigatory policy (such as carbon taxes or industry regulations) rather than adaptive policies. Thus, separating pro-environmental (mitigatory) policy and disaster relief (adaptive) policy is a viable way of understanding this distinction. The difference between the findings in this study and those common in the literature could indicate that there is a discrepancy in how I-C impacts peoples\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards mitigation policy and adaption policy. Future studies looking at this relationship could include a wider range of attitudinal measures which include CC policies that are both mitigatory and adaptive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis underscores the importance of distinguishing between different forms of climate change-related policy. This lens highlights the absence of literature on the relationship between I-C and support for \u003cem\u003eadaptive\u003c/em\u003e CC policy, suggesting that the relationship between individualism and CC policy support may be mediated by the perceived implications of the policy for individual autonomy or economic freedom. By incorporating adaptive CC policy measures into future studies, we could greatly enhance our understanding of the relationship between I-C and policy support, and the aspects of certain policies which can mediate this relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Implications for policy success\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings are illustrative of the relationship between cultural dimensions and CC-related policy support. Vu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found that high national individualism was indicative of a higher degree of success of CC policy. Due to the disconnect between pro-environmental attitudes and CC policy in the literature, the role of CC attitudes driving CC policy was minimised in lieu of other factors (such as gender and governance strength driving successful CC policy.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the rejection of H2 suggests that this notion of a disconnect may not be accurate. While this hypothesis suggested that other factors outweighed attitudes in driving policy, the findings of this study suggest that individualism is predictive of pro-environmental attitudes \u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e policy success, which may have the ability to compliment each other. While this focus does not lie strictly within the remit of this study, this discrepancy between the literature and the findings within this study suggest that further examination of individualism as a driver of CC policy success (considering attitudes) could be of value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the unique significance of the QC6.1 item \u0026ndash; measuring support for intra-EU disaster relief policy \u0026ndash; adds an additional aspect to the discussion of the role of I-C within CC-related policy performance. That this specific measure showed a significant relationship with individualism suggests that certain forms of adaptive CC-related policy may be more culturally resonant than others, particularly as in this case, where the policy is framed as reciprocal, intra-group support. This has potential implications for policy performance (insofar as policy support is indicative of policy success), as it highlights that individualist populations may be more receptive of adaptive CC-related policies when they are framed as potentially benefitting their own country or collective identity, such as the EU.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.4 Policy \u0026amp; messaging recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study also have implications for how we approach tailoring policy and messaging strategies to countries across the I-C dimension, considering there is strong evidence showing that people\u0026rsquo;s receptiveness to policy initiatives can be largely conditioned on framing which affirms their values (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The findings relating to H1 and H2 offer insights for policy formation. The absence of a strong I-C effect suggests the I-C as a cultural dimension does not act as a barrier to public support for this form of adaptive policy, and thus, is not of much value in considering for policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the QC6.1 item \u0026ndash; asking respondents whether EU countries should provide disaster relief to other EU countries overwhelmed by disasters \u0026ndash; did reveal a significant positive relationship with individualism when analysed independently. This indicates that support for intra-EU disaster relief, as a more specific form of adaptive policy, may be more susceptible to influence from cultural values in a way that or less-context specific policies are not. Considering this, policymakers should account for not only the content of CC-related policies, but also how solidarity and group affiliation are framed, as these may mediate the public support necessary for effective implementation. Furthermore, this finding could prompt future research exploring how perceived in-group membership (e.g., within the EU) interacts with the I-C dimension in shaping support for specific types of adaptive policy. Further exploration of this dynamic could offer valuable insights for tailoring policy framing and messaging strategies at national and supranational levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.5 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study ran into a number of limitations which should be noted. Acknowledging these is crucial for a balanced interpretation of findings, and the implications of findings. In future similar studies these should be sought to be addressed or accounted for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.5.1 Sample size issues\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study relied on country-level I-C measures compared with individual-level survey data, reducing sample size and statistical power. In addition, the focus on a European sample limited variation in I-C values compared to a global sample. Future studies could use individual-level cultural data or expand to non-European contexts to improve robustness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.5.2 Measurement Issues\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned, the Eurobarometer variables used did not explicitly measure just CC-implicated disasters. In future studies, the use of measures which more explicitly addressed CC-implicated disasters may prompt a different set of findings. However, equally, it could be argued that shifting the framing of a measure to explicitly refer to \u0026ldquo;disasters caused by climate change\u0026rdquo; could skew individual\u0026rsquo;s responses unduly. CC is resulting in a vast increase in these types of disasters, as is outlined by the European Commission (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e) in their discussion of their coordinated action against disasters. As such, CC is inherently and increasingly implicated in the discussion of these policies, whether or not it is explicitly stated in the variables measuring opinions on them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, running reframed questions, directly referencing CC, could corroborate the importance of framing in policy messaging \u0026ndash; that is, if the results were significantly altered as has been suggested they could be.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.6 Conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to explore the relationship between I-C and support for coordinated EU disaster-relief policy across European countries. In analysing national-level individualism scores with aggregated individual-level survey data, this research contributed to the very limited discussion on the cultural drivers of adaptive CC-policy support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo significant relationship was found between I-C and support for coordinated EU disaster relief policy. While this aligns with H1, that individualist would not demonstrate increased support for CC-related policies (consistent with \u0026ldquo;wishful thinking\u0026rdquo; theory), it contradicts H2, which proposed that individualist populations would express active opposition to CC-related policy. This finding led to a discussion of mitigatory versus adaptive CC policy, and consequently how the \u003cem\u003etype\u003c/em\u003e of policy may act in a mediating role in the relationship between I-C and support for CC-related policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study additionally highlight that I-C not only have potential to influence attitudes but may also condition the effectiveness of policy messaging strategies. In this respect, individualist cultures may be more receptive to policies which emphasise personal agency and responsibility, while collectivist societies are likely to respond more effectively to messaging grounding in social norms and collective obligation. These recommendations, while offering broad insights into potential alignment between cultural values and CC policy and communication strategies, are necessarily broad. Future work should explore how these insights play out in specific national contexts to inform more targeted and effective policy design based on national I-C.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study faced some limitations in scope \u0026ndash; namely due to sample size, regional focus, and methodological reliance on available survey measures \u0026ndash; it acts as a valuable contribution to the literature and a basis for future research. Ultimately, this study reinforces the importance of considering the I-C dimension in understanding CC-related attitudes, and in how this may impact policy messaging and receptivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics Statement\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics Statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJ.H.P. research, wrote, and reviewed the manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDr Philip Curry (supervised my research process, although not carrying out any research)\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study is based on Eurobarometer data available from the GESIS Data Archive ( [https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer](https:/www.gesis.org/eurobarometer) ). The derived datasets and analysis scripts used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eABDELZAHER DM, MARTYNOV A, ZAHER AMA (2020) Vulnerability to climate change: Are innovative countries in a better position? Res Int Bus Finance 51:101098\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eASHTON MC, MAIO DANSOHA, ESSES GR (2005) 2005 V. M., BOND, M. H. \u0026amp; KEUNG, D. K. Y. Two dimensions of political attitudes and their individual difference correlates: A cross-cultural perspective. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ, 1\u0026ndash;29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBALLEW MT, GOLDBERG PEARSONAR, M. H., ROSENTHAL, S. A., LEISEROWITZ A (2020) Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob Environ Change 60:102024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHEN S, DUCKWORTH K, CHAIKEN S (1999) Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychol Inq 10:44\u0026ndash;49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCLANCY CP, SOLOMON SB (2015) A Survey on Climate Change: How Beliefs Shape Responsibility. J Environ Resource Econ Colby 2:21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCOHEN GL, ARONSON J, STEELE CM (2000) When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26:1151\u0026ndash;1164\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCOHEN GL, BASTARDI SHERMANDK, HSU A, MCGOEY L, M., ROSS L (2007) Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. J Personal Soc Psychol 93:415\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDOUGLAS M, WILDAVSKY A (1982a) How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process Wiley Online Library\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDOUGLAS M, WILDAVSKY A (1982b) How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process 1. Wiley Online Library\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEOM K, KIM HS, SHERMAN DK, ISHII K (2016) Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychol Sci 27:1331\u0026ndash;1339\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEUROPEAN COMMISSION (2024a) \u003cem\u003eEmergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC)\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. European Commission: European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc_en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc_en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed December 4 2024]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEUROPEAN COMMISSION (2024b) \u003cem\u003e#TogetherOneStepAhead\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. European Commission: European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/resources-campaigns/campaigns/together-one-step-ahead-climate-disasters_en#:~:text=When%20countries%20in%20Europe%20and,of%20the%20EU's%20disaster%20response\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/resources-campaigns/campaigns/together-one-step-ahead-climate-disasters_en#:~:text=When%20countries%20in%20Europe%20and,of%20the%20EU's%20disaster%20response\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. [Accessed December 4 2024]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEUROPEAN UNION (2025) \u003cem\u003eAbout Eurobarometer\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. europa.eu. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://europa.eu/eurobarometer/about/eurobarometer\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/about/eurobarometer\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed February 12 2025]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGLOBAL CARBON ATLAS (2023) \u003cem\u003eGlobal Carbon Atlas\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. globalcarbonatlas.org. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed March 18 2025]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGOLDWERT D, BAO YE, DOELL KC, VAN BAVEL JJ, VLASCEANU M (2024) The effects of climate action interventions along cultural individualism-collectivism. OSF\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHALE T (2024) Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time. Princeton University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHODGSON GM (2007) Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organ Stud 28:95\u0026ndash;116\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHOFSTEDE G (1980) Culture and organizations. Int Stud Manage Organ 10:15\u0026ndash;41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHOFSTEDE G (2001) Culture\u0026rsquo;s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHOFSTEDE G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings Psychol Cult 2:8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHOWLETT M, RAMESH M (2005) The policy cycle: a model of post-Machiavellian policy making? Australian J Public Adm 64:3\u0026ndash;13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHUI CH (1988) Measurement of individualism-collectivism. J Res Pers 22:17\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS (2022) \u003cem\u003eHuman Development Index (HDI)\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. United Nations Development Programme. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed March 19 2025]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIBM CORP (2023) IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh. 29.0.2.0 Armonk ed. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eINTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (2023) \u003cem\u003eGDP, current prices\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. imf.org Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/EUQ\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/EUQ\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed March 22 2025]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN D (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463:296\u0026ndash;297\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN D, PETERS E, BRAMAN D, SLOVIC P, WITTLIN M, LARRIMORE OUELLETTE L, MANDEL G 2011a. The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: Culture conflict, rationality conflict, and climate change\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN DM (2008) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. \u003cem\u003eHANDBOOK OF RISK THEORY, S. Roeser, ed., Forthcoming, Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN DM, BRAMAN D, SLOVIC P, GASTIL J, COHEN G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87\u0026ndash;90\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN DM, JENKINS-SMITH H, BRAMAN D (2011b) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147\u0026ndash;174\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKAHAN DM, PETERS E, WITTLIN M, SLOVIC P, OUELLETTE LL, BRAMAN D, MANDEL G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim change 2:732\u0026ndash;735\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKASHIMA Y, KASHIMA ES (2003) Individualism, GNP, climate, and pronoun drop: Is individualism determined by affluence and climate, or does language use play a role? J Cross-Cult Psychol 34:125\u0026ndash;134\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKIM Y, CHOI SM (2005) Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Adv Consum Res 32:592\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKINGDON JW, STANO E (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown Boston\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLASSWELL HD, LERNER D (1951) The policy orientation. \u003cem\u003eCommunication researchers and policy\u0026ndash;making\u003c/em\u003e, 85\u0026ndash;102\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLEISEROWITZ A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45\u0026ndash;72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLYNN J, PEEVA N (2021) Communications in the IPCC\u0026rsquo;s Sixth Assessment Report cycle. Clim Change 169:18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMALIK TH, YAZAR, O. H., YANG Z (2024) National wealth, cultural moderators and pollution mortality: a panel analysis of 170 countries. Digit Econ Sustainable Dev 2:11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNARTOVA-BOCHAVER SK, DONAT M, KORNEEV UCARGK, HEIDMETS AA, KAMBLE ME, LARIONOW SKHACHATRYANNKRYAZHIV (2022) P. \u0026amp; RODR\u0026Iacute;GUEZ-GONZ\u0026Aacute;LEZ, D. The role of environmental identity and individualism/collectivism in predicting climate change denial: Evidence from nine countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 84, 101899\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNAUGES C, WHEELER, S. A., FIELDING KS (2021) The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: The mediating role of control. Environ Dev Sustain, 1\u0026ndash;23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOYSERMAN D, COON HM, KEMMELMEIER M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol Bull 128:3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePHAM HN, THAI, N. T., HEFFERNAN, T. W., REYNOLDS N (2024) Environmental policies and the promotion of pro-environmental consumer behavior: a systematic literature review. J Macromarketing 44:30\u0026ndash;58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePITLIK H, RODE M (2017) Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes. J Institutional Econ 13:575\u0026ndash;598\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRISSE T, SIKKINK K (1999) The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction. Camb Stud Int Relations 66:1\u0026ndash;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSCHWARTZ SH, BILSKY W (1990) Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. J Personal Soc Psychol 58:878\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSCOTT JC (1972) Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. Am Polit Sci Rev 66:91\u0026ndash;113\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSHERMAN DK, HANDY UPDEGRAFFJA, EOM MS, K., KIM HS (2022) Beliefs and social norms as precursors of environmental support: The joint influence of collectivism and socioeconomic status. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 48:463\u0026ndash;477\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSHI J, VISSCHERS, V. H. M., SIEGRIST M (2015) Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Anal 35:2183\u0026ndash;2201\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSMITH N, LEISEROWITZ A (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 34:937\u0026ndash;948\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSPENCE A, POORTINGA W, PIDGEON N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis: Int J 32:957\u0026ndash;972\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSPONG H (2019) Individuality and habits in institutional economics. J Institutional Econ 15:791\u0026ndash;809\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSTOUTENBOROUGH JW, BROMLEY-TRUJILLO R, VEDLITZ A (2014) Public support for climate change policy: consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across specific policy alternatives. Rev Policy Res 31:555\u0026ndash;583\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTHE CULTURE FACTOR GROUP (2023) \u003cem\u003eCountry Comparison Tool\u003c/em\u003e [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed February 16 2025]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTRIANDIS HC (1995) Individualism \u0026amp; collectivism. Westview, Boulder, CO, US\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTRIANDIS HC (2001) Individualism-collectivism and personality. J Pers 69:907\u0026ndash;924\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTRIANDIS HC, GELFAND MJ (2012) A theory of individualism and collectivism. Handb Theor social Psychol, 2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVU TV (2023) Individualism and climate change policies: International evidence. J Econ Dev 25:22\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWARD P, SHIVELY G (2012) Vulnerability, income growth and climate change. World Dev 40:916\u0026ndash;927\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWELLS VK, PONTING, C. A., PEATTIE K (2011) Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility. J Mark Manage 27:808\u0026ndash;833\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXIANG P, ZHANG H, ZHOU GENGL, K., WU Y (2019) Individualist\u0026ndash;collectivist differences in climate change inaction: The role of perceived intractability. Front Psychol 10:187\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYANKELOVICH D (1991) Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. (No Title\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYANKELOVICH D (2002) The seven stages of public opinion. 7. Appendices 4.3 Is the I-C dimension correlated with support for national and coordinated response from EU countries in dealing disasters potentially caused by CC?\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"individualism, collectivism, disaster relief, adaptive climate policy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eClimate change (CC) poses an urgent global challenge, its impact increasingly requiring coordinated policy response. While cultural values have been shown to play a potentially strong role in shaping political attitudes and behaviours, the role of individualism-collectivism (I-C) has primarily been examined against mitigative rather than adaptive CC attitudes \u0026ndash; and is even further limited within the European context. As the EU expands its role in adaptive climate policy implementation, understanding national cultural drivers of policy support for EU-led disaster relief becomes increasingly pertinent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study conducted a secondary quantitative analysis of the relationship between national levels of individualism and attitudinal variables measuring support for EU-coordinated disaster relief policy. The study utilised national individualism scores and Eurobarometer survey data, and then integrated multiple regression models to incorporate appropriate control variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed that individualism was significantly positively correlated with support for intra-EU disaster relief policy. Conversely, there was no significant relationship between individualism and general support for coordinated EU response to disasters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings refuted the notion that individualism led to an outright opposition towards CC policy, and pointed towards the value in distinguishing between mitigatory and adaptive climate change policy. Further research using a larger sample of countries, or utilising an individual-level methodological approach may be beneficial, in order to increase the sample and statistical power of the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Role of The Individualism-Collectivism Dimension in Shaping Policy-Support for EU Disaster-Relief","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-18 06:53:45","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7775352/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"21525859398705140224266584154863487182","date":"2026-01-13T13:25:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-27T13:02:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"150461207191228501789090769778265383315","date":"2025-11-12T13:12:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"224833366020526823157597864263189803604","date":"2025-11-12T09:52:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-07T06:44:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-06T06:10:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-30T09:42:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-22T10:20:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-10-21T20:13:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cfb2e2c2-7fdb-491b-bf0d-d585721be182","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":58087332,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"},{"id":58087333,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"},{"id":58087334,"name":"Social science/Social policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-18T06:53:45+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-18 06:53:45","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7775352","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7775352","identity":"rs-7775352","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}