1
An Expanded Perspective on the Policy Implications of
Environmentally Related Behaviors
2
William Kilbourne
Clemson University
Pierre McDonagh
Dublin City University
Andrea Prothero
University College Dublin
David Marshall
University of Edinburgh
Contact Author:
William Kilbourne
Department of Marketing
Clemson University
245 Sirrine Hall
Clemson, SC 29634-1325
USA
3
Abstract
Environmentally related behaviors have been a topic of study for marketing and
public policy researchers for several decades now (for examples see Allen, Calantone,
and Schewe 1982; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991; Taschian, Slama, and Taschian 1984).
The purpose of this paper was to expand the domain of inquiry by testing a more
comprehensive model of such behavior. Drawing from past research on values, the new
environmental paradigm, beliefs, concern, and environmental behaviors, a causal model
was proposed and tested with a random sample of US adults. The results of the study
validate the model indicating that there are policy implications at each stage of the causal
sequence leading to environmentally responsible behaviors. Prior work has highlighted
the possible positive and negative impact of public policy on marketplace functions (see
Brockett and Golden 1990)
Key words: Environment, values, environmental concern, NEP, environmentally
responsible behavior
4
Introduction
For the last 35 years, the study of the environment and people’s effect on it has
proceeded at a steady pace. Within that time, researchers have examined the problem
from a number of perspectives including, but not limited to, measures of concern
(Granzin and Olsen 1991; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991), attitudes (Berger and Corbin
1992; Milfont and Duckitt 2004), environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB) (Berger
and Corbin 1992), folk ecological wisdom (Stern 2000), and value orientations (McCarty
and Shrum 2001; Stern and Dietz 1994). Among the consistent conclusions drawn is the
belief that the processes through which individuals perceive and relate to the natural
environment are quite complex (see for example Granzin and Olsen 1991). Among other
things, psychological, sociological, economic, technological, religious, and historical
components affect the relationship. This suggests that an understanding of the essential
processes will require complex models incorporating many of these dimensions. Allen,
Calantone, and Schewe (1982), for example, conclude that certain constituencies (say
Canadians) may have better understanding of one issue, like energy saving due to
government policy, than other groups. Likewise, people of different political orientations
have different views on both the existence of environmental problems and their policy
implications (Dryzek 1987). Public policy research, therefore, has an integrative role to
play in any proposed environmental solutions. As evidence of the importance of
environmental policy issues, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of
Advertising, and the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing have had special issues
relating to the topic.
5
For effective and enduring change toward environmentally responsible behavior
(ERB), policy instruments and procedures should take into consideration the multiple
levels through which behaviors become manifest. Examining the level of environmental
concern and relating it to behaviors may reveal short term effects, but if the antecedents
to environmental concern remain unchanged, then the gains may be ephemeral if the
antecedents have negative effects on concern itself. Granzin and Olsen (1991) argue that
for policy to be effective, a clear understanding of individuals is necessary. Such an
understanding implies a more comprehensive examination entailing multiple layers of
factors leading to behavior. This is because the antecedent factors left unattended can
militate against policy intentions. Alwitt and Pitts (1996) argue that policy initiatives
aimed too low in the model of environmental behaviors may be responsible for the
apparent attitude-behavior gap found in the US. Berger and Corbin (1992) concur
regarding the ability of attitudes to predict ERBs. McCarty and Shrum (2001) argue that
attitudes alone are insufficient in predicting ERBs because they have a different character
than normal consumption behavior in that immediate self-interest is not the motivating
factor. They argue that a more complete spectrum of antecedent variables is necessary to
better understand ERB.
In expanding the domain of inquiry, Dobscha and Ozanne (2001) characterize the
ecological self as a nondominating path to change in ERBs. Matthews (1991) describes
the ecological self and indicates that it is much more complex than current research
characterizes it. This suggests that treating ERBs as the outcome in a hierarchical model
of constructs that lead to behaviors could serve to reduce the attitude-behavior gap by
providing the clearer understanding called for by Granzin and Olsen (1991) and Berger
6
and Corbin (1992). Stern (2000) argues that environmental behaviors themselves are
more complex than has been considered in the literature, and the domain of inquiry
should be expanded there as well.
Stern (2000) argues, for example, that there are direct and indirect ERBs, and that
these need to be considered as different types in models that attempt to determine the
factors that influence such behaviors. Much of the research in marketing has focused on
direct behaviors such as recycling, energy consumption, and purchasing green products
(Kilbourne and Beckmann 1998). The indirect behaviors include such things as joining
environmental organizations and donating money to environmental organizations.
Different types of policy initiatives are likely to stimulate each of these types of behavior
in different ways and result in different consequences.
Responding to the call for more complex models of ERB, Stern, Dietz, and
Guagnano (1995) proposed a hierarchical model that incorporates multiple levels of
analysis beginning with social structural variables and proceeding through behavior.
Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) also suggest that measurement models conjoining different
constructs having different levels of abstraction should not use measures that are of
different levels of specificity. Thus, relating values measures directly to behaviors is
likely to result in poorly specified relationships. The hierarchical model offered by Stern,
Dietz, and Guagnano (1995) has this suggestion built into it, and it argues that the
hierarchical order proceeds from the more general to the more specific constructs. We
take this approach in the present study and develop and test a hierarchical model similar
to that proposed by Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1995), but with additional levels.
7
The proposed model, shown in Figure 1, begins with the measure of individual
values shown to be related to the environment (Stern and Dietz 1994) and then proceeds
successively through general ecological beliefs as measured by the new environmental
paradigm (NEP) (Cordano, Welcomer, and Scherer 2003; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978),
specific environmental beliefs, environmental concern, and then behavior. The
hierarchical model has also been supported by Fransson and Garling (1999) who argue
that it is necessary because as the specificity of the measures between variables increases,
their predictive ability decreases. Arranging constructs from the more general to the more
specific might increase predictive validity. Environmental values, for example, are more
likely to be predictive of the NEP than they are of environmental concern or behaviors.
Likewise, the NEP would be more predictive of specific environmental beliefs than
would environmental values. This implies that a causal modeling approach to such
hierarchically arranged constructs is important as well (Fransson and Garling 1999). The
model hypothesized in this study is such a model following the approach described by
Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1995). It begins with the more abstract constructs and moves
to successively more tangible constructs. The model proposed answers the consistent call
for a more thorough examination of the variables antecedent to ERBs. Such a model will
provide a better starting point for the development of environmental policies.
_______________________________________________________________________
Place Figure 1 about here
_______________________________________________________________________
8
Literature Review
Value Orientations
Dietz and Stern (1995) argue that values guide choices in deliberative tasks, and
that among these choices are those that relate to ERBs. They also argue that values and
worldviews are antecedent to specific beliefs that precede behaviors. In their proposed
causal model, cultural institutions are at the highest level followed successively by
values, worldviews and general beliefs (the NEP), specific beliefs and attitudes,
behavioral intentions, and behaviors.
Among the possible approaches to the role of values in behavior, and one that has
been used frequently in environmental studies, is that of Schwartz (1992) whose model of
values is circumplex, indicating that values exist in a circular framework with adjacent
values being similar to each other and values across from each other being different. In
this system, presented in Figure 2, Schwartz (1992) also identifies four higher order
values he describes as self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness, and conservation
(tradition) that are constituted by subsets of the ten individual values making up the
circumplex model.
_______________________________________________________________________
Place Figure 2 about here
_______________________________________________________________________
Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1998), Schultz and Zelezny (1998) and Schultz and
Zelezny (1999) conclude that both self-enhancement and self-transcendence are
9
predictive of environmental concern. It has also been demonstrated that individuals with
transcendent values are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (Dietz,
Stern, and Guagnano 1998), and pro-social values are more evident than are competitive
values among those with higher environmental concern (Stern 2000). Stern, Dietz, and
Guagnano (1998) confirmed the effects of self-transcendence and self-enhancement, but
they also determined that openness to change was marginally related to the NEP. Schultz
and Zelezny (1998) also found limited support for a positive environmental effect for
openness. Thus, the limited evidence available suggests that transcendence and
enhancement values are consistently related to ERBs, albeit in opposite directions, and
openness to change is weakly related to environmental concern. Dietz and Stern (1995)
argue that this is because the egoistic orientation leads actors to focus on factors that
affect themselves, while altruistic actors focus on collective welfare. Because the
environment affects both the individual and the collective, one’s value orientation should
influence ERBs. Those who are altruistically oriented (self-transcendent) are likely to
behave more environmentally responsibly, while those who are egoistic (selfenhancement) are more likely to behave in less environmentally responsible ways as it is
in their immediate interest to do so. To change one’s behavior, it is reasonable to argue
that they must be open to change. If so, then switching to more ERB is more likely if one
is open to change, though, because of the inconsistent empirical results, it is not certain
what the antecedents for change have to be.
Environmental Beliefs
10
General beliefs and specific beliefs are two dimensions of environmental beliefs.
One’s environmental worldview contains these general beliefs about the functioning of
the environment. Beliefs about limits to growth, the role of humans in the environment,
and the susceptibility of nature to disruption inform the worldview, and the NEP
(Cordano, Welcomer, and Scherer 2003; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978) addresses these
three constructs. Thus, this type of belief relates to how the individual sees the
environment as a whole. These beliefs may be accurate assessments based on
environmental knowledge, or they may be the product of what Stern, Dietz and
Guagnano (1995) refer to as ecological folk wisdom. The important aspect is that such
wisdom represents the background for specific environmental beliefs. General beliefs
provide the context for the development of specific beliefs, but they do not relate to any
specific problem.
Specific environmental beliefs refers to belief in the existence of specific
environmental problems such as ozone depletion and global warming. In the proposed
causal model, general beliefs about the environment are antecedent to specific beliefs.
Stern (2000) refers to these focused beliefs as the belief in adverse consequences to
valued objects. It is important to note that the individual need not understand the
relationship to draw conclusions about it that direct behavior. For example, Kempton,
Boster, and Hartley (1995) demonstrated that US citizens generally believe that global
warming and ozone depletion are directly related even though they are not.
This suggests that beliefs should be measured on two levels, the general and the
specific. The NEP is the measure most often associated with general environmental
beliefs, but relevant specific beliefs might change over time as knowledge increases or
11
the attribute becomes more exposed through popular culture (Bechtel, Verdugo, and
Pinheiro 1999). We posit here that general environmental beliefs precede specific beliefs,
and both are a necessary condition for the development of concern. This is reasonable
because, if the individual does not believe that there are environmental problems or
believes that nature is sufficiently resilient to remediate itself, then increased concern for
the environment is unjustified. Steg and Sievers (2000), for example, demonstrated that
people who think nature exists in a precarious balance have higher problem awareness
and policy concerns than those who think nature is resilient and stable. This suggests that
one’s general view of the environment as reflected in myths of nature (ecological folk
wisdom) affects both beliefs about problems and concern for remedial policies.
Environmental Concern
Fransson and Garling (1999) argue that environmental concern has been described
in various ways ranging from attitudinal focus to value orientations. Concern is often
synonymous with environmental attitudes and used interchangeably. Stern (1992) relates
concern to specific value orientations including altruistic, self-interest, anthropocentric
altruism, and egoistic values. Anthropocentric altruism has also been referred to as
human welfare ecology (Eckersley 1992; Kilbourne 1995) characterizing it as concern for
the environment to the extent that it affects human well-being, but not concern for the
environment per se. Concern has also been related to other deep rooted beliefs such as
religious beliefs (White 1967) and post-materialist (Inglehart 1981) values.
Milfont and Duckitt (2004) also argue that environmental concern has been used
to refer to environmental attitudes. They define environmental attitudes according to the
12
tripartite model popular in psychology consisting of affective, cognitive, and conative
components as they relate to the environment and argue for a conceptual differentiation
between attitudes and concern. This is because researchers use concern as a general
attitude, as opposed to specific attitudes, about specific environmental problems. In this
paper, the two terms are differentiated, albeit for a different reason. The rationale is that
one can hold very clear attitudes and beliefs about environmental problems such as global
warming and still be unconcerned about them. This is because attitudes, beliefs, and
knowledge may be necessary conditions for concern, but they are not sufficient
conditions. Schultz (2001), for example, argues that Schwartz’s (1968) norm activation
model indicates that concerns will become activated when there is a threat to a personal
value or a valued object. If one does not value the environment or some aspect of it, then
knowledge about its condition would have no effect. Thus, in the absence of beliefs or
knowledge about environmental problems, there is no need for concern. Before the norm
activation process can engage, some cognitive aspects of the problem must be in
evidence. Beliefs are not only different from concerns, but they are also prior to concern
in the causal order.
Environmental Behavior
Stern (2000) categorizes environmentally significant behaviors into two basic
types. He refers to the two types as direct and indirect actions. Direct actions are those
elicited by the individual that have an immediate effect, however small, on the
environment. Recycling, reusing, and green purchasing fall in this category, and they are
only effective in minimizing environmental problems if large numbers of people use
13
them. Indirect behaviors are those that may have environmental consequences in the
future and on a more general scale. These include, inter alia, donations to environmental
organizations, reading environmental magazines, and contacting policy makers. Dietz,
Stern, and Guagnano (1998) argue that these types of behaviors ought to be distinguished
from each other. Stern (2000) also refers to these types of behavior as public and private
sphere behavior and concurs with the notion that the former has indirect effects and the
latter has direct effects that materialize in the aggregate when many individuals elicit the
same behaviors. The proposed model incorporates direct and indirect behaviors, and
measures of each are used.
Structural Model
The structural model examined in this paper consists of the four areas described
above; values, beliefs, concern, and behavior. The causal sequence is a modification of
the model proposed by Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1995). The original model proposed
that the causal sequence was, from beginning to end, social structural factors, values,
general beliefs (NEP), specific beliefs, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Johnson,
Bowker, and Cordell (2004) proposed an abbreviated model that consisted of the social
structural, general beliefs, and behavior. The model proposed here expands on their
abbreviated model but does not include the social structural or behavioral intention
components of the Stern model.
The hypotheses generated by the proposed model are as follows:
H1. The second order values construct is positively related to general environmental
beliefs as measured by the second order NEP construct.
14
H2. The second order NEP construct is positively related to specific beliefs.
H3. Specific environmental beliefs are positively related to environmental concern.
H4. Environmental concern is positively related to both direct and indirect ERBs.
Methodology
Sample
The data collection procedure for the study was a telephone survey using a
sampling frame provided by Scientific Telephone Samples, a research service that
provides random samples of telephone numbers throughout the US. The callers
eliminated refusals and replaced no-answers into the database where they were available
for a successive selection. A no-answer was replaced 9 times before removed.
Interviewers repeated the process until they finished the required number of interviews.
The sample in this study consisted of 337 respondents selected using a random
sample of US residents. The sample was restricted to those who were 18 or more years
old. Data were collected using a telephone survey and the average interview time was 25
minutes per completed questionnaire. Thirty-four questionnaires were eliminated because
of large amounts of incomplete data that could not be imputed. The final sample
consisted of 303 respondents of which 55% were female. Median family income was
approximately $45,000, median and average age were both 48 years, the median
education level fell in the category “some college,” and 57% of the sample were married.
These sample characteristics parallel the US population closely when considering only
those who are 18 or older.
15
Measurement Instrument
The constructs used were in this study were an abbreviated Schwartz’s (1994)
value inventory (SVI), an eight item environmental concern scale adapted from
Kilbourne, Beckman, and Thelen (2002), an eight item measure of specific environmental
beliefs (ENB) followed by a reduced new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale taken
from Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) original scale. The last scale was a 10 item proenvironmental behavior scale consisting of yes or no responses to behavioral questions.
The final seven questions were demographic. Because of the large number of items in the
original scales and the restrictions the telephone survey imposes on the length of the
questionnaire administered, these construct measures were reduced by eliminating items
from the original scales. Richins (2004), Cordano, Welcomer, and Scherer (2003), and
Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1998) all support the use of such abbreviated scales in
research including multiple constructs. The short scales are necessary to keep the overall
length of questionnaires to a manageable level.
Because the measurement constructs used in the present study were new or
shortened versions of the originals that have not been adequately tested, all the constructs
used in the model were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) before the
structural model was tested. The fit criteria used were those suggested by Hair et al.
(1998), and include the comparative fit index (CFI) (>.90), the incremental fit index (IFI)
(>.90), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (< .08). Because some
of the constructs have a restricted number of indicator items, Byrne’s (2001) procedures
were followed. She suggests that, in cases with too few degrees of freedom, parameters
16
shown to be statistically equivalent can be constrained to be equal, thus achieving the
required positive degrees of freedom.
For the SVI, a three-factor construct was used with three items per factor. The
three factors used were those shown most frequently to be related to environmental
attitudes. These were self-transcendence (ST), self-enhancement (SE), and openness to
change (OP). Tradition has been only sporadically related to environmental attitudes and
was not used. SE has been shown to be negatively related to environmental attitudes, so
its items were reversed to be consistent with the other two factors. The indicator items for
the scale consisted of seven of the nine items proposed by Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano
(1998) and two additional items, and the three factor model was shown to fit the data
very well. The fit statistics were all above .97 and the RMSEA was .045. All factor
loadings were above .5 and the average loading was .61. The reliabilities of the individual
scales were assessed using Coefficient Alpha and were .71 for ST, .63 for SE, and .56 for
OP. These were within the limits suggested by Peter (1979) for constructs in the early
stages of development. In addition, the correlations between factors were less than unity
indicating discriminant validity, but they were also relatively high suggesting a second
order factor structure. The Appendix provides all the indicator items and the statistics for
the scales used.
The second order structure was imposed on the model and it was retested. The
results of this analysis indicated that the second order factor structure was well supported.
To achieve positive degrees of freedom in the second order, the error terms for ST and
OP were constrained to be equal. This is justified because the parameter comparisons
calculated in AMOS (Arbuckle 2005) indicated that they were statistically equivalent
17
(Byrne 2001). Thus, the values construct for the structural model was a second order
factor model with three first order factors, ST, SE, and OP.
For the NEP construct, a reduced model was used that contained three factors
with three indicator items each. The items chosen represented three dimensions of the
new NEP scale (Dunlap et al. 2000) and the reduced form of the new NEP (Cordano,
Welcomer, and Scherer 2003). The dimensions used were limits to growth, human
domination (reverse scored), and balance of nature with three items representing each
dimension. This reduced NEP construct was subjected to CFA, and the results indicated a
very good fit with all fit statistics above .96 and an RMSEA of .06. All factor loadings
were above .56 with an average loading of .69. Coefficient alpha for the dimensions were
.77 for balance of nature, .61 for limits to growth, and .80 for human domination. The
correlations between factors were also significant indicating a second order factor. The
second order factor was imposed on the data and the model retested. The second order
model fit the data well with all fit statistics well within the required limits.
The next level of the model was environmental beliefs, and the scale consisted of
six items derived from Cotgrove (1982) and Milbrath (1984). This was a single factor
model assessing the respondents’ belief in the existence of specific environmental
problems. The CFA indicated that the model fit very well with all fit statistics above .98.
The RMSEA was slightly higher than desired at .09. All factor loadings were, however,
above .62 with an average loading of .71. Coefficient alpha for the belief scale was .85
indicating high reliability.
The environmental concern scale consisted of six items derived from Kilbourne,
Beckmann, and Thelen (2002) and Milbrath (1984). The CFA for the scale indicated that
18
the model fit the data well with all fit statistics above .98 and an RMSEA of .045.
Coefficient alpha for the concern scale was .81 and all factor loadings were above .61.
The average loading was .63 for all items. Because measures of beliefs and concern are
conceptually similar and sometimes used interchangeably (Fransson and Garling 1999), it
was necessary to determine if they represented different measures. Exploratory factor
analysis was used in which all twelve items were tested simultaneously. The results of
that test indicated that there were two distinct factors with all belief items loading on one
factor and all concern items loading on the second factor. The two factors together
accounted for 54% of the variance. Thus, for this sample, beliefs are clearly
distinguishable from concerns.
The final construct assessed was the behavioral model consisting of two parts,
indirect behavior and direct behavior. Each of these constructs contained three items.
Because they are considered as distinct types of behavior, they were assessed separately.
For direct behaviors, the three-item construct had fit statistics above .98 and an RMSEA
near zero indicating good fit. To assess the model, the measurement error for two items
shown to be equivalent was constrained to be equal to get positive degrees of freedom for
the model. The same procedure was used for direct behavior that also contained three
indicator items. The results were similar with fit statistics above .98 and an RMSEA of
.078. Because both indirect and direct behaviors are measures of behavior, they formed a
second order factor. The second order factor fit the data well with fit statistics above .98
and an RMSEA of .038, so this was the model used in the structural equation analysis.
The results of the analysis of the measurement models indicated that all the
constructs in the proposed model fit the data well as the individual constructs were within
19
the accepted ranges on all fit statistics. In the final model, the values construct was a
second order factor with ST, SE, and OP as first order constructs. The NEP was a second
order construct with balance of nature, limits to growth, and human domination as first
order factors. Beliefs and concern were both first order constructs and behavior was a
second order construct with direct and indirect environmental behaviors as first order
factors.
Structural Equation Model
The proposed model, presented in Figure 2, was tested using AMOS 6.0
(Arbuckle 2005) structural equation modeling software. The theory developed suggests a
hierarchical model beginning with general values that lead to more general beliefs and
folk ecological wisdom. This leads to more specific beliefs about environmental
problems that, in turn, create environmental concern in the individual. Environmental
concern then results in two types of environmentally related behaviors, direct and
indirect. Because of the scoring of the constructs, the hypotheses suggest that the links
between the constructs should be both statistically significant and positive.
The results of the test, included in Figure 1, confirm all of the hypotheses
contained in the model. Overall, the structural model does fit the data acceptably. The fit
statistics for the full model were CFI=.91, IFI=.91, and RMSEA=.042. All parameter
estimates for indicator variables in the full model were statistically significant at less than
.001. Further, all parameter estimates linking the constructs in the structural model were
significant at less than .001 and were in the predicted directions. In all cases, the link
20
from a higher-level construct to a lower level construct was positive. As individuals have
more self-transcendent and openness values, they are higher on the NEP scale. Those
with higher NEP scores indicating belief in the balance of nature, limits to growth, and
human domination are more likely to believe there are environmental problems. As belief
in the existence of environmental problems increases, the individual becomes more
concerned about the environment. As environmental concern increases, both direct and
indirect self-reported environmentally related behaviors increase. This establishes the
causal sequence among the constructs in the model. Numerous alternative models were
tested that linked the constructs differently, but none were shown to achieve the statistical
significance of the model proposed. Connecting non-adjacent constructs yielded no
significant direct links.
Discussion
The results of this national study of environmental constructs provide support for
the proposed hierarchical model in Figure 1. The model depicts a causal chain of
environmentally related constructs beginning with values and ending with behaviors. At
each level of the model, measures are more closely related to the environmental
behaviors.
The SVI is a second order factor model with three latent constructs, selftranscendence, self-enhancement, and openness to change. Each of these constructs
relates to the more environmentally oriented constructs. This result is consistent with
both Schultz and Zelezny (1999) and Stern and Dietz (1994) indicating that self-
21
transcendent values are positively related to the NEP that reflects general beliefs about
the environment. In addition, the results indicated that openness values are related to the
NEP as well. While this latter relationship has received inconsistent support in the past, it
is not an unexpected finding having been shown by Kilbourne et al. (2001) to affect
willingness to change behaviors related to the environment. Thus, when incorporated
with self-transcendent and negatively scored self-enhancement measures, openness to
change affects the NEP.
The second-order NEP has three latent constructs referred to as balance of nature,
human exemptionalism, and limits to growth. Each of the latent constructs contributes
significantly to the NEP construct as a whole. This is consistent with previous use of the
NEP in both its original and revised forms and parallels the work of Cordano, Welcomer,
Scherer (2003). The causal link between environmentally related values and general
ecological beliefs as measured by the NEP was positive (0.43) as hypothesized. This
indicates that as one’s values related to the environment increase, their general
environmental beliefs increase. Each of the first order constructs contributed significantly
to the overall construct referred to as the NEP.
For the next causal link, that between general ecological beliefs and one’s belief
in the existence of specific environmental problems, the NEP positively affected specific
beliefs (0.93) as predicted. The higher one’s belief in the NEP, the more they believed
that specific environmental problems exist. This included such problems as ozone
depletion, global warming, and species extinction.
These environmental beliefs, it is argued in the model, are antecedent to
environmental concern because to be concerned, one must believe that there is something
22
to be concerned about. Belief in the NEP and specific environmental problems, combined
with high environmental values, would reasonable activate psychological mechanisms
leading to increased concern. The belief that social and individual changes are necessary
to ameliorate environmental decline reflects this environmental concern. Individuals who
are concerned would be likely to indicate willingness to change their own behavior and
suggest that larger social and political change would also be necessary. This indirect
measure was positively related to belief in environmental problems (0.78). As belief in
specific problems increases, one’s environmental concern increases as well.
The final causal link in the proposed model hypothesized that increased levels of
concern would result in an increase in self-reported direct and indirect environmentally
related behaviors. The test confirmed the hypothesized positive relationship between
concern and both direct and indirect behaviors. The parameter estimate for direct
behavior was 0.37 and for indirect behavior was 0.38 indicating that as environmental
concern increases, one’s environmentally related behavior also increases. Thus, all links
in the causal model hypothesized were positive confirming the hierarchical model
proposed at the outset.
The result has both research and policy implications. From the standpoint of
future research, it can be argued that the model originally proposed by Stern, Dietz, and
Guagnano (1995) provides an appropriate framework from which to examine the
human/environmental relationship. There is a hierarchical relation descending from
individual values through general environmental beliefs, specific beliefs, environmental
concern, and ending in environmentally related behaviors. This indicates that some
approaches to research are too limited to achieve sufficiently robust results. Measuring
23
two levels of the model, for example, while revealing relationships would fail to reveal
the role the other variables play in achieving that result. The causal modeling approach
used here considers all the relationships simultaneously capturing the hierarchical nature
of the relationship. Future research should consider both the nature of the models and the
analytical methods used to assess them.
Policy implications of the results are also relevant. The hierarchical nature of the
model indicates that policy instruments should not be one dimensional or privilege one
variable, such as technology, in any desired outcome (Taschian, Slama, and Taschian
1984). Policies aimed at increasing recycling, or some other environmentally related
behavior, for example, are likely to be less effective than desired if they fail to consider
the antecedent variables in the causal chain leading to behavior.
The results of this study indicate that antecedent variables have effects on
downstream variables that, if left unaddressed in policy instruments, may have
attenuating effects on outcomes. For example, if one desires consumers to consume less
or differently as an outcome of consumer policy, it would be necessary to address, not
only consumers’ immediate behavior, but also their beliefs and values that precede that
behavior. Admonishing consumers for consuming without initiating values intervention
strategies would be less effective than a comprehensive approach addressing both
behaviors and values. Americans have been demonstrated to be materialistic, and their
materialism is related to self-enhancement and self-transcendence values (Kilbourne,
Grünhagen, and Foley 2005). If materialism is a cultural characteristic that results in
increased material consumption, environmental decline is the inevitable long-run result as
indicated by Daly’s (1991) “impossibility theorem.” If policy instruments address the
24
lower levels of the model without addressing the higher levels, then the higher levels will
consistently militate against the policy reducing its effectiveness. This is one possible
explanation for the attitude-behavior gap evidenced in American society.
While the hierarchical approach taken here represents an improvement on
piecemeal approaches examining small parts of the environmental problem
independently, it does not incorporate all possible levels of examination. Stern, Dietz, and
Guagnano (1995), for example, argue that social-structural variables precede values in
the hierarchical model. This level of the model was not examined and should be included
in future research. It has also been argued by Kilbourne (1998) that the DSP has both
cosmological and socio-demographic dimensions representing a larger domain that might
be antecedent to and inform value development in individuals. Thus, self-enhancement of
self-transcendent values, both important in environmental beliefs, concern, and behavior,
do not arrive fully articulated in the individual. They are the product of centuries of
cultural development in science, economics, and politics. This suggests that there may be
a level in the model above values and social structural variables. This has received little
examination to date. The model presented here is in the process of development and can
be expanded and enhanced.
A further limitation on the model presented is that it represents a uniquely
American perspective. Whether the constructs used in the model are valid across cultures
is a very important question as environmental problems are trans-boundary problems.
Future research should examine environmental problems as cross-cultural problems.
Because few of the constructs used in environmental research possess cross-cultural
invariance, researchers face a significant problem here. This is the next critical step for
25
environmental researchers. As a final limitation, it must be pointed out that the statistical
procedures used in the analysis do not provide evidence of causality, only correlation.
Thus, it cannot be concluded that the structure tested links variables in a causal way. The
results are, however, consistent with previous work suggesting causal relations.
26
References
Ajzen, Icek and Martin A. Fishbein (1977), "Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical
Analysis and Review of Empirical Research," Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Allen, Chris T., Roger J. Calantone, and Charles D. Schewe (1982), "Consumers'
Attitudes about Energy Conservation in Sweden, Canada, and the United States, with
Implications for Policymakers," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1 (1), 57-67.
Alwitt, Linda F. and Robert E. Pitts (1996), "Predicting Purchase Intentions for an
Environmentally Sensitive Product," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (1), 49-64.
Arbuckle, James L. (2005), Amos 6.0 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development
Corporation.
Bechtel, Robert B., Victor C. Verdugo, and Jose de Quiroz Pinheiro (1999),
"Environmental Belief Systems: United States, Brazil, and Mexico," Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 30 (1), 122-28.
Berger, Ida E. and Ruth M. Corbin (1992), "Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith
in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors," Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 11 (2), 79-89.
27
Brockett, Patrick L. and Linda L. Golden (1990), "How Public Policy Can Define the
Marketplace: The Case of Pollution Liability Insurance in the 1980s," Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 9 (1), 211-26.
Byrne, Barbara M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cordano, Mark, Stephanie A. Welcomer, and Robert F. Scherer (2003), "An Analysis of
the Predictive Validity of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale," Journal of
Environmental Education, 34 (3), 22-28.
Cotgrove, Stephen (1982), Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics, and
the Future. New York: Wiley.
Daly, Herman E. (1991), Steady-State Economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dietz, Thomas and Paul C. Stern (1995), "Toward a Theory of Choice: Socially
Embedded Preference Construction," Journal of Socio-Economics, 24 (2), 261-79.
Dietz, Thomas, Paul C. Stern, and Gregory A. Guagnano (1998), "Social Structural and
Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern," Environment & Behavior, 30
(4), 450-71.
28
Dobscha, Susan and Julie L. Ozanne (2001), "An Ecofeminist Analysis of
Environmentally Sensitive Women Using Qualitative Methodology: The Emancipatory
Potential of an Ecological Life," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (2), 201-14.
Dryzek, John S. (1987), Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), "The "New Environmental Paradigm": A
Proposed Instrument and Preliminary Results," Journal of Environmental Education, 9
(1), 10-19.
Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet (2000),
"Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,"
Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 425-42.
Eckersley, Robyn (1992), Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric
Approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fransson, Niklas and Tommy Garling (1999), "Environmental Concern: Conceptual
Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings," Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19 (4), 369-82.
29
Granzin, Kent L. and Janeen E. Olsen (1991), "Characterizing Participants in Activities
Protecting the Environment," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (Fall), 1-27.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black (1998),
Multivariate Data Analysis (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Inglehart, R. (1981), "Post-materialism in an Environment of Insecurity," American
Political Science Review, 75, 880-900.
Johnson, Cassandra Y., J. M. Bowker, and H. Ken Cordell (2004), "Ethnic variation in
Environmental belief and Behavior: An Examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in
a Social Psychological Context," Environment and Behavior, 36 (2), 157-86.
Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley (1995), Environmental
Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kilbourne, William E. (1995), "Green Advertising: Salvation or Oxymoron?," Journal of
Advertising, 24 (2), 7-19.
---- (1998), "Green Marketing: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Marketing
Management, 14 (6), 641-55.
30
Kilbourne, William E. and Suzanne C. Beckmann (1998), "Review and Critical
Assessment of Research on Marketing and the Environment," Journal of Marketing
Management, 14 (6), 513-32.
Kilbourne, William E., Suzanne C. Beckmann, Alan Lewis, and Ynte van Dam (2001),
"A Multi-National Examination of the Role of the Dominant Social Paradigm in
Environmental Attitudes of University Students," Environment & Behavior, 33 (2), 20928.
Kilbourne, William E., Suzanne C. Beckmann, and Eva Thelen (2002), "The Role of the
Dominant Social Paradigm in Environmental Attitudes: A Multi-National Examination,"
Journal of Business Research, 55 (3), 193-204.
Kilbourne, William E., Marko Grünhagen, and Janice Foley (2005), "A Cross-Cultural
Examination of the Relationship Between Materialism and Individual Values," Journal of
Economic Psychology, 26 (5), 624-41.
Mathews, Freya (1991), The Ecological Self. London, UK: Routledge.
McCarty, John A. and L. J. Shrum (2001), "The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism,
and Locus of Control On Environmental Beliefs and Behavior," Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 20 (1), 93-104.
31
Milbrath, Lester (1984), Environmentalists: Vanguards for a New Society. Albany, NY:
University of New York Press.
Milfont, Taciano L. and John Duckitt (2004), "The Structure of Environmental Attitudes:
A First - and Second - Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis," Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24 (3), 289-303.
Peter, J. Paul (1979), "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent
Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 6-17.
Richins, Marsha L. (2004), "The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and
Development of a Short Form," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 209-19.
Schultz, P. Wesley and Lynnette C. Zelezny (1998), "Values and Proenvironmental
Behavior: A Five-Country Survey," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (4), 54058.
Schultz, Wesley P. (2001), "The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self,
Other People, and the Biosphere," Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4), 327-39.
Schultz, Wesley P. and Lynnette Zelezny (1999), "Values as Predictors of Environmental
Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries," Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 255-63.
32
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1994), "Are There Universal Aspects of the Structure and Contents
of Human Values?," Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4), 19-45.
---- (1968), "Awareness of Consequences and the Influence of Moral Norms on
Interpersonal Behavior," Sociometry, 31, 355-69.
---- (1992), "Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances
and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
M. P. Zanna, ed. Vol. 25. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1-65.
Schwepker, Charles H. and T. Bettina Cornwell (1991), "An Examination of Ecologically
Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products,"
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 77-101.
Steg, Linda and Inge Sievers (2000), "Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of
Environmental Risks," Environment and Behavior, 32 (2), 250-69.
Stern, Paul C. (1992), "Psychological Dimensions of Global Environmental Change,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302.
---- (2000), "Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior,"
Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407-24.
33
Stern, Paul C. and Thomas Dietz (1994), "The Value Basis of Environmental Concern,"
Journal of Social Issues, 56, 1-20.
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano (1998), "A Brief Inventory of
Values," Educational & Psychological Measurement, 58 (6), 984-1001.
---- (1995), "The New Ecological Paradigm in Social-Psychological Context,"
Environment & Behavior, 27 (6), 723-43.
Taschian, Armen, Mark E. Slama, and Roobian O. Taschian (1984), "Measuring
Attitudes Toward Energy Conservation: Cynicism, Belief in Material Growth, and Faith
in Technology," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 3 (1), 134-48.
White, Lynn (1967), "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, 155,
1203-07.
34
Figure 1
Structural Equation Model
peace
justice
balance
transcend
balance
environment
change
.97
.91
creative
varied
modify
openness
curious
.82
values
.44
.39
nep
exempt
rule
use
.65
.56
authority
influence
interfere
spaceship
enhance
limits
industry
.90
success
pollution
extinction
chemical
beliefs
rainforest
warming
.74
ozone
concern
abuse
consume
concern
political
.75
social
enforce
behavior
.49
.45
member
contribute
suscribe
product
indirect
limits
direct
waste
recycle
35
Figure 2
Schwartz’s Value Inventory
SELF-TRANSCENDENCE
BENevolence
TRAdition
Self-DIrection
CONformity
STImulation
SECurity
HEDonism
ACHievement
POWer
SELF-ENHANCEMENT
CONSERVATION
OPENNESS TO CHANGE
UNIversalism
36
Appendix
Questionnaire Items
Schwartz’s Value Inventory CFI= .97 IFI= .97 RMSEA=.044
Self-transcendence α=.71
A world at peace (free of war and conflict)
Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)
Protecting the environment (preserving nature)
Openness α=.56
Creativity (uniqueness, imagination)
A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
Curious (interested in everything, exploring)
Self-enhancement α=.63
Authority (the right to lead or command)
Influential (having an impact on people and events)
Successful (achieving goals)
New Environmental Paradigm CFI= .97
IFI=.97
RMSEA= .044
Balance of nature α=.77
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences
If things continue on their present course, environmental problems will increase
Human domination α=.80
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans
Limits to growth α=.61
There are limits to economic growth that we cannot go beyond
The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources
Industrial growth must be limited so we will always have resources to use
Beliefs CFI=.97 IFI=.97 RMSEA= .095 α=.85
Many types of pollution are rising to dangerous levels
Some living things are being threatened with extinction
Continued use of chemicals in business will damage the environment
Destruction of rainforests will have negative environmental consequences
Global warming is becoming a problem
Ozone depletion is an important environmental problem
Concern CFI= .99 IFI=.98 RMSEA=.047
I am very concerned about the environment
Humans are severely abusing the environment
Loading
.63
.68
.70
.62
.51
.52
.58
.70
.52
.66
.79
.76
.63
.94
.72
.52
.59
.63
.74
.74
.68
.63
.66
.69
α=.81
.60
.64
37
I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment
Major political change is necessary to protect the natural environment
Major social changes are necessary to protect the natural environment
Environmental laws should be enforced more strongly
Behavior CFI=.99 IFI=.98 RMSEA= .038
Direct α=.72
I buy environmentally friendly products when possible
I reduce household waste
I use products made from recycled material whenever possible
Indirect α=.74
I am a member of an environmental organization
I contribute money to an environmental organization
I subscribe to an environmental magazine
.67
.60
.69
.61
.69
.61
.73
.77
.71
.62