You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Environmental Psychology (2000) 20, 285^294

# 2000 Academic Press


doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0161, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

0272 - 4944/00/090285 + 10$35.00/0

THE PREDICTION OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BELIEF


SYSTEMS: THE DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL CONSERVATISM
AND BELIEFS ABOUT MONEY
SHARI P. HODGKINSON AND J. MICHAEL INNES
School of Psychology, Murdoch University, Australia
Abstract
The environment and the economy are two of the most pertinent issues of society and are increasingly perceived as inter-related, highlighting the signicance of understanding how the issues may be held in cognition. This study looks at the structure of personal beliefs systems to investigate how the social cognitions of
the individual might be applicable to political and economic issues. In particular, the research explores the
possibility of a predictive relationship between individual beliefs about money and social conservatism and
beliefs about the environment and ecology. A questionnaire-based study employing four measures was conducted with 399 university students. Findings suggest that ecology and environmentalism may be fundamentally dierent from one another as reected by the contribution of dierent variables in the prediction of scale
scores. Results provide support for the hypothesis that ecological beliefs and environmental attitudes exist as
separable cognitive structures.
# 2000 Academic Press

Introduction
The modern industrial societies that have developed
over the past 400 years are supported by a dierent
belief system about the relationship between humans and their environmentthe belief that humans are destined to dominate nature. Nature is
seen as a resource base to which humans can apply
their science and technology in order to extract material goods, not simply to support life but to create
a life of ease and comfort (Catton, 1980). As humans
have taken this increasingly exuberant attitude toward nature, they have tended to equate a high
quality of life with the acquisition of more and more
material goods. Economic values and ever increasing levels of wealth have become the dominant objects of public policy in most modern industrial
societies. As a result, a psychological distance has
been created between many humans and their natural environment (Milbrath, 1986: 98).

The trade-o between economics and the natural


environment has become an increasingly common
theme in academic and popular literature (e.g.
Gordon & Suzuki, 1990; Gorz, 1994; Hamilton, 1994;
Rasinski et al., 1994; Schnider, 1996; Capra, 1997;
Suzuki, 1997; Athanasiou, 1998), reecting a growing environmental concern throughout society. The

academic literature has also documented and attempted to explain this trend with many studies investigating the correlates of environmentalism, or
positive beliefs and attitudes toward the environment (e.g. Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Wysor, 1983;
Milbrath, 1986; Arcury, 1990; Shetzer et al., 1991;
Stern et al., 1993; Forgas & Jollie, 1994; Schultz &
Stone, 1994). Much of this research has rested on
previous ndings that suggest a contrast between
individuals who perceive the natural environment
as a resource base and those who ascribe to the notion of `spaceship Earth', as dened by Dunlap and
Van Liere (1978). The present paper contributes to
this extensive body of literature by examining, specically, the relationship between economic beliefs
and beliefs and attitudes toward the environment.
Primarily, it is hypothesized that strong fundamental beliefs based on economics serve to repress or
preclude environmental and/or ecological beliefs
when an individual is faced with a trade-o between economics and the environment.
The principles of environmentalism now command widespread support in the community,
evidenced, for example, by the acceptance of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development by the Council of Australian Governments

286

S. P. Hodgkinson and J. M. Innes

in 1992 (Lowe, 1997). Research has found that proenvironmental attitudes are becoming increasingly
prevalent throughout society (e.g. Noe & Snow,
1990), a trend reected in government policy and political rhetoric worldwide. In June 1992, leaders of
178 nations gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth
Summit `with the goal of mobilizing, coordinating,
and nancing international action on an ambitious
environmental agenda' (Linden, 1997). However,
post-Rio treaties have been imsy, if formed at all.
For example, the treaty to slow deforestation remains a contentious issue while ancient forests continue to be logged (Serrill, 1997).
More recent examples of inconsistency between
government discourse and subsequent policy are
found in the outcomes of the 1997 Kyoto Conference
on Global Warming, when developed nations traded
their way out of strict emission cuts. The Australian
Prime Minister, for example, announced that international plans for uniform and binding cuts to
greenhouse gas emissions were an unfair and unrealistic limit to Australia's economic growth (Tan-Van
Baren, 1997).
Despite growing support for actions to `save the
environment', governments and individuals continue
to use economic arguments to justify the world view
that perceives the natural environment as a resource or sustenance base to be used to create a life
of ease and comfort for those living in developed nations (Milbrath, 1986). Research investigating the
contrast between this perception and that of individuals who aspire to the principles of ecology was
pioneered by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The researchers examined the emergence of what they
termed the `new environmental paradigm' (NEP),
which directly challenges the older, anthropocentric
and economically founded `dominant social paradigm' (DSP) (Noe & Snow, 1990). Dunlap and
Van Liere (1978), and consequently those who have
employed the world view concepts, have argued that
reported ecological problems stem primarily from
the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs prevalent within industrialized society. The DSP is suggested to endorse a belief system that relates
directly to a devotion to growth and prosperity,
and is founded on the core belief of human dominance over nature.
Inglehart has postulated `a decisive shift from a
concern about economic growth and material prosperity to a focus on spiritual and non-material values' (Bean & Papadakis, 1994: 264), such as those
espoused by the NEP. However, despite the evident
increase in ecological and nonmaterial values and
beliefs, in euent societies, the NEP has not yet

been so widely accepted as to hide the divergence


from those who retain economic goals and values.
Dunlap (1987, cited in Noe & Snow, 1990) reported
that `research clearly demonstrates a signicant upturn in public concern for environmental quality . . .
despite the administration's overwhelming emphasis
on national economic growth' (p. 20), reected also
by the examples of government policy discussed
above.
Ecology and environmentalism are relatively new
to the pantheon of policy issues, and governments
remain confused about how ecology relates to issues
of trade, national security, economic development
and other traditional matters of state (Linden,
1997). These traditional matters have dominated
both government and individual concerns since the
rise of the consumer market and the rm establishment of capitalism within industrialized societies
has ensured economic growth and prosperity as an
integral part of daily life (Heilbroner, 1972). This
leads to the hypothesis that, for the average individual, economic beliefs are more fundamental than
beliefs about the environment. This hypothesis has
wide-ranging implications.
Beliefs and belief systems are regarded as active
components of the frame of reference used by an individual in their interpretation of responses to the
world (Harvey, 1997). An individual's perception of
the world is thought to be determined by their belief
systems without the necessity of reference to what
others may perceive as reality. Therefore, due to
the nature of society, beliefs about economics,
money and politics are seen as fundamental to an
individual's attitudes and actions. Following this,
economic values are hypothesized to drive relevant
decisions, including those about the use of the natural environment.
Individual dierences in the nature of fundamental beliefs, and in the expression of culture, however, serve to moderate social cognition. Hence,
individuals will dier in the extent and realm in
which economic beliefs act as a perceptual lter, altering the relationship between these and other beliefs, such as those pertaining to the environment.
It is proposed by many that the relationship between environmental and economic beliefs does not
exist on a single linear dimension, but operates on
two quite distinct systems of beliefs (Dobson, 1995;
Fox, 1995; Hamilton, 1997). Dobson (1995) proposes
that:
environmentalism argues for a managerial approach
to environmental problems, secure in the belief that
they can be solved without fundamental changes
in present values or patterns of production and

Ecological and Environmental Belief Systems


consumption, while ecologism holds that a sustainable and fullling existence presupposes radical
changes in our relationship with the non-human
natural world, and in our mode of political and social life (p. 1).

Therefore, it is suggested that not only are there


two distinct world views, the NEP and the DSP, but
that somewhere in between are those who aspire to
environmentalism through traditional economic
means, hypothesized to be revealed by decision outcomes in economic/environment trade-o situations.
Despite growing support for an environmentally
friendly policy and the strength of worldwide and
local environmental movements, such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and local `green' political parties, consumption continues to increase,
natural resources continue to be depleted and economics remain the primary issue of most of the
world's government election campaigns (e.g. 1998
Australian Federal election). The present study was
designed to address the foundation of this disparity,
hypothesized to exist in the belief systems of individuals. It was predicted that strong economic beliefs,
as represented by beliefs about money per se, and by
particular socio-political beliefs, would preclude a
strong pro-environmental attitude. It was further
hypothesized that the variables found to predict environmental attitudes would be dierent to those
found to be linked with ecological beliefs due to
the separability of these belief systems.
Method
Subjects
A random sample of 399 rst-year students was
taken from an Australian university. Eight cases

287

were excluded as a result of incomplete data, leaving a sample of 391 students, 155 (396%) males and
236 (604%) females, representing a cross-section of
disciplines available at the institution. The mean
age of the sample was 2145, ranging from 16^56,
with a standard deviation of 733.
Measures and procedure
Existing scales were adopted for use in this survey
with regard to their ability to measure the constructs of concern, environmentalism, ecology and
economic beliefs (as represented by beliefs about
money and socio-political beliefs). The scales employed were the new environmental paradigm scale
(NEP) (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), an environmental
attitude scale (EAS) (Forgas & Jollie, 1994), eight
items measuring socio-political attitudes (Forgas &
Jollie, 1994) and the money ethics scale (MES)
(Tang, 1992).
The NEP scale was developed by Dunlap and
Van Liere (1978) to measure the extent to which the
beliefs endorsed by the paradigm are held by an individual. It is a measure of endorsement of a world
view founded on ecological principles. The scale was
carefully constructed to include 12 items that reect
the major constituents of the NEP (see Table 1). The
scale is widely employed in research of this nature
(e.g. Noe & Snow, 1990; Shetzer et al., 1991; Schultz &
Stone, 1994) with appropriate levels of predictive,
content and construct validity, internal consistency
and unidimensionality reported (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978)
The environmental attitude scale employed was
used by Forgas and Jollie (1994) with a sample of
Australian students and was hence chosen for its
social and cultural relevance. The scale was constructed from a survey of previous measures to

TABLE 1
The new environmental paradigm scale items
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
Plants and animals exists primarily to be used by humans.
To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a `steady state' economy where industrial growth is
controlled.
Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.
The Earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.
There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.
Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

288

S. P. Hodgkinson and J. M. Innes

include questions likely to be meaningful and relevant to the intended sample, while also representing the factors of importance to the construct to
be measured (Forgas & Jollie, 1994). Most importantly, however, the scale contains items that induce
the respondent to consider an economic/environmental trade-o, these being items 1^4 and 7 (see
Table 2). These items will be used in analysing an
attempt to isolate the one point of disparity between ecological beliefs and environmental attitudes (i.e. the relationship between environmentalism and economic beliefs).
The eight items measuring socio-political attitudes were taken from the same study (Forgas &
Jollie, 1994) and were selected to reect conservative political beliefs, and, to some extent, a belief in
capitalism (see Table 3).
The MES (Tang, 1992) was included in the battery
to examine personal beliefs about money and its
use. The MES was designed to reect the internal
representation of money held by a person which
leads to an understanding of the extent to which
that individual's beliefs about money form the frame
of reference with which they may interpret everyday
life (see Table 4).
The scales were presented in a particular order to
avoid the overt activation of particular belief systems prematurely. In line with the arguments presented in the introduction, the order of
presentation was as follows: NEP, EAS, short scale
of political conservatism, and nally the MES. It
was assumed that a true measure of the NEP would
not be possible if beliefs about money had already
been made salient beyond their natural level following the hypothesis that this would trigger a consideration of trade-o issues. The EAS was presented
second, as it does contain items that require

TABLE 2
EAS factor loadings
Items description

Factor
loading

1. Uranium mining should be totally banned.


2. Australia should build nuclear power
stations to achieve energy self suciency.
3. There is a good case for developing the
woodchipping and paper manufacturing
industries in Australia.
4. Even the controlled logging of rain forests
should be banned.
5. The green lobby has too much power in
Australia.
8. There should be more laws restricting
the use of private cars.
9. It is justiable to take direct action to
defend the environment.
10. Saving the environment is the most
important issue of the decade.
11. The greenhouse eect is the greatest
danger to life on Earth.
12. Everybody should be forced to recycle.
13. Water pollution in Australia is not really
a problem for most people.
15. Greenies are the only people truly
interested in the future.
16. Building bicycle ways should have
priority over building freeways.

059
052
059
049
060
051
063
067
048
056
043
025
063

Note: Eigenvalue = 388, percentage of variance accounted


for = 299.
Discarded items (not included in factor analysis):
6. Most greenies are quite irrational when it comes to
considering both sides of an argument.
7. The national and economic interests are more important than Aboriginal beliefs when it comes to mining.
14. Mass immigration to Australia should be stopped to
protect the environment.

TABLE 3
Conservatism scale factor loadings
Factor 1
1. The United State is a force of evil in world aairs.
3. Most workers are exploited by employers.
4. Capitalism is unable to satisfy people's real needs.
5. Unions should play a much smaller role in Australian society
6. Private enterprise is more ecient than governments.
7. All U.S. bases in Australia should be removed.
8. There should be a tax on wealth.
Factor 1 eigenvalue = 204, percentage of variance accounted for = 292.
Factor 2 eigenvalue = 129, percentage of variance accounted for = 185.
Discarded items (not included in factor analysis):
2. Socialism is a discredited ideology.

066
064
058
017
017
062
064

Factor 2
7015
002
7026
077
076
7017
010

289

Ecological and Environmental Belief Systems


TABLE 4
MES factor loadings
1. Money is an important factor in the lives of all of us.
2. Money is good.
3. Money can buy everything.
4. Money is evil.
5. Money represents one's achievements.
6. Money in the bank is a sign of security.
7. Money is a symbol of success.
8. Money is the most important thing (goal) in my life.
9. Money gives you autonomy and freedom.
10. Money can bring you many friends.
11. Money is attractive.
12. Money is the root of all evil.
13. Money is important.
14. Money is useless.
15. Money makes people respect you in the community.
17. Money is valuable.
18. Money will help you express your competence and abilities.
19. Money can buy you luxuries.
20. Money can give you the opportunity to be what you want to be.
22. Money is honorable.
23. Money is shameful.
28. I value money very highly.

Factor 1

Factor 2

048
066
057
032
063
050
7068
063
060
057
067
7027
067
7042
053
069
058
046
059
066
7038
072

7032
7029
026
063
033
008
025
027
017
030
008
054
7030
063
031
7017
033
7024
015
013
053
000

Factor 1 eigenvalue = 72, percentage of variance accounted for = 327.


Factor 2 eigenvalue = 24, percentage of variance accounted for = 109.
Discarded items (not included in the factor analysis):
16. Money spent is money lost (wasted).
21. Money means power.
24. Money does not grow on trees.
25. A penny saved is a penny earned.
26. I pay my bills immediately in order to avoid interest or penalties.
27. I think that it is very important to save some money.
29. I use my money very carefully.
30. I budget my money very well.

individuals to consider the trade-o between environment and economics, and the measurement of
these attitudes was considered to be of more value
before economic beliefs were made salient.
All scales were presented on a seven-point Likert
scale of measurement from `strongly disagree' to
`strongly agree', with 4 representing a neutral position. Participants were required to circle the number corresponding to their response for each of the
68 items.

Results
Scale by scale inter-item coecients were examined
to assess the reliability of the items for each scale,
resulting in the exclusion of three items from the
EAS (see Table 2), item 2 from the short scale of

political conservatism (see Table 3) and eight MES


items (see Table 4). Cronbach's measure of internal
consistency was then used to assess the reliability
of the scales in their modied form. This analysis
resulted in alpha coecients of 08, 077 and 084
for the NEP, EAS and MES, respectively. Reliability
analysis of the scale of political conservatism resulted in an alpha of 056.
A principle components factor analysis was carried out separately for the EAS, MES and conservatism scale. The aim of this analysis was to establish
the internal structure of each of the measures and
to create a reliable set of subscales specic to the
study. The NEP has been shown to be eective as a
unidimensional scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;
Schultz & Stone, 1994) and was therefore excluded
from this analysis. Factor loadings of each of the
items were then used to create the subscales. Any
factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and which

290

S. P. Hodgkinson and J. M. Innes

satised Cattell's scree test was extracted for use as


a subscale. Such a stringent screening process was
used as the sample size resulted in quite low coecients being statistically signicant. The factors selected for use as subscales are presented separately
in Tables 2, 3 and 4, with eigenvalues, percentage of
the variance accounted for by the factor and item
loadings. Descriptives for each of the resulting subscales, the NEP and the EAS trade-o subscale are
shown in Table 5.
Correlation coecients of the modied scales, as
shown in Table 6, were then examined for evidence
of the hypothesized relationships. The EAS and the
NEP were found to have a correlation of 063, this
strong but less than perfect relationship supports
the hypothesis that environmentalism and ecology
may exist within separable belief systems. The dierence in the relationship between the EAS modied
scale and the conservatism subscale (r = 7040) was
found to be signicantly stronger than that between
the NEP and the conservatism factor (r = 7021)
(CR = 2736, p5001). The correlation coecient between the four trade-o items and the remaining
TABLE 5
Subscale means and standard deviations
Scale
EAS
NEP
EAS trade-o
Conservatism factor 1
Conservatism factor 2
MES factor 1
MES factor 2

S.D.

4405
6566
1894
2077
779
5907
1198

915
1052
500
542
277
1766
489

079
080
064
063
044
090
072

a=Cronbach's measure of internal consistency.

items of the EAS (r = 052) reveals a relationship


which is statistically very similar to that between
the four items and the NEP (r = 051). However, the
dierence between the environmental attitude items
and the NEP is revealed when their relationships
with the rst conservatism subscale are compared
(r = 7038; r = 7021, CR = 25, p5001).
The scales were then entered into a stepwise regression analysis with an inclusion criteria of 05
and exclusion of variables with a partial F-value of
less than 10. The rst regression analysis employed
the NEP total scale as the dependent variable to examine which factors predicted ecological beliefs.
The analysis revealed the EAS as the only signicant predictor of NEP endorsement, predicting
41 per cent of the variance (r = 063, r2 = 039,
b = 058, p50001) (see Table 7).
A second analysis was then performed with the
EAS as the dependent variable, to establish whether
ecological values and environmental attitudes are
predicted by dierent variables. This analysis revealed three signicant predictors of environmental
attitudes, the NEP, the modied conservatism scale
and the rst extracted factor for the MES (interpreted as representing the belief that `money is
good'), as illustrated in Table 8. To further establish
the nature of the dierence between environmental
attitudes and ecological beliefs separate analyses
were performed for the trade-o subscale and the
remaining EAS items. As illustrated in Tables 9
and 10, the MES subscale was found to be a predictor of the trade-o subscale but not of the remaining items, while mutual predictors were entered in
dierent orders.
Frequencies show that of the 391 people surveyed,
43 disagreed or strongly disagreed with the EAS

TABLE 6
Correlation coecients for variables
Scale

NEP

NEP
EAS total
Environmental
attitude
Trade-o
MES 1
MES 2
Conservatism
factor 1
Conservatism
factor 2

100
063**
058**

100
093**

051**
7029**
021*
7021**

079**
7035**
017**
7042**
011*

7001

EAS total

Environmental
attitude

Trade-o

MES 1

MES 2

Conservatism
factor

052**
7024**
014**
7038**

100
7042**
016**
7034**

100
7026**
022**

100
7033**

100

7009

7012*

011*

7008

08

Conservatism
factor

100

*Correlation is signicant at the 005 level (two-tailed).


** Correlation is signicant at the 001 level (two-tailed).

100

291

Ecological and Environmental Belief Systems


TABLE 7
Regression analysis of NEP scale score
Variable entered
EAS total

r2

r2 change

0627

0393

0393

0627*

*Signicant at p50001.
TABLE 8
Regression analysis on EAS total scale scores
Variable entered
NEP total
Conservatism factor 1
MES factor 1

r2

r2 change

0627
0691
0702

0393
0477
0493

0393
0084
0016

0530*
70275*
70133*

*Signicant at p50001.
TABLE 9
Regression analysis on trade-o subscale
Variable entered
Environmental attitude
MES 1
NEP
Conservatism factor

r2

r2 change

0519
0603
0635
0646

0269
0364
0403
0418

0269
0095
0039
0015

0261*
70258*
0253*
70133**

*Signicant at p50001.
**Signicant at p50002.
TABLE 10
Regression analysis on environmental attitude subscale
Variable entered
NEP total
Conservatism factor 1
Trade-o

r2

r2 change

0579
0636
0666

0335
0405
0443

0335
00
0038

0414*
70212*
70237*

*Signicant at p50001.

scale items (calculated using mean scale scores)


while only four disagreed with the NEP items.
Thirty-two respondents revealed a belief that
`money is good', 273 were neutral or ambivalent in
their beliefs about money and the remaining 86 responses indicated a belief that `money is bad'. Examining cross-tabulations reveals that no-one who
indicated a belief that `money is good' agreed or
strongly agreed with the EAS items while 14 of 290
who agreed or strongly agreed with the NEP scale
also believed in the goodness of money. Only one respondent reported a belief that `money is bad' while
also disagreeing with both the EAS items and the
NEP. Twelve responses indicated a leaning towards
social conservatism, none of these agreed or
strongly agreed with the EAS, 7 of the same 12

agreed or strongly agreed with the NEP scale (the


remaining ve were neutral).
Discussion
Although much of the literature accepts the thesis
of disparity between those who hold traditional economic beliefs, congruent with the DSP (Noe & Snow,
1990), and those who espouse more nonmaterial values such as those suggested to make up the NEP,
very few studies have actually documented the relationship between the factors. Research has addressed related variables such as income (Arcury &
Christianson, 1990), authoritarianism (Schultz &
Stone, 1994), business attitudes (Shetzer et al., 1991)

292

S. P. Hodgkinson and J. M. Innes

and ideology (e.g. Forgas & Jollie, 1994). This study


was a direct investigation of the nature of the relationship between beliefs about money and social
conservatism and the natural environment. The
study was also designed as a preliminary investigation of the interaction of these variables in the
structure of individual beliefs.
The primary hypothesis proposed that strong economic beliefs, as indicated by a belief that money is
good (MES factor 1) and a strong belief in social
conservatism (conservatism scale factor 1), would inhibit strong environmental beliefs. As there were
only two respondents who reported being both socially conservative and believing that `money is
good', this hypothesis was precluded from being directly tested. However, of all respondents who reported a belief in the goodness of money (n = 32)
none agreed with the items of the EAS, while 14
agreed with the NEP scale, showing a tendency towards support for the hypothesis. Correlational analysis also evidenced this leaning nding signicant
negative relationships between both the NEP and
EAS and the rst conservatism subscale and the
subscale representing the belief that `money is good'.
The small number of socially conservative respondents meant that the rst hypothesis was not able to
be fully explored. It is believed that although environmental attitudes have been suggested to be related to ideology (Milbrath, 1986; Forgas & Jollie,
1994) a student sample, such as the one employed
here, may be under-representative of the level of
socio-political conservatism in the wider community
(Hoge et al., 1987; Forgas & Jollie, 1994). Additionally, the contemporary relevance of the conservative-liberal dimension has been questioned
(principally Bell, 1960, cited in Stone & Schaner,
1988), perhaps leaving the scale redundant in its
ability to measure any disparity in current social
and political beliefs. Therefore, considering the
briefness of the scale, in addition to its relatively
low internal consistency, it is not surprising that it
failed to contribute to this investigation in the intended manner.
This study was also designed to investigate the
psychological separability of ecology and environmentalism as independent belief structures. Environmentalism has been suggested to represent
traditional social and economic beliefs, modied to
incorporate environmental ideals. Contrasting this,
ecology is based on a close, even spiritual, relationship between humans and their natural environment (Dobson, 1995). Although the two measures
were found to be relatively strongly related, the correlation was somewhat less than perfect reecting

dierential predictive variables. NEP responses


were predicted only by EAS responses, while
50 per cent of the variance in EAS scores were collectively accounted for by NEP, conservatism and
MES factor 1 responses. Additionally, EAS responses were found to correlate with social conservatism signicantly stronger than NEP responses.
These ndings demonstrate the hypothesized dierence between the two belief systems, closely resembling the DSP/NEP divergence espoused by Dunlap
and Van Liere (1978).
To further explore the dierence between environmental attitudes and ecological beliefs the trade-o
items of the EAS were separated from the rest of
the scale. Subsequent correlational analysis revealed that the environmental attitude items and
the NEP had relationships of similar strength with
the two MES subscales. However, as illustrated in
Table 6, these variables had quite dierent relationships with the rst conservatism subscale. This difference was also reected in the regression analyses
which revealed dierent predictors for the two EAS
subscales; specically, the conservatism subscale
was found to be more strongly correlated and to be
a stronger predictor of the environmental attitude
items than of the trade-o items and was found to
make an insignicant contribution to the prediction
of NEP scale scores. It is therefore suggested that
even after separating attitudes toward obvious economic/environmental trade-os from more general
environmental attitudes, the discrepancy from ecological beliefs remains. Findings suggest that environmental attitudes are related to, or perhaps
moderated by, socio-political beliefs, supporting the
hypothesis that beliefs about the environment may
not exist within the same belief system but as two
separable cognitive structures.
It was also found that individuals in the sample
agreed with the principles of the NEP and disagreed with the items on the EAS concurrently, evidencing intrapsychic structural separability of
ecology and environmentalism. It is suggested that
the split between the two beliefs may exist as a value conict as well as an individual dierence in
world view, the implication being that an individual
may believe in the principles of the NEP while remaining unwilling to pay extra taxes to help `save
the environment', holding pro-environmental and
traditional economic beliefs simultaneously.
The results of this study suggest that the reason
for the growing support for pro-environmental policy is not reected in government and individual
decisions is that although individuals believe in
the principles of ecology, they do not believe that

Ecological and Environmental Belief Systems

traditional economic processes should be interrupted to help save the environment, reected in
the nding that the majority of respondents endorsed the NEP while disagreeing with the items
on the EAS. This is interpreted to be consistent
with Sears and Citrin's (1982) nding which showed
evidence of a public that wanted increased government benets but rejected tax increases. This contributes to the formulation of the hypothesis that
economic beliefs are more fundamental than environmental beliefs and are thus overriding in decisions that involve trade-os.
The dierence between ecology and environmentalism has been found to exist not only between, but
also within, individuals, highlighting the role of psychology in what has been termed by some as the
most important issue of the decade (Gore, 1997;
Suzuki, 1997). As beliefs are represented as perceptual lters, moderating responses to environmental
cues (Harvey, 1997), they play an important role in
understanding the inconsistency between intent
and action in the human relationship with the natural environment. Examining fundamental beliefs
provides an understanding of the factors involved
in moderating behaviour. Specically, this study
has demonstrated a relationship between economic
and political beliefs and environmentalism and provides support for the hypothesis that, although
there is an increase in concern for the environment,
this concern is separable and independent from a
commitment to saving the environment which appears to be moderated by fundamental political
and economic beliefs.

Notes
Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed
to: Shari P. Hodgkinson, School of Psychology, Murdoch
University, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150. Tel.: +61
9360 6629, E-mail: sphodgki@central.murdoch.edu.au

References
Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human Organization, 49, 300^304.
Arcury, T. A. & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental
worldview in response to environmental problems:
Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment and
Behavior, 22, 387^407.
Athanasiou, T, (1998). Slow Reckoning. London: Vintage.
Bean, C. & Papadakis, E. (1994). Polarized priorities or
exible alternatives? Dimensionality in Inglehart's
materialism^postmaterialism scale? International
Journal of Public Opinion, 6, 263^288.

293

Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life. London: Harper Collins


Publishers.
Catton, W. R. (1980). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of
Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Dobson, A. (1995). Green Political Thought. London:
Routledge.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The `New Environmental Paradigm'. Journal of Environmental Education,
9, 10^19.
Forgas, J. P. & Jollie, C. D. (1994). How conservative
are greenies? Environmental attitudes, conservatism, and traditional morality among university
students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 123^130.
Fox, W. (1995). Towards a Transpersonal Ecology. Devon:
Green Books Ltd.
Gordon, A. & Suzuki, D. (1990). It's a Matter of Survival.
St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Gore, A. (1997). Respect the land. Time: Special Issue `Our
Precious Planet', 8^9.
Gorz, A. (1994). Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology. Paris:
Editions Galilee.
Hamilton, C. (1994) The Mystical Economist. Australia:
Willow Park Press.
Hamilton, C. (1997). Foundations of ecological economics.
In M. Diesendorf & C. Hamilton, (Eds), Human
Ecology, Human Economy. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, pp, 35^63.
Harvey, O. J. (1997). Beliefs, knowledge and the meaning
from the perspective of the perceiver: need for structure and order. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam, (Eds),
The Message of Social Psychology. Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishers, pp. 146^165.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1972). A radical view of socialism. Social
Research, 39, 1^15.
Hoge, D. R., Hoge, J. L. & Wittenberg, J. (1987). The return
of the fties: trends in college students' values between 1952 and 1984. Sociological Forum, 2, 500^519.
Linden, E. (1997). What have we wrought? Time: Special
Issue `Our Precious Planet', 10^13.
Lowe, I. (1997). National state of the environment reporting in Australia. Australiasian Science, 18, 5^6.
Milbrath, L. W. (1986). Environmental beliefs and values.
In M. G. Hermann, (Ed.), Political Psychology. California: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, pp. 97^138.
Noe, F. P. & Snow, R. (1990). The New Environmental Paradigm and further scale analysis, Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 20^26.
Rasinski, K. A., Smith, T. W. & Zuckerbraun, S. (1994).
Fairness motivations and trade-os underlying public
support for government environmental spending in
nine nations. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 179^197.
Schnider, S. H. (1996). Laboratory Earth. London: Orion
Books Ltd.
Schultz, P. W. & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and
attitudes toward the environment. Environment and
Behavior, 26, 25^37.
Sears, D. O. & Citrin, J. (1982). Tax Revolt: Something for
Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Serrill, M. (1997). Ghosts of the forest. Time: Special Issue
`Our Precious Planet', 50^55.
Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W. & Moore, L. F. (1991).
Business^environment attitudes and the New

294

S. P. Hodgkinson and J. M. Innes

Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental


Education, 22, 14^21.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations,
gender and environmental concern. Environment and
Behavior 25, 322^348.
Stone, W. F. & Schaner, P. E. (1988). The Psychology of
Politics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Suzuki, D. (1997). The Sacred Balance. St. Leonards: Allen
& Unwin

Tang. T. L.-P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 197^202.
Tan-Van Baren, C. (1997, October 7). Greenhouse cuts risk
to growth: PM, The West Australian, p. 1.
Wysor, M. S. (1983). Comparing college students' environmental perceptions and attitudes: a methodological
investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15, 615^645.

You might also like