Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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).
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
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
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
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
059
052
059
049
060
051
063
067
048
056
043
025
063
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
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
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
290
S.D.
4405
6566
1894
2077
779
5907
1198
915
1052
500
542
277
1766
489
079
080
064
063
044
090
072
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
100
291
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.
292
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
294
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.