The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis☆
Introduction
More than 50 years ago commentators and natural scientists began to systematically investigate ways in which human behavior were damaging the natural environment (e.g., Carson, 1962, Osborn, 1948). Their work was soon followed by social scientists who hoped to understand more about how humans relate to the environment, and thus uncover techniques that could be used to encourage people to live in a more sustainable manner (for a review, see Gardner & Stern, 2002). However, although social scientists have made many significant discoveries, it is still clear that humanity is not living in balance with our natural limits. In fact, recent research shows that humans are consuming the Earth's resources at increasingly unsustainable rates (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). As a consequence of this maladaptive behavior we are also facing ever more serious environmental issues, such as climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).
Given this situation, it is crucial that social scientists gain a better understanding of why people treat the environment as they do. An important step towards achieving this goal is to measure peoples' environmental attitudes in a valid and reliable fashion. Environmental attitudes (EA) are a psychological tendency expressed by evaluating the natural environment with some degree of favour or disfavour, and are a crucial construct in the field of environmental psychology, discussed in more than half of all publications in this area (Milfont, 2007a). However, it has frequently been noted that much of the previous research on EA has been conducted in an unsystematic way (Heberlein, 1981, Stern, 1992), with researchers generating new measures of EA for almost every study they conducted. As a result, in their 2002 review Dunlap and Jones estimated that at least several hundred measures of EA have been developed since the 1960s. Analysts agree that this “anarchy of measurement” (Stern, 1992, p. 279) has been a key factor contributing to the noncumulative and atheoretical nature of much research on EA (Milfont & Duckitt, 2004b). The proliferation of measures has also made it difficult for researchers who are not familiar with the field to choose an appropriate standard measure of EA to use when designing a new study, thus compounding the problem.
However, although many researchers have noted the detrimental effect on research in this field of using numerous measures of EA, less attention has been paid to the question of whether researchers are using standardized measures of EA consistently. It is also not known whether an inconsistent use of standardized EA measures may constitute a problem for the field. Research into psychometrics suggests that an inconsistent use of scales may well be problematic. For example, it is known that even a small change in the wording of one item can have a substantial effect on how people respond to a scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). Changes in the response format (e.g., variation in the number of points on a Likert scale offered to participants) are also known to effect responses (Aiken, 1987, Krosnick, 1999). Finally, the context in which items are presented (i.e., the items or text that come before or after them) can also have a considerable effect on the way people respond to scales (Schwarz, 1999). Therefore, it seems likely that if there is variation across studies in the way that standardized measures of EA are used this might decrease the comparability of the studies' results, leading to the same problem of noncumulative research noted above.
When trying to measure the effect of such variation in scale use it is important to control for other factors that might also affect results. For example, recent research has found that sampling fluctuation (e.g., sample size, sample composition) has a significant influence on the internal structure of the values domain (Fischer et al., in press, Fontaine et al., 2008). It is thus important to determine whether changes in results across studies are caused by variations in scale use rather than by variations in sample composition or other factors that might affect responding. A meta-analysis provides an ideal method to examine this possibility as it summarizes many aspects of several studies in a quantitative form (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). This article therefore takes a meta-analytic approach to investigate how the use of the most widely-used EA measure, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale, may have affected the results obtained by researchers using the scale. By investigating the use of one scale in detail, this article will highlight some of the more problematic aspects of how EA is currently measured. Some recommendations to researchers as to how the NEP Scale can be best used to avoid such problems in the future are also provided.
Section snippets
The NEP Scale
Despite the large number of EA measures available, reviewers agree that only three have been widely used (Dunlap and Jones, 2003, Fransson and Gärling, 1999). These are the Ecology Scale (Maloney and Ward, 1973, Maloney et al., 1975), the Environmental Concern Scale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978), and the NEP Scale (Dunlap and Liere, 1978, Dunlap et al., 2000). These three scales examine multiple phenomena or expressions of concern, such as beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior. These scales
The present study
It has now been 30 years since the NEP Scale was first published, and the scale has been widely used ever since. As an indication, a search on the ISI Web of Science database in 2008 showed that the 1978 paper had been cited 379 times, and the 2000 paper had already been cited 135 times. However, no previous study has attempted to provide a systematic review of studies using the NEP Scale. Dunlap et al. (2000) provided a review of selected findings supporting the validity of the NEP Scale, but
Procedure
The procedure consisted of three steps: (1) a search for studies using any version of the NEP Scale, (2) selection of studies that met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, and (3) coding of relevant study features.
Study characteristics
The analysis includes 139 samples and a total of 58,279 participants (for two samples information on sample size was not provided). Although a few samples in this analysis were collected and/or published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the vast majority of samples (86.3%) were published in the last 12 years, since 1997.
Sample composition
The samples in the analysis vary greatly in terms of size, age, gender composition, and sample type. Descriptive statistics relating to sample composition are provided in
Discussion
This article used a meta-analytical approach to provide a quantitative review of 30 years of research using the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale, including 69 studies, 139 samples, and 58,279 participants. Because the NEP Scale is currently the most widely used measure to assess people's environmental attitudes (EA), it seemed useful to investigate whether variations in the characteristics of studies using the scale would affect samples' average scores. Our quantitative review indicates
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by a Faculty of Arts Honours scholarship from the University of Auckland to Lucy J. Hawcroft, and by scholarship BEX 2246/02–3 from the Ministry of Education of Brazil (CAPES Foundation) to Taciano L. Milfont. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Ronald Fischer for his valuable help on meta-analysis literature and to thank Riley E. Dunlap for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
References (81)
- et al.
Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2003) - et al.
Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1999) - et al.
Investigating GM risk perceptions: a survey of anti-GM and environmental campaign group members
Journal of Rural Studies
(2006) ‘‘Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2008)- et al.
The structure of environmental attitudes: a first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Implicit connections with nature
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2008) Formulas for equating ratings on different scales
Educational and Psychological Measurement
(1987)- et al.
Environmental belief systems: United States, Brazil, and Mexico
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
(1999) - et al.
A cross-cultural study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru
International Journal of Psychology
(2006)
The nature and origins of ecological world views: an Australian study
Social Science Quarterly
Canadian public opinion and environmental action: evidence from British Columbia
Canadian Journal of Political Science
Toward measuring adolescent environmental perception
European Psychologist
Adolescent's attitudes towards nature and environment: quantifying the 2-MEV model
Environmentalist
Environmental concerns and the new environmental paradigm in Bulgaria
Journal of Environmental Education
Silent spring
The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community
Journal of Environmental Education
Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern
Environment and Behavior
Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues
Environmental attitudes and values
The new environmental paradigm
Journal of Environmental Education
Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality
Social Science Quarterly
Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale
Journal of Social Issues
An assessment of the revised new ecological paradigm scale among visitors at two National Park settings
Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variations
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Environmental problems and human behavior
The new environmental paradigm scale: a reexamination
Journal of Environmental Education
Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic states
Environment and Behavior
Environmental attitudes
Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik
Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis
Psychological Methods
The association between environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity
Society and Natural Resources
Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values
American Sociological Review
Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability
Factor structure of the new environmental paradigm scale: evidence from an urban sample in Southern California
Psychological Reports
Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context
Environment and Behavior
Dominant and variant value orientations
Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Survey research
Annual Review of Psychology
The measurement of attitudes
Cited by (448)
The effect of green competencies and values on carbon footprint on sustainable performance in healthcare sector
2024, Cleaner and Responsible ConsumptionSignificance of the environmental value-belief-norm model and its relationship to green consumption among Chinese youth
2024, Asia Pacific Management ReviewGreen or greedy: the relationship between perceived benefits and homeowners’ intention to adopt residential low-carbon technologies
2024, Energy Research and Social ScienceGen Z and sustainable diets: Application of The Transtheoretical Model and the theory of planned behaviour
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionMeasuring the effect of product and environmental messaging attributes on alternative wine packaging choices
2023, Journal of Cleaner Production
- ☆
Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, Wellington, New Zealand, March 2008.