Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior
Tóm tắt
In environmental literature it is argued that three different value orientations may be relevant for understanding environmental beliefs and intentions: egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric. Until now, the distinction between altruistic and biospheric value orientations has hardly been supported empirically. In this article, three studies are reported aimed to examine whether an egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientation can indeed be distinguished empirically by using an adapted value instrument. Also, it is examined whether these value orientations are differently and uniquely related to general and specific beliefs and behavioral intention. Results provide support for the reliability and validity of the value instrument. All studies replicated the distinction into three value orientations, with sufficient internal consistency. Furthermore, when altruistic and biospheric goals conflict, they seem to provide a distinct basis for proenvironmental intentions. The value instrument could therefore be useful to better understand relationships between values, beliefs, and intentions related to environmentally significant behavior.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allport, G.W., 1963, Pattern and growth in personality
Collins, C.M., Psychology & Marketing
De Groot, J.I.M., Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Dunlap, R.E., Grieneeks, J.K. & Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro-environmental behavior. In W. D. Conn (Ed.), Energy and material resources: Attitudes, values, and public policy (pp. 145-168). Boulder, CO: Westview.
García Mira, R., Real Deus, E., Durán Rodríguez, M. & Romay Martínez, J. (2003). Predicting environmental attitudes and behavior. In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza , & M. V. Giuliani (Eds.), People, places and sustainability (pp. 302-311). Seattle, WA : Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Gardner, G.T., 2002, Environmental problems and human behavior, 2
Hendriks, P., 1999, Confirmatory factor analysis methods compared: The multiple group method and maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis
Jöreskog, K.G., 1993, LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the Simplis Command Language
Kiers, H.A.L., 1990, SCA: A program for simultaneous components analysis of variables measured in two or more populations
Leopold, A., 1949, A Sand County almanac
Merchant, C., 1992, Radical ecology. The search for a livable world
Nickerson, R.S., 2003, Psychology and environmental change
Nunnally, J.C., 1978, Psychometric theory, 2
Reid, L. (1962). The sociology of nature. In N. Nelissen, J. Van der Straaten , & L. Klinkers (Eds.), Classics in environmental studies. An overview of classic texts in environmental studies (pp. 57-67). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.
Rokeach, M., 1973, The nature of human values
Rokeach, M., 1979, Understanding human values
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Singer, P., 1975, Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals
Stern, P.C., 1999, Human Ecology Review, 6, 81
Stuive, I., 2006, A comparison of methods for the empirical verification of an assignment of items to subtests: Oblique multiple group method versus common confirmatory factor analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication
Ten Berge, J.M.F., 2001, Metodologia de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2, 217
Van Lange, P.A.M., 1989, European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 209
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. In N. Nelissen, J. Straaten, & L. Klinkers (Eds.), Classics in environmental studies (pp. 275-284). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Universal Books.