Eco and Anthro Attitudes Toward Env

8/8/2019 Eco and Anthro Attitudes Toward Env

1/9

Journal of Envir onm ental Psychology(1994) 14, 149--157 0272-4944/94/020149+09508.00/0 1994 Academic Pres s Limi ted

P S Y C H O L O G YE C O C E N T R I C A N D A N T H R O P O C E N T R I C A T T I T U D E S

T O W A R D T H E E N V I R O N M E N T

SUZANNE C. GAGNON THOMPSON AND MICHELLE A. BARTON

Pom ona College , 550 Ha rva rd Avenue , Claremont , CA , U.S .A.

A b s t r a c t

The relationship between two motives underlying environmental attitudes was examined: ecocentrism--valuing nature for its own sake, and anthropocentrism--valui ng nature because of material or physicalbenefits it can provide for humans. Scales to measure ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes and general

apathy toward environmental issues were developed. In Study 1, the ecocentric and anthropocentric scaleswere found to predict independently conserving behaviors, apa thy toward environmental issues, and member-ship in environmental organizations. In Study 2, these results were partially replicated and extended toinclude the relationship between ecocentric attitudes and an observed measure of environmentally-relevantbehavior. In addition, it was demons trated that the ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction explains behaviorindependently of environmental attitudes measured with a traditional attitude scale. Implications of theecocentric-anthropocentric distinction for further research on environmental attitudes and behaviors arediscussed.

The good news from the environmental front is thatconcern for environmental issues is widespreadamong the American public. In one national sampleas many as 80% of respondents identified them-selves as 'environmentalists' (Gutfeld, 1991) and72% in an other study agreed that 'environmentalproblems are urgent' (Milbrath, 1985). In addition,there is strong verbal endorse ment of makin glifestyle changes to protect the environment, even ifthose changes require personal economic costs orinconve nience (Gut feld, 1991).

Unfortunately, this seemingly strong commit-ment to the environm ent and conservation does notalways seem to be effectively tra nsl ate d into actionto conserve resources. Despite very positive views ofthe environment, many individuals do not practicethe conservation behaviors that would help lessendamage to the environment. In fact, a number ofstudies have found a low correlation between generalatti tudes toward the environment and behaviorsthat help reserve resources (Lipsey, 1977; Tracy &Oskamp, 1983-84; Oskamp et al. , unpublisheddata.)

One explanat ion for this lack of transla tion of at-tit udes into acti on is the sacrifice and inconvenienceinvolved in reducing consumption and in atte ndingto the consequences of purchases. People ma y find it

difficult to act on their tendency to conserve whenfaced with higher prices or the need to forego con-venience a nd comfort to do so. Recognizing th at the

difficulty of conserving plays a role in people notacting on their atti tudes, the present study exploredanot her re ason for the lack of a str ong link betweenattitudes and action. We suggest there are at leasttwo motives or values (ecocentric and anthropocen-tric) tha t underlie support for environme ntal issues.Both ecocentric and anthropocentric individualsexpress positive atti tudes toward environmentalissue s--t he difference in these two orientations is inthe reasons given for supporting conservation.

Ecocentr ic individuals value nature for its ownsake and, t herefore, judge t ha t it deserves protec-tion because of its intrins ic value. In contrast ,anthropocent r ics feel that the environment shouldbe protected because of its value in main tain ing orenhancing t he quality of life for humans .

Both ecocentrics and anthropocentrics expressenvironmental concern and an interest in pre-serving natural resources, but their motives forthis interest are distinguishable. Anthropocentricssupport conservation because hu ma n comfort, qualityof life, and he alt h can be de pende nt on the preser-vation of natu ral resources and a hea lthy ecosys-tem. As examples, air pollution can lead to difficulty

149


2/9

1 50 S . C . G a g n o n T h o m p s o n a n d M . A . B a r t o n

in breathing and health problems; destruction ofthe rain forests may foreclose the possibility ofdeveloping new medicines that could save humanlives; and the depletion of fossil fuels may r esult ina decreased s tan dar d of living.

Ecocentrics, on the other hand, support environ-

mental issues because they see nature as worthpreservin g regardles s of the economic or lifestyleimplications of conservation. To ecocentrics, natu rehas a spiritual dimension and intrinsic value that isreflected in their experiences in nature and feelingsabout natural settings. In contrast to anthropo-centrics, this group stresses a connectedness betweenhum an s a nd othe r aspects of nat ure (i.e. ecologicalsettings and animals) that transcends the ability ofnatu ral resources to satisfy hum an ma terial orphysical wants. Ecocentrics will probably agreewith anthropocentrics that ecological issues should

be addressed so that healt h and qualit y of life canbe preserved--the difference is that ecocentrics feeltha t even if these were not issues, na ture is worthpreserving because of the transcendent al dimen-sion.

This distinction between ecocentrism and anthro-pocentrism is not new. These two attitudes areanalogous to two of the philosophical views ofpeople-environmental relations discussed byStokols (1990). Instrumentalists, similar to anthro-pocentrics, see the physica l environm ent as a meansto be used to accomplish goals and not as having

i t s own value. Spiritua lists , like ecocentrics, judgethe environment to be a context for enriching thehum an spirit that has wort h independent of its con-tributions to human materialistic goals. Similarly,Seligman's (1989) analysis of environmental ethicsmakes a distinction between a utili tarian approachto the environment and approaches based on givingmoral consideration to non-human elements in theuniverse. Anthropocentrics are utili tarian--naturehas val ue because of wha t it can contri bute to thesatisfaction of hum an wants. Ecocentric individualsjudge that nature has independent value and

should receive moral consi deration in its own right.Stern et a l . (1993) proposed a theoretical approach

to understandi ng environmental concern tha t is basedon a distinction between egoistic, social-altruistic,and biospheric values. Egoistic and social-altruisticvalues are similar to anthropocentric atti tudesbecause they focus on outcomes for humans. Bio-spheric values are most similar to what we aredefining here as ecocentric motives. Ster n e t a l .(1993) found in a stu dy of college stude nts th atbeliefs about the implicati ons of various actionsfor these values are related to willingness to take

political action in support of environmental issues.However, as the authors point out, the scales theyused to measure these orientations consider onlythree items each and need furth er work.

The purpose of the presen t st udies is to developthe distinction between ecocentrism and anthro-

pocentrism by constructing multiple item scales tomeasure these constructs. The basic idea is thatboth ecocentrics and anthropocentrics will expresssupport for the environment but with differentunde rlyi ng motives. 1 We expect this distinc tion tobe helpful in unders tandi ng the strengt h of commit-ment to environmental issues and in predictingwhen environmental atti tudes will be translatedinto behaviors to support conservation. Becausethe values underlying anthropocentrics ' support ofthe environment are human-centered and basicallyutilitarian, they will be less likely to act to protect

the environment if other human-centered valuessuch as m aterial quality of life or the accumulati onof wea lth interfere. Ecocentric individuals, however,will act to support the environment even if theseactions involve discomfort, inconvenience, andexpense that may reduce their material quality oflife. The ne t re sult of this should be more conserv-ing behaviors and support for the environmentamong those who are ecocentric.

These ideas were tested in two studies. In the firststudy, scales were developed to measure anthro-pocentric and ecocentric attitudes. The relation-

ships between these scales and a measure ofgeneral apathy toward environmental issues andself-reported conserving behaviors were e xamined.

S t u d y 1

P a r t i c i p a n t s

Individuals (n = 129) in waiting areas at LoganInternational Airport in Boston were approachedand a sked to participate in a study of their atti tude s

towar d various curre nt issues. Of these, 115 agreedto fill out the questionnai re, comprisi ng 58 females,51 males, and six individuals who did not answerthe item r egardi ng gender. The average age of thesample was 43, with a range of 19 to 82 years (ex-cluding seven who did not answe r the age question).The response r ate was 90%.

P r o c e d u r e

The interviewer approached individuals and smallgroups of people who were waiti ng for planes or


3/9

E c o c e n t r i c - A n t h r o p o c e n t r i c A t t i t u d e s 1 51

arriving passengers and introduced herself as acollege student working on a class project. Respon-dents were asked if they would be willing to fill outa short questionnaire concerning their atti tudestoward various current issues. Those who were sit-ring with others were asked to answer the questions

individually. The interviewer t hen left and retur nedapproximately 5 min later to collect the question-naires and answer any questions. The survey tookabout 5-10 m in to complete.

Me asu re s

Reasons fo r env i ronmen ta l con c e rn . A nopen-ended question asked respondents to list their twomost important reasons for being concerned aboutthe environment. These were coded into a categorytha t ma in ly reflected an ecocentric approach (e.g.enjo ymen t of natu re, concern for wildlife, and moral

responsibility to care for nature), a category ofanthrop ocentr ic concerns (e.g. h ealt h, quali ty of life,and preserving resources), and an 'other' category.The number of ecocentric and anthropocentricreasons given by each individual was counted.

At t i t udes . Items to measure ecocentrism, anthro-pocentrism, and general apathy about the environ-mental issues were developed and tested in apre-study. The seven items on the ecocentric scaleexpressed appreciating nature for its own sake,

positive affect and stress reduction associated withbeing out in nature, and seeing a connectednessbetween humans and animals. The nine anthro-pocentrism items reflected a concern with environ-mental issues pri mari ly because of thei r effects onhuman quality of life and survival. General apat hyabout the environment was measured with nineitems reflecting a lack of intere st in e nvironmentalissues, and a gener al belief th at problems in thisarea have been exaggerated. T he response scale was(1) S t rong ly d i s ag reeto (5) St rong ly ag ree.See Table1 for the items.

The internal reliabilit ies of these three scales inthe present study were assessed with Cronbach'salpha: 0.63 for ecocentrism, 0.58 for anthropocen-trism, and 0.83 for general enviro nmenta l apathy.

Behaviors . Respondents were asked how frequently((1) never, (2) some t imes , (3) of ten , (4) a l w a y s )they performed 18 conserving behaviors such asrecycling cans, reusing plastic bags, using publictransportati on instead of a car, and avoidingusing aerosol sprays. The se self-reports of behaviorwere added to produce a conserving behavior scale

with an internal reliability of 0.81 (Cronbach'salpha).

A second measure of behavior tha t reflectedenvironmental interest was mem bershi p in ecologi-cally-oriented organizations such as the SierraClub, the Nature Conservancy, or the NationalWildlife Federation. Re spondents were asked abouttheir membership in 10 such organizations, andan open-ended question asked them to list otherenvironmental organizations they had joined..Thenumber of organizations checked and/or listed wascounted.

R e s u l t s

The ma jorit y (66%) of the respond ents reported t ha tthey belonged to no environmental organizations;15% belonged to one, 10% to two, and 9% to thre e or

more.

Cor re l a t i ons

The zero-order correlations of int ere st are givenin Table 2. As shown there, individuals who weremore ecocentric expressed less apathy about en-vironmental issues, were more likely to engage inconservation, belonged to more environmentalorganizations and gave more open-ended ecocentricreasons for their concern about the environment.More anthropocentric individuals expressed more

general environmental apathy and were less likelyto conserve. They did not, however, belong to fewerenvironmental organizations or give more anthro-pocentric reasons for their interest in the environ-ment .

M ul t i p l e r eg r es s ions

To examine the effects of ecocentric and anthro-pocentric atti tudes simultaneously, three multipleregressions were done, using apathy about the en-vironment, frequency of conserving behaviors, and

numbe r of memberships in environme ntal organiza-tions as dependent variables. In each regression,both ecocentric and anthropocentric atti tudes wereallowed to enter the equation in a stepwise fashion.The resu lts are given in Table 3.

In all three regressions, both ecocentrism andanthropocentrism entered the analysis and weresignificant in the final equation. Thus it a ppearsthat ecocentrism and anthropocentrism makeindependent contributions toward explaining apathytoward the environment, conserving behaviors, andmembership in envi ronmental organizations.


4/9

152 S . C . G a g - n o n T h o m p s o n a n d M . A . B a r t o n

TABLE 1Means and s t anda r d d e v i a t i on s fo r i t em s on t he e c o c en t r i c ( ECO) , an th rop oc en t r i c ( ANTH R) , an d e n v i r o n m e n t

a p a t h y ( A P AT H ) s c a l es

Item Scale 1st Study 2nd StudyMean S.D. Mea n S.D.(n = 115) (n = 71)

1 One of the worst things about overpopulat ion is that man y nat ura l ECO 3.8areas are getting destroyed for development

2 I can enjoy spending t ime in nat ural set t ings just for the sake of ECO 4.5being out in natur e

3 Envir onme ntal threats such as deforestat ion and ozone deplet ion APATH 2.3have been exaggerated

4 The worst thin g about the loss of the rai n forest is tha t it will ANTH R 2.8restr ict the development of new medicines

5 Sometimes it makes me sad to see forests cleared for agric ulture ECO 3.76 It seems to me tha t most conserva tionists are pessimistic and APATH 2.7

somewhat paranoid.7 I prefer wildlife reser ves to zoos ECO 3.88 The best thi ng about cam ping is tha t it is a cheap vacation* ANTHR 2.39 I do not thi nk the problem of depletion of nat ura l resources is APATH 2.2

as bad as m any people make it out to be10 I find it har d to get too concerned about env iro nme nta l issues APATH 2.111 I t bothers me that hum ans are run nin g out of their supply of oil ANTHR 3.212 I need time in nat ure to be happ y ECO 3.913 Science and technology will even tual ly solve our problems with ANTHR 2.7

pollut ion, overpopulat ion, a nd diminishin g resources*14 The thing that concerns me most about deforestat ion is that there ANTHR 2.7

wil l not be enough lu mber for future generat ions15 I do not feel that hum ans are dependent on natur e to survive APATH 1.816 Sometimes when I am un ha pp y I find comfort in na tur e ECO 4.017 Most envir onmen tal problems wil lsolve themselves given enough t ime APATH 1.918 I don' t care about envi ronme ntal problems APATH 1.5

19 One of the most imp ort ant reasons to keep lakes and rivers clean ANTHR 2.3is so that people have a place to enjoy water sports*

20 I 'm opposed to programs to preserve wilderness, reduce pollution APATH 1.7and conserve resources

21 I t makes me sad to see nat ura l enviro nment s destroyed ECO 4.322 The most impor tant reason for conservat ion is hum an survival ANTHR 3.523 One of the best thing s about recycling is tha t it saves money ANTHR 2-524 Nature is import ant because of what i t can contr ibute to the ANTHR 3.5

pleasure and welfare of hum ans25 Too much emph asis has been placed on conserva tion APATH 1.826 Natu re is valu able for its own sake ECO --27 We need to preserve resources to ma in ta in a high quali ty of life ANTHR --28 Being out in nat ure is a great stress reducer for me ECO --29 One of the most imp ort ant reason s to conserve is to ensu re a ANTHR --

continued high stand ard of l iving30 One of the most imp ort ant reason s to conserve is to preserve wild areas ECO --31 Conti nued lan d develo pment is a good idea as long as a high ANTHR --

quality of life can be preser ved32 Sometimes anima ls seem almost hu ma n to me ECO --33 Hu man are as much a part of the ecosystem as other animal s ECO --

Ecocentr ic Scale--a verage i tem 4-0Anthropocentr ic Scale--a verage i tem 2.8Envi ronmenta l Apa thy Sca le - -average i t em 1 .9

1.1 4-0 1.0

0-8 4.6 0.7

1.2 1.8 0.8

1.1 2-5 1.1

0.9 3-9 1.11-2 2.4 1.0

1.1 4.2 0.91.1 2.1 0.91.1 1.7 0.9

1.1 2.2 1.01.1 3.2 1-21.1 3.8 1.01.2 2-3 1.1

1.2 2.3 1.1

1.0 1-5 0.91.1 4.3 0-81-0 1.4 0.80.9 1.4 0.8

1.2 2-1 0.9

1-1 1.2 0.5

1.0 4.5 0.91.3 3.0 1.11.1 2.0 0-81-2 3.3 1.1

0.9 1.7 0.6- - 4-5 0.7- - 3 . 8 0 . 9

- - 4 . 3 0 . 8

- - 2 . 9 1 - 0

- - 4 - 1 0 . 7

- - 2 . 1 0 . 8

- - 3 . 5 1 . 1

- - 4.3 0-8

0.6 4.2 0-50.6 2.8 0.50-7 1.7 0.5

* I tems not included in the f inal calculat ion of the Anthropocentr ic Scale in Study 2 to improve the intern alof the scale.Note. The first 25 items were u sed in S tudy 1, all items were admi nist ere d in Study 2.

rel iabi l i ty


5/9

E c o c e n t r i c - A n t h r o p o c e n t r i c A t t i t u d e s

TABLE 2Zero-order correlations between variables in St udy I (n = 115)

153

Anthropo- Environmenta l Conserving Environmental Ecocentric Anthropocentriccentrism apathy behaviors organizations reasons reasons

EcocentrismAnthropocentrismEnvironmental apathyConserving behaviorsEnvironmental organizationsEcocentric reasons

0.09 - 0-48*** 0-21" 0.35*** 0.27** 0.140.23** -0.20 * -0. 15 -0. 06 0.16-0.12 -0.35*** -0.25** -0.17

0.32*** 0.09 0.000.22* -0.04

0.09

*p < 0.05, **p < 0-01, ***p _


6/9

1 54 S . C . G a g n o n T h o m p s o n a n d M . A . B a r t o n

Procedure

Parti cipa nts were schedul ed in groups of 15 to 25 tofill out a questionnaire containing the atti tudescale, environmental apathy, and self-reportedbehaviors. Several weeks after this, a different

researcher who was pr esumably not connected withthe earlier study of atti t udes contacted the intro-ductory psychology classes, explained the stu den tenvironmental organization, and passed around thesign-up sheet for those who were inter este d in beingcontacted.

Measures

choosing reusable rat her tha n disposable utensils inthe dining hall, t urn ing off lights in public rooms,and avoiding using aerosol sprays. These self-reportsof behavior were sum med to produce a conservingbehavior scale with an internal reliability of 0.83(Cronbach's Alpha).

For the observed behavior measure, participantswere asked to sign their names and phone numberson a sheet of paper circulated in class if the y wishedto be involved with the campus environmentalaction organization. A dummy coded variables of0 = did not sign up and 1 = did sign up was used inthe following analyses.

Attitudes. The same scales as described in Study 1were used to measure apathy toward the environ-ment, ecocentrism, and anthropocentrism, except

that new items were added to the ecocentrism andanthropocentrism scales to improve internal relia-bility. See Table i for the additional items. Further-more, to improve the reliabili ty of the anthropo-centric scale, three items were dropped from thescale (Items 8, 13, and 19 on Table 1). The internalreliabilities (Cronbach's Alpha) for this study were:0.78 for ecocentrism, 0.67 for anthropocentri sm, a nd0.82 for environmental apathy. Thus we were ableto improve the reliabili ty of the ecocentrism andanthropocentris m scales.

A widely used scale to measure atti tudes toward

environmental issues, the Environmental ConcernScale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978) was used as a tradi-tional measure of environme ntal atti tudes.

Behaviors. Self-reported behavior and observedbehavior measures were taken. The self-report scalewas similar to that used in Study 1 except thatbehaviors relevant to college students were used.Respondents were asked how frequently ((1) never,(2) sometimes, (3) often, (4) always) they performed14 conserving behaviors such as recycling cans,

R e s u l t s

Of the 71 partic ipants, 21 (30%) signed the ir na mes

to express interest in the student environmentalorganization.

Correlations

The zero-order correlations of the variables used inthis study are given in Table 4. Ecocentrism wassignificantly correlated with environmen tal apathy,self-reported conservation behaviors, and signingup for the environmental organization. However, incontrast to the Study 1 results, anthropocentrismwas not related to any of these variables.

The Weigel and Weigel scale was correlated withenvironmental apathy and conserving behaviors,but not wit h the likelihood tha t part icipants signedup to be contacted by an environmental organiza-tion.

Multiple regression

Multiple regression analyses examined the effectsof ecocentrism, anthr opocent rism, a nd the Weigeland Weigel scale on self-reported and observed

TABLE 4Zero-order correlations between variables in Study 2 (n = 71)

Anthropo- Envi ronmental Conserving Signup Weigel & Weigelcentrism apa thy behaviors Scale

- 0 . 1 9 - 0-61"** 0.49*** 0.27* 0.69***0.18 -0.09 :0.1 9 -0.10

-0.55*** -0. 17 -0.78***0.31"* 0.47***

0.13

EcocentrismAnthropocentrismEnvironmental apathyConserving behaviorsSignup

*p _


7/9

E c o c e n t r i c - A n t h r o p o c e n t r i c A t t i t u d e s 1 55

b e h a v i o r a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l a p a t h y. A l l t h r e ep r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s w e r e f o r c e d t o e n t e r t h e s a m ee q u a t i o n s o t h e e f f e c ts o f e a c h v a r i a b l e c o u ld b ee x a m i n e d w h e n t h e o t h e r s w e r e c o n t r o l l e d . T h er e s u l t s a r e g i v e n i n Ta b l e 5 . E c o c e n t r i s m w a ss i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o s e l f - r e p o r t e d a n d o b s e r v e d

e n v i r o n m e n t a l b e h a v i o r e v e n w h e n t h e t r a d i t io n a lWe i g e l a n d We i g e l s c a l e w a s c o n t r o l l e d f o r. T h eWe i g e l a n d We i g e l s c a l e d i d n o t p r e d i c t e i t h e rm e a s u r e o f b e h a v i o r w h e n t h e e c o - a n t h r o p o c e n t r ics c a le s w e r e i n t h e a n a l y s i s . H o w e v e r , o n l y t h eWe i g e l a n d We i g e l s c a l e p r e d i c t e d a p a t h y t o w a r dt h e e n v i r o n m e n t w h e n t h e o t h e r t w o v a r i a b l e s w e r ea c c o u n t e d f o r.

R e - e x a m i n i n g a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m

I n c o n t r a s t t o S t u d y 1 , i n S t u d y 2 a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s mw a s n o t r e l a t e d t o c o n s e r v i n g b e h a v i o r a n d a p a t h yt o w a r d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s su e s . O n e d i st i n c ti o n b e t w e e nS t u d y 1 a n d S t u d y 2 t h a t m i g h t e x p l a i n t h i s d i f fe r -e n c e w a s t h e s a m p l e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s . B e c a u s e t h er e c r u i t m e n t w a s d o n e a t a n a i rp o r t , S t u d y 1 p r e -s u m a b l y c a u g h t a b r o a d r a n g e o f i n d i v id u a l s , w i t ha n a v e r a g e a g e o v e r 2 0 y e a r s o l d e r t h a n t h e c o l l e g es t u d e n t s i n S t u d y 2 . A l t h o u g h t h e c o l l e g e s t u d e n ts a m p l e d i d n o t a p p e a r t o b e a n y m o r e o r l e s sa n t h r o p o c e n t r ic t h a n t h e a i r p o r t s a m p l e ( s e e Ta b l e 1 ),i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m i s l e s s m e a n -i n gf u l f o r y o u n g e r a d u l t s i n a w a y t h a t t r a n s l a t e s

i n t o l e s s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n a t t i t u d e s a n db e h a v i o r.

To e x a m i n e t h e p o s s i b i l i ty t h a t a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s mis a l e ss r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e f o r y o u n g e r a d u l t s , as u b s a m p l e o f p a r t i c ip a n t s i n S t u d y 1 w h o w e r e a g e3 0 o r y o u n g e r ( n = 2 8 ) w a s e x a m i n e d s e p a r a t e l y.F o r t h i s s u b s e t , a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m c o r r e l a t e d - 0 . 3 4(p < 0 .07) wi th se l f - repo r ted be hav iors , 0 .34 (p < 0 .07)w i t h a p a t h y, a n d - 0 - 0 5 ( N .S .) w i t h m e m b e r s h i p i n

e n v i r o n m e n t a l o rg a n i z a t io n s . A l t h o u g h o n l y m a r -g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e a n t h r o p o c e n t r i c c o r r e l a t i o n sf o r t h e y o u n g e r s u b s e t w i t h b e h a v i o r a n d a p a t h yw e r e s t r o n g e r t h a n t h o s e r e p o r t e d f o r t h e w h o l es a m p l e i n S t u d y 1 ( s e e Ta b l e 2 ) . T h u s , i t d o e s n o ta p p e a r t h a t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s c a n a c c o u n t f o r t h e

d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s f o u n d i n S t u d i e s 1 a n d 2 .

G e n e r a l D i s c u s s i o n

F o u r i s s u e s w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n S t u d y 2 - - a r e p l i c a -t i o n o f t h e S t u d y 1 r e s u l t s , t h e r e l i a b i li t y o f t w o a t t i -t u d e s c a l e s , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d es c a l e s a n d s e l f - re p o r t e d v s o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r , a n da c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e a t t i t u d e s c a l e s d e v e l o p e d i nt h i s r e s e a r c h w i t h a tr a d i t i o n a l s c a l e f o r m e a s u r i n ge n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t it u d e s .

R e p l i c a t i o n

T h e r e p l i c a t io n w a s o n l y p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s fu l . A s inS t u d y 1 , e c o c e n t r i s m w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t oc o n s e r v in g b e h a v io r s a n d t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l a p a t h y( a l t h o u g h n o t w h e n t h e W e i g e l & We i g e l sc a l e w a sc o n t r o l l e d f o r ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h o s e h i g h e r i n e c o c e n -t r i s m w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o s ig n u p t o g e t i n v o l v e dw i t h a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l o rg a n i z a t i o n . H o w e v e r , t h er e s u l t s fo r a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m w e r e n o t r e p l i c a t e d Pt h o s e h i g h i n a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m w e r e n o t l e s s l i k e l y

t o c o n s e r v e o r m o r e l i k e l y t o b e a p a t h e t i c a b o u te n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e s. A d i f f e re n c e in a g e b e t w e e nt h e t w o s a m p l e s w a s c o n s i d e r e d a s a p o s s i b l e in t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s i n t h e t w o s t u d i e s ,b u t r u l e d o u t b y f u r th e r a n a l y s es .

I t is p o s s ib l e t h a t a d i f fe r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w os a m p l e s o t h e r t h a n a g e is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d i f fe r -i n g r e s u l t s w i t h a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m . C o l l eg e s t u d e n t sa t a s m a l l p r i v a t e l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e m i g h t d i f f e r

TABLE 5

Results of mu ltiple regressions pred icting self-reported behavior, observed behavior, an d env ironm enta l apa thy Stud y 2 (n = 71)

Predictor var iables Dependent va r iab le

Conservingbehaviors

Beta Final R

Signup fo r Envi ronmen ta lenv i ronmenta l apa thy

organisat ionBeta F ina l R Be ta F ina l R

EcocentrismAnthropocentr ismWeigel & Weigel S cale

0,32*0-000.25

0.52*** 0,32* 0.31" -0 -1 2- 0 . 1 4 - 0 . 0 8-0 ,10 -0 .69***

0.79***

*P -< 0.0 5, **p ,< 0.01 ~ *** p _< 0.001 .


8/9

156 S .C . Gag non T h o m p s o n a n d M. A. B a r t o n

in socio-economic stat us, values, knowle dge abou tenvironmental issues, and in other ways that mightcontribute to the absence of relationships bet weenanthropocentric att i tudes, behavior, and apathy.

Reliability

The reliabili ty of the two atti tu de scales wasimproved by adding new items and, in the case ofanthropocen trism, dropping three of the previousitems. The revised scales now have adequate inter-nal reliability.

Observed behavior

The ecocentrism scale was related both to self-reported behavior and to an observed behavior thatthe par t ic ipants were not aware was par t of theresea rch project. Thus the connection between eco-centr ism and environmental ly-re la ted behavior isindep ende nt of the problems associated with self-report m easur es of behavior, such as social desir-ability, one's self-image as a conserving person, andthe desire to appear consistent with one's expressedatti tudes.

Ecocentrism--anthropocentrism vs Weigel and Weigel

Ecocentric att i tudes were significant predictors of

self-reported and observed behaviors even when at radi t ional measure of environmental a t t i tudes wascontrolled for. Ecocentrism appeared to tap a dis-position toward environmental issues that was notcaptured in t radi t ional measures of environmentalatt i tudes with no ecocentric- anthropocentric dis-tinction. What the constructs of ecocentrism andanthropocentrism add is the idea that the motivesand values that under l ie environmental a t t i tudesare per t inent . Support for the environment basedon valuing na ture for i ts own sake a nd on a per-sonal relationship with nature that has affective

connotations (e.g. stress reduction and sadness atits loss) is a different type of supp ort with differ entimplications for behavior than is environmentalconcern based on human comfort and survival asprima ry goals.

Implications

The ecocentr ic-anthropocentr ic d is t inct ion may beimportant to consider in other arenas such as thedesign of messages to encourage conserving behav-iors. Individuals who support environmental issues

for ecocentric reasons may respond to differentappeals than those who hold more anthropocentricreasons. For example, an appeal to conserve forself-interested reasons (e.g. to save money) may beineffective for those with ecocentric interests in theenvironment, but work well with anthropocentrics.Fur ther research on the in teract ion between eco-anthro-atti tudes and reactions to appeals to conserveshould explore this possibility.

A second implication is tha t programs designed toincrease envir onmental concern in children or adultsshould focus on increasing ecocentric inter est in theenvironment ra ther than anthropocentr ic in teres t .Those who are more ecocentric are more likely to acton thei r pro-enviro nment att i tud es a nd engage inconserving behaviors. In contrast , anthropocentricinterest is associated with more apathy toward theenvironment and less conserving behavior. Thus,programs th at a t tempt to fos ter in teres t in support -ing environmental action for uti l i tarian, humancomfort, and survival reasons may be counter-productive. The present results suggest that abetter approach might be to emphasize the intrinsicrewar ds of being in natur al sett ings thro ugh experi-ence in natur e and the appreciation of wildlife.

The gene ral implication of this work on the eco-anthro distinction is that i t is important to under-stand not only att i tudes toward the environment,but also the motives and values that form the basisfor those att i tudes. Examining both att i tudes andassociated motives can lead to a better understand-ing of enviro nmental ly relate d behaviors and newideas about ways to encourage conservation.

N o t e

(1) It should be noted that there is undoubtedly a thirdgroup that does not have positive attitudes toward theenvironment--those who are genuinely apathetic aboutor antagonistic toward environmental issues. The pr esentstudy focused only on the degree to which positiveattitudes~ toward the environment are ecocentric vsanthropocentric.

R e f e r e n c e s

Geller, E. S. (1981). Evaluating energy conservation programs:is verbal report enough? Jour nal o f Consumer Research, 8,331-334.

Gutfeld, R. (1991). Eight of 10 Americans are environmentalistsat le ast so they say. Wall Street Journal, 218(24) A1-A4.

Milbrath, L. W. (1985). Environmental beliefs and values. InM. G. Hermann, Ed., Political Psychology. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, pp. 97-138.


9/9

E c o c e n t r i c - A n t h r o p o c e n t r i c A t t i t u d e s 1 5 7

L i p s e y, M . W. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h e p e r s o n a l a n t e c e d e n t s a n d c o n s e -q u e n c e s o f e c o l o g i c a l ly r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r : a r e v i e w.JSASCatalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 7 , 7 0 - 7 1 .

S c l i g m a n , C . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . E n v i r o n m e n t a l e t h i c s .Journal of SocialIssues, 4 5 , 1 6 9 - 8 4 .

S t e rn , P. C . , D i e t z , T. & Ka lo f , L . ( 1993 ) . Va lue o r i en t a t i ons ,g e n d e r , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n ce r n .Environment and Behavior,

25 , 3 2 2 - 3 4 8 .S t o k o l s , D . (1 9 9 0 ) . I n s t r u m e n t a l a n d s p i r i t u a l v i e w s o f p e o p l e -

e n v i r o n m e n t r e l a t i o n s . American Psychologist, 4 5 , 6 4 1 -6 4 6 .

Tr a c y, A . P. & O s k a m p , S . ( 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 ) . R e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n ge c o l o g i c a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r s .Journal of EnvironmentalSystems, 1 3 , 11 5 - 1 2 6 .

We i g e l , R . & We i g e l , J . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n . T h ed e v e l o p m e n t o f a m e a s u r e .Environment and Behavior, 10 ,

3 - 1 5 .Manuscript received 2 5 October 1 99 3