Cross-Country Comparisons of Environmental Concern

• Authors: Nowak Krzysztof , Markiewicz Dorota , Gawraczyński Jakub , Mazurkiewicz Paweł

Title variants

PL

Porównania postaw prośrodowiskowych w badaniach międzynarodowych

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

We investigate two approaches to exploring environmental concern in cross-national, big datasets. It is widely believed that environmental concern encompasses at least two components: the cognitive component, i.e. the recognition of environmental threats, and the conative component, i.e. the willingness to do something about them. Previous research examining the International Social Survey Programme Environmental Module used either one general factor linked to environmental concern (Franzen & Vogl, 2013) or two independent factors (Marquart-Pyatt, 2012) to measure the cognitive and connotative factors separately. In the present work we used a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to examine both approaches. Our results indicate that treating both factors separately was valid for cross-country comparisons. Measuring environmental concern with one factor, however, was not consistent across countries. We conclude by addressing the consequences of our results pertaining to research and policy-making.

PL

W pracy badaliśmy dwa podejścia do mierzenia postaw prośrodowiskowych w dużych, międzynarodowych zbiorach danych. W badaniach nad postawami prośrodowiskowymi zazwyczaj uwzględnia się przynajmniej dwie składowe: poznawczą, związaną ze świadomością istnienia zagrożeń środowiskowych oraz intencyjną, związaną z gotowością zaangażowania się w działania prośrodowiskowe. W badaniach wykorzystujących dane z Międzynarodowego Programu Sondaży Społecznych stosuje się jedno z dwóch podejść do pomiaru postaw prośrodowiskowych: model jednoczynnikowy, w którym składowa poznawcza i intencyjna traktowane są jako należące do jednego czynnika (Franzen & Vogl, 2013) albo dwuczynnikowy, w którym obydwie składowe analizowane są osobno (Marquart-Pyatt, 2012). W pracy zastosowaliśmy wielogrupową konfirmacyjną analizę czynnikową w celu zbadania, który z dwóch modeli jest stabilny w porównaniach międzynarodowych. Nasze wyniki wskazują, że tylko model dwuczynnikowy jest stabilny między krajami, w związku z czym spełnia założenia miary używanej w porównaniach międzynarodowych. W pracy przedstawiamy niektóre konsekwencje zastosowania modelu dwuczynnikowego zamiast jednoczynnikowego dla badań nad postawami prośrodowiskowymi oraz omawiamy otrzymane rezultaty w odniesieniu do polityki prośrodowiskowej.

Keywords

EN

environmental concern; international comparative analysis; International Social Survey Programme; multi-group confirmatory factor analysis

PL

postawy prośrodowiskowe; porównania międzynarodowe; Międzynarodowy Program Sondaży Społecznych; wielogrupowa konfirmacyjna analiza czynnikowa

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 2/2016 (60), t.2
• Pages: 83-101

Dates

published

2016-06-30

Contributors

author

Nowak Krzysztof

• Department of Managerial Psychology and Sociology, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw

author

Markiewicz Dorota

• The Robert B. Zajonc Institute of Social Studies, Warsaw, Poland

author

Gawraczyński Jakub

• Faculty of Chemistry, University of Warsaw

author

Mazurkiewicz Paweł

• Laboratory of Ethology, Department of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology PAS, Warsaw, Poland

References

• Alibeli, M.A. & Johnson, C. (2009). Environmental concern: A cross national analysis. Journal of International and Cross-Cultural Studies, 3, 1–10.
• Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–46.
• Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
• Brulle, R.J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J.C. (2011). Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169–188.
• Caprara, G.C., Barbaranelli, C., Bermudez, J., Maslach, C. & Ruch, W. (2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures in cross cultural research: An illustration with the Big Five questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 437–464.
• Cheung, G.W. & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
• Diekmann, A. & Dunlap, R.E. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441–472.
• Diekmann, A. & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31, 540–549.
• Diekmann, A. & Preisendorfer, P. (1998). Environmental behavior: discrepancies between aspiration and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79–102.
• Dunlap, R.E. & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. Sociological Quarterly, 49, 529–563.
• Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297–308.
• Franzen, A. & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26, 219–234.
• Franzen, A. & Vogl, D. (2013a). Acquiescence and the Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: A Comparison of the ISSP, WVS, and EVS. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 637–659.
• Franzen, A. & Vogl, D. (2013b). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1001–1008.
• Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
• Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics, 28, 57–72.
• International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Environment III, 2010. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne.
• Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G. & Hun Kim, Y. (2002). Values, economics and pro-environmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 256–285.
• MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., and Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–49.
• Marquart-Pyatt, S.T. (2008). Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrial countries. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1312-1335.
• Marquart-Pyatt, S.T. (2012). Environmental Concerns in Cross-National Context: How Do Mass Publics in Central and Eastern Europe Compare with Other Regions of the World? Czech Sociological Review, 48, 441–466.
• McCright, A.M. (2011). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32, 66–87.
• McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. (2008). The nature and social bases of progressive social movement ideology: examining public opinion toward social movements. Sociological Quarterly, 49, 825–848.
• McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. (2010). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172.
• McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.
• Meyer, R. & Liebe, U. (2010). Are the affluent prepared to pay for the planet? Explaining willingness to pay for public and quasi-private environmental goods in Switzerland. Population and Environment, 32, 42–65.
• Reyes, J.A.L. (2014). Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in the Philippines. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4, 87–102.
• Schaffrin, A. (2011). No measure without concept. A critical review on the conceptualization and measurement of environmental concern. International Review of Social Research, 1, 11–31.
• Stern, P.C. & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.
• Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 214–12.
• Van Liere, K. & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social basis of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197.
• Xiao, C., Dunlap, R.E. & Hong, D. (2012). The nature and bases of environmental concern among Chinese citizens. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 672–690.

Identifiers

ISSN

1644-9584

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.60.5