Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? An investigation of the context dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale q Elizabeth F. Pienaar a,⇑ , Daniel K. Lew b,c,1 , Kristy Wallmo d,e,2 a Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, USA b Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, USA c Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA d Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA e University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, USA article info Article history: Received 7 September 2012 Revised 26 June 2013 Accepted 1 July 2013 Available online 13 July 2013 Keywords: Environmental attitudes New Ecological Paradigm Scale Survey context abstract General environmental attitudes are often measured with questions added to surveys about specific environmental or non-environmental issues. Using results from a large-scale national survey on the protection of threatened and endangered marine species, we exam- ine whether the context of the survey in which New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale items are asked influence measured environmental concern. In this application the role that spe- cific threatened or endangered species play in affecting responses to NEP Scale items is explored using a combination of non-parametric and parametric approaches. The results in this case suggest that context does influence stated general environmental attitudes, though the effects of context differ across NEP items. Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In recent decades researchers from several disciplines have sought to understand determinants of environmental atti- tudes, how these attitudes vary across time and individuals, and how environmental attitudes affect behavior. Environmen- tal attitudes are generally measured using responses to sets of survey questions. There are several well-established environmental attitude measures, including the New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000), the ecocentric and anthropocentric scales developed by Gagnon Thomp- son and Barton (1994), and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer and Frantz, 2004). Questions used to generate measures of environmental concern 3 are often applied in surveys in isolation or together with questions about more specific environmental issues. The latter often occurs in surveys involving environmental behavior for which environmental concern is expected to be a useful explanatory variable (e.g., Aldrich et al., 2007; Kotchen and Reiling, 2000). When 0049-089X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.001 q Senior authorship is shared between Pienaar and Lew. ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Fax: +1 352 392 6984. E-mail addresses: efpienaar@ufl.edu (E.F. Pienaar), [email protected](D.K. Lew), [email protected](K. Wallmo). 1 Address: Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA. Fax: +1 530 752 3350. 2 Address: Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. 3 In common with Fransson and Gärling (1999), we hereafter use an inclusive definition of environmental concern, which encompasses specific attitudes that directly determine intentions and environmental behavior, as well as general attitudes or value orientations. ‘‘[B]oth specific attitudes towards behaviors and general value orientations are likely to play important roles as behavioral determinants, although possibly at different stages in the process of changing and implementing a behavior’’ (Fransson and Gärling, 1999: 370). Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
Transcript
Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context?An investigation of the context dependency of the NewEcological Paradigm (NEP) Scale q
0049-089X/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.001
q Senior authorship is shared between Pienaar and Lew.⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Fl
1 Address: Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA. Fax: +1 530 72 Address: Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.3 In common with Fransson and Gärling (1999), we hereafter use an inclusive definition of environmental concern, which encompasses specific attit
directly determine intentions and environmental behavior, as well as general attitudes or value orientations. ‘‘[B]oth specific attitudes towards behageneral value orientations are likely to play important roles as behavioral determinants, although possibly at different stages in the process of chanimplementing a behavior’’ (Fransson and Gärling, 1999: 370).
Elizabeth F. Pienaar a,⇑, Daniel K. Lew b,c,1, Kristy Wallmo d,e,2
a Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, USAb Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, USAc Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, USAd Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, USAe University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 7 September 2012Revised 26 June 2013Accepted 1 July 2013Available online 13 July 2013
General environmental attitudes are often measured with questions added to surveysabout specific environmental or non-environmental issues. Using results from a large-scalenational survey on the protection of threatened and endangered marine species, we exam-ine whether the context of the survey in which New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale itemsare asked influence measured environmental concern. In this application the role that spe-cific threatened or endangered species play in affecting responses to NEP Scale items isexplored using a combination of non-parametric and parametric approaches. The resultsin this case suggest that context does influence stated general environmental attitudes,though the effects of context differ across NEP items.
� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent decades researchers from several disciplines have sought to understand determinants of environmental atti-tudes, how these attitudes vary across time and individuals, and how environmental attitudes affect behavior. Environmen-tal attitudes are generally measured using responses to sets of survey questions. There are several well-establishedenvironmental attitude measures, including the New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), theNew Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000), the ecocentric and anthropocentric scales developed by Gagnon Thomp-son and Barton (1994), and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer and Frantz, 2004).
Questions used to generate measures of environmental concern3 are often applied in surveys in isolation or together withquestions about more specific environmental issues. The latter often occurs in surveys involving environmental behavior for whichenvironmental concern is expected to be a useful explanatory variable (e.g., Aldrich et al., 2007; Kotchen and Reiling, 2000). When
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1543
included in surveys for which the central focus is not on general environmental concern, a natural question to ask is the following:Are responses to questions used in measuring environmental concern influenced by the context of the survey? By ‘‘context’’ werefer to the characteristics of the survey in which questions relating to environmental concern appear. If responses to the individualquestions that are used to create a general measure of environmental concern depend on survey context, then survey context willalter estimated measures of environmental concern, and related conclusions about environmental behavior.
The New Environmental Paradigm Scale and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale are the most widely used measuresof environmental concern (Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010; Dunlap, 2008a; Amburgey and Thoman, 2012), and are utilized byresearchers from multiple disciplines to study environmental attitudes (Cordano et al., 2003; Lundmark, 2007). Given thewide, multidisciplinary use of the NEP Scale,4 we focus on whether responses to items included in this scale are context depen-dent. Specifically, we examine whether responses to items included in the NEP Scale are influenced by information presented ina survey focused on the protection of threatened and endangered marine species.5 The survey was composed of 27 differentversions, which included different combinations of eight marine species. With the exception of the species included in the sur-vey, these survey versions are identical. To test for systematic differences in responses to NEP items, we conduct an analysis thatcontrols for differences in the context of each survey (i.e., the specific species included on the survey), demographic variablesand opinions about government spending that may differ between samples. The approach employs the combined use of non-parametric (Mann–Whitney U tests) and parametric statistical methods (logit models).
Our results suggest that survey context, as defined here, does influence responses to individual NEP items even when con-trolling for differences in respondent characteristics. There is also evidence that the extent to which responses to NEP itemsare affected by survey context differs across individual items and is not restricted to charismatic species.6
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review past research on the context-dependency ofattitudinal measures. Section 3 discusses the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Section 4 provides an overview of thedata used in our empirical analysis. Section 5 explains the approach used to identify the role of context dependence of ques-tions relating to environmental concern. Section 6 describes the results from a first stage non-parametric analysis of differ-ences in responses to individual NEP Scale items across survey versions. Section 7 presents results from statistical tests toidentify sample differences between the survey versions. Section 8 enumerates the second stage parametric model usedto assess whether responses to individual NEP Scale items are context dependent and presents the results from the analysis.Section 9 discusses the results and concludes the paper.
2. Context-dependency of attitudinal measures
Considerable research has been conducted into how survey context affects survey responses (e.g., Tourangeau, 2003;Swait et al., 2002; Tourangeau and Rasinski, 1988; Krosnick and Alwin, 1987). For example, research has demonstrated thatin answering preceding questions in a survey, respondents may form a perception of themselves, which then influences theirresponses to subsequent survey questions, in particular attitudinal questions (e.g., Pouta, 2004; Tourangeau et al., 1989).Although this literature has not focused exclusively on environmental concern, the conclusions drawn are relevant to sur-veys that focus on environmental concern and environmental behavior.
In their research into how survey context may influence responses to attitudinal questions, Tourangeau and Rasinski(1988) noted that answers to attitude questions are a potentially complex four-stage process, which may require significantcognitive effort. It is thus unsurprising that Krosnick (1991) found that when substantial cognitive effort is required respon-dents may engage in satisficing behavior (see also Krosnick and Alwin, 1987). In such cases, respondents simply choose thefirst answer to attitudinal questions that they deem acceptable, rather than the answer that accurately reflects their valueorientations or attitudes.7
4 Based on a Google Scholar search (conducted on April 20, 2013), over 140 papers have explicitly included the New Environmental Paradigm or the NewEcological Paradigm Scale in the title of the paper, which indicates that these papers have explicitly focused on either scale. Moreover, since 2009 over 2100papers have referred to either the New Environmental Paradigm or the New Ecological Paradigm, with a further 626 papers referring to both scales.
5 We focus on individual NEP items rather than the composite NEP Scale for two reasons. First, the data used in our analysis is derived from a survey that didnot include the complete NEP Scale. Although it is not uncommon for researchers to use a subset of the NEP Scale, owing to survey length, using a subset of NEPitems appears to bias the NEP score (Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010), and related conclusions about environmental concern. Second, there is a substantial body ofresearch documenting that the NEP Scale is a multifaceted construct, which can be broken down into sub-scales. Using either factor analysis or principalcomponents analysis, researchers have found that the NEP Scale is composed of more than one dimension, although the number of dimensions varies by study(e.g., Milfont and Duckitt, 2010; Cordano et al., 2003; Grendstad, 1999) and whether researchers assume that facets of the NEP are orthogonal (Amburgey andThoman, 2012). Accordingly, researchers have created abbreviated NEP scales (Cordano et al., 2003) of five to 10 items (Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010) based onthe results of the factor or principal components analyses. Given that the number and combination of items included in the abbreviated NEP Scales vary bystudy, tests for context dependence of individual NEP items are a first step towards determining whether subsets of NEP items may be context dependent.
6 The focus of this paper is on how responses to individual NEP items are influenced by survey context. We do not explicitly address how context affectsmeasured environmental attitudes or core components of environmental attitudes. That question will be addressed in future research, and is outside the scopeof the current study.
7 Various types of satisficing behavior include: ‘‘choosing the first response alternative that seems to constitute a reasonable answer, agreeing with anassertion made by a question, endorsing the status quo instead of endorsing social change, failing to differentiate among a set of diverse objects in ratings,saying ‘don’t know’ instead of reporting an opinion, and randomly choosing among the response alternatives offered’’ (Krosnick, 1991: 213). Satisficing is lesslikely to occur when respondents believe that accurate survey responses will result in desirable social outcomes or they will be required to justify theirresponses to others. Satisficing increases with the length of the survey (Krosnick, 1991).
1544 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
All stages of answering attitudinal questions may be affected by survey context, in particular prior information or items inthe survey. Context effects may include the incomplete retrieval of complex value orientations or attitudes based on infor-mation included in the survey, such that subsequent responses are based on readily accessible—rather than complete—valueorientations or attitudes (Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio, 1997; Tourangeau et al., 1989; Tourangeau and Rasinski, 1988). Assuch, prior items in a survey ‘prime’ responses to subsequent items in the survey. This implies that responses to attitudinalquestions are determined by the strength and importance of an individual’s value orientations or attitudes, the relevance ofthese value orientations or attitudes to the survey and how recently they have been accessed (Tourangeau et al., 1989; Tou-rangeau and Rasinski, 1988; Krosnick, 1991).
Questions asked or information presented prior to attitudinal questions may affect what respondents deem to be relevantand redundant in answering the attitudinal questions (Tourangeau and Rasinski, 1988). ‘‘Prior items can [also] change howrespondents interpret subsequent items, what specific beliefs they retrieve in thinking about the issue, which dimensions,standards, or norms they apply in forming the required judgment, and how they report their answers. Complicating mattersfurther, context sometimes pushes later responses in the direction of apparent consistency, but sometimes pushes them inthe opposite direction.’’ (Tourangeau et al., 1989: 402) The former effect is referred to as an interpretive carryover effect andthe latter is termed a backfire effect.
According to Tourangeau and Rasinski (1988), interpretive carryover effects are more likely to occur when respondentsare unfamiliar with the issues being addressed in the survey, when their value orientations or attitudes are less readily acces-sible or conflicted, when their expertise in an issue exceeds the information provided in the survey, or when a question asksfor a complex judgment. However, carryover effects tend to be reduced when questionnaires are self-administered (Touran-geau and Rasinski, 1988).8 Also, self-administered questionnaires tend to encourage truthful reporting of attitudes (Touran-geau, 2004). Backfire effects are more likely to occur when prior items on a survey are seen as extreme or dissimilar, butstill comparable, to subsequent survey items (Tourangeau and Rasinski, 1988).
3. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale
This paper explores how survey context affects responses to individual items included in the NEP Scale, which measuresgeneral environmental concern. During the 1970s, when public awareness of environmental issues grew, researchers soughtto identify social determinants of environmental degradation. Researchers argued that environmental degradation was beingdriven by a dominant social paradigm (DSP)9 that developed during a time when resource constraints were not apparent andfaith was placed in libertarian principles, science, technology, and resource abundance (Catton and Dunlap, 1978; Dunlap andVan Liere, 1984; Dunlap, 2008b). However, according to this research, a new environmental paradigm was developing thatexplicitly recognized both the dependence of modern industrialized societies on the availability of natural resources and thehealth of ecosystems and the environmental consequences of pollution and excessive resource use.
To empirically measure commitment to the new environmental paradigm, Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) created the NewEnvironmental Paradigm Scale, which focused on the ability of people to disturb the balance of nature, limits to economicgrowth, and human domination over nature. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) found that the New Environmental Paradigm Scalewas able to differentiate between environmentalists (whose worldview is influenced by the new environmental paradigm)and non-environmentalists (whose worldview is influenced by the DSP).
Recognizing several limitations of the structure and wording of the original New Environmental Paradigm Scale (e.g., LaL-onde and Jackson, 2002), Dunlap et al. (2000) proposed an updated set of items called the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)Scale. The NEP Scale consists of 15 Likert-scale items, which are intended to measure five core components of individuals’environmental concern: (1) limits to economic growth, (2) anti-anthropocentrism; (3) the fragility of nature’s balance; (4)human exemptionalism (i.e., the belief that people are not bound by the constraints of nature); and (5) the possibility ofpotentially catastrophic environmental changes or eco-crises affecting people (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Answers to each of the NEP items are assigned a score such that the lowest value of one is assigned to an answer of‘‘strongly disagree’’ and the highest value of five is assigned to an answer of ‘‘strongly agree’’. Individuals with a higher levelof environmental concern are expected to score higher on the pro-NEP items (NEP1, NEP3, NEP5, NEP7, and NEP15) and low-er on the pro-DSP items (NEP2, NEP4, NEP6, NEP8, and NEP14).10 Prior to aggregating these item scores in order to obtain ameasure of an individual’s environmental concern, the scoring for the pro-DSP items is reversed so that the lowest value of oneis assigned to an answer of ‘‘strongly agree’’ and the highest value of five is assigned to an answer of ‘‘strongly disagree’’. A highscore on the NEP Scale indicates pro-environmental attitudes, which should result in pro-environmental behavior, subject tobudgetary and other constraints. Stern et al. (1995), Spash (2006) and Dunlap (2008a) have found support for the validity ofthe NEP Scale in measuring environmental concern and predicting environmental behavior.
8 The magnitude of carryover effects depends on how soon attitudinal questions are asked after context items are presented to the respondent and on howclosely related these items are in the minds of respondents (e.g., Tourangeau et al., 2003). However, carryover effects do not depend on respondents’ level ofagreement with the context items, respondents’ prior views about an issue, or the number of response options included on the survey (Tourangeau et al., 1989).
9 In this context, a social paradigm refers to society’s basic worldview and cultural heritage, which are composed of common values and beliefs aboutphysical and social environments (Pirages and Ehrlich, 1974).
10 Refer to Table 3 to see the scores for the individual NEP items for this study.
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1545
In considering determinants of environmental concern, Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) posited that environmental concernwould be positively related to education, income, urban residence and liberalism, and negatively related to age. As noted byFransson and Gärling (1999), studies show only a weak relationship between socio-demographic variables and environmen-tal concern; although there is some evidence that education, age, residential area and political ideology affect environmentalconcern. Nonetheless, Jones and Dunlap (1992) found that environmental concern is higher for younger adults, individualswith a higher level of education, political liberals, Democrats, and urban residents, whereas environmental concern is lowerfor individuals employed in primary industries (see also Johnson et al., 2004; Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010). There is also someevidence that NEP scores in particular are affected by culture (Vikan et al., 2007; Pierce et al., 1987; Schultz and Zelezny,1999), class structures (Skogen, 1999), and gender (Rideout et al., 2005).
While the forgoing research is valuable, there is another issue that should be addressed; namely, are responses to the NEPitems influenced by other information presented to individuals in the same survey instrument? To the best of our knowl-edge, this context-dependency of NEP responses has not been tested. The only study we are aware of that has sought to mea-sure how information affects responses to the NEP was conducted by Rideout (2005), who tested the effect of factualknowledge of environmental problems on endorsement of the NEP. Specifically he tested for changes in college students’level of endorsement of the NEP after they had participated in a two to three week learning module, which focused on envi-ronmental problems and energy issues. When compared to a control group, these students showed significant increases inendorsement of the NEP, even when they failed to retain the information taught during the module. Rideout (2005) con-cluded that Dunlap et al.’s (2000) assertion that individuals’ endorsement of the NEP should be responsive to informationis correct.11
To test for the context-dependency of NEP responses, we use data from a survey that was designed to elicit individuals’willingness to pay for the protection of threatened and endangered marine species in the United States of America. Respon-dents were presented with detailed information about these species and threats to each species’ population as part of a sta-ted preference choice experiment (Alpizar et al., 2001) directly prior to being presented with the NEP Scale items.Accordingly, they were reminded of various ways in which human activities may have contributed to the decline of marinepopulations, which may have resulted in priming, interpretive carryover, or backfire effects, particularly given the charis-matic nature of several of the species. We test the hypothesis that responses to the NEP items are dependent upon surveycontext by using a logit modeling approach that assesses differences in responses to NEP Scale items while controlling fordifferences that may be attributable to non-context factors, such as sample differences.
4. Data overview
Data for this analysis are from the Protected Species Valuation (PSV) survey, a national household-level survey developedby the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The survey collected information about public preferences and atti-tudes toward protecting eight threatened or endangered marine species: the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha), the Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), theleatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), the North Atlantic rightwhale (Eubalaena glacialis), the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), and the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata).
Each of the 27 survey versions was structured to provide detailed information about three of the eight species. The sur-veys presented information on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and each of the three species, including historical andcurrent population trends; species habitat; past, present, and potential future protection actions; and questions to under-stand the respondent’s preferences for undertaking additional protection of the species.12 Prior to presenting respondentswith species information, respondents were asked their opinion about government expenditures on assistance to big cities, drugrehabilitation, education, the environment, health, law enforcement and space exploration. The survey concluded with 10 itemsfrom the NEP Scale. Importantly, the survey versions were identical except for the information and questions about the threespecific species in the survey.
The 27 survey versions were fielded in identical fashion and at the same time using an Internet-based survey approach.The survey was implemented from May through July 2009 by Knowledge Networks (KN) utilizing a random sample of the KNweb panel of US households and following a Dillman Tailored Design Method approach (Dillman et al., 2009). Panel memberswere recruited via e-mails with a link to the survey, and were provided follow-up reminders by e-mail and telephone.13 Indi-viduals were not assigned a survey version until they logged into the web survey. The number of individuals who completed agiven survey version ranged from 303 to 328 for a total of 8476 completed surveys across all 27 versions. The final cooperationrate across all 27 versions based on the number of completed surveys divided by the number of panel members who were sentan e-mail invitation was 70.8%.
11 Although Rideout (2005) showed that the NEP is responsive to information, the information presented did not vary across surveyed individuals. In contrast,this study focuses on how variation in information presented on a survey affects NEP responses.
12 These questions consisted of several stated preference questions, where respondents were asked to choose between alternative protection programs thatdiffered in their efficacy in leading to improved ESA statuses of each species and in the program costs. Responses to these questions enable estimation of thewillingness to pay and are the focus of Wallmo and Lew (2011).
13 In accordance with the discussion in Section 2, self-administered surveys should result in truthful reporting of behavior and attitudes and lower probabilityof carryover effects.
sci
1546 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
Response data from 7353 individuals are used for the analysis. 1123 individuals (13%) were excluded for either of tworeasons: (1) observations were missing for the key variables included in this analysis, or (2) respondents provided identicalanswers across all the NEP items (e.g., ‘somewhat agree’ to all NEP items), which are likely indicative that they had not seri-ously answered the items or had engaged in satisficing behavior.
Across all survey versions, males and females are fairly equally represented in the sample with 53% of respondents beingmale. Respondents’ ages are approximately normally distributed with a mean of 50.6 years and a median of 52 years. Themean and median income ranges for respondents were $50,000–$59,999 per annum and $60,000–$74,999 per annumrespectively. Thirty-five percent of respondents had at least obtained a four-year college degree. Three-quarters of respon-dents were white/Caucasian.14 Table 1 provides a summary of demographic characteristics of each of the 27 samples.
To assess respondents’ opinions about government expenditures on a variety of social issues, respondents were asked ifthey believed that the government spends too little, too much, or about the right amount on these issues (see Table 2). Acrossall respondents, the majority believed that the government spends too little on health, education, and the environment (65%,64% and 53%, respectively). About half of respondents stated that about the right amount is spent by the government on drugrehabilitation and law enforcement programs. At least 84% of respondents believed that too much or about the right amountis spent by the government on assistance to big cities and space exploration.15
A condensed set of NEP Scale items was included in the survey (see Table 3). Only ten of the 15 items that compose thefull NEP Scale were presented to respondents. However, these items are a balanced set of pro-NEP and pro-DSP items thatcover the five posited core components of individuals’ environmental concern: belief in limits to economic growth (NEP1 andNEP6), anti-anthropocentrism (NEP2 and NEP7), the fragility of nature’s balance (NEP3 and NEP8), human exemptionalism(NEP4 and NEP14), and the possibility of eco-crises affecting people (NEP5 and NEP15). The complete NEP Scale containsthree items corresponding to each of the five core components of environmental concern. Although items nine to 13 ofthe complete NEP Scale were omitted from the PSV survey, owing in part to the length of the survey, the use of a partialset of the NEP items is not uncommon (e.g. Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010; Stedman, 2004).
The level of respondents’ agreement with each of these items is presented in Table 3. The items are worded such thatagreement with the odd-numbered items and disagreement with the even-numbered items indicate that an individualhas a pro-ecological worldview. Based on mean and median responses to each of the NEP items—aggregated across surveyversions—respondents tend towards a pro-ecological worldview. There appears to be strongest support for the fragility ofnature’s balance, the probability of present human behavior resulting in eco-crises and anti-anthropocentrism. On average,respondents most strongly supported the item ‘‘Humans are abusing the environment’’.16 In contrast, respondents are moreneutral about the limits to economic growth and the reality of human exemptionalism. Agreement with the item ‘‘The earth hasplenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them’’ is contrary to the belief that there are limits to economicgrowth.
5. Overview of methods for testing
Given that the survey does not include all 15 NEP Scale items, which precludes the calculation of a complete NEP score,we focused on individual NEP Scale items when testing for differences in the distribution of NEP Scale responses.17 To sys-tematically examine whether the NEP Scale items are influenced by context-related factors, namely the particular species thatare presented in each survey, we employ both non-parametric and parametric approaches. Non-parametric Mann–Whitney Utests (Mann and Whitney, 1947) are utilized to investigate the pairwise differences in NEP Scale item distributions between the27 samples that received different survey versions. These tests indicate whether or not any of the 351 unique pairs of sampleshave distributional differences in NEP Scale item responses.
14 The overall sample mean age and income of respondents was higher than for the general U.S. population. The sample also contained a higher proportion ofindividuals with some college education than in the general population. Men were over-represented in the sample, but the regional distribution of respondentswas similar to the distribution for the United States. Black and Hispanic individuals were underrepresented in the sample. Since the survey was completed bythe heads of households, the comparison of individual characteristics to the general population may not necessarily indicate non-representativeness to thepopulation of U.S. heads of households for which there is no corresponding population data.
15 These questions were drawn from the General Social Survey (GSS) (see http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/), a longstanding random digit dial survey of U.S.households designed to examine societal trends. For this survey, the response structures on education, health care, and the environment are similar to nationalGSS responses from 1972 to 2006. Response structures are also similar to those of the GSS for the questions concerning space exploration and assistance tocities, although results for spending on law enforcement and drug rehabilitation are slightly dissimilar to GSS responses. For the latter questions, about half therespondents thought the government is spending about the right amount on these issues, whereas this figure was closer to a third of respondents from the GSS.
16 Unfortunately, owing to an oversight, the wording for both NEP5 and NEP15 were altered from the original. NEP5 should have been worded as ‘‘Humans areeverely abusing the environment’’. NEP15 should have been worded as ‘‘If things continue on their present course we will soon experience a major ecologicalatastrophe’’. Omitting the word ‘severely’ from NEP5 and changing ‘major ecological catastrophe’ to ‘environmental catastrophe’ may have affected variationn responses to these two items.
17 Prior to testing whether responses to the NEP Scale questions are context-dependent, we tested whether the NEP Scale is a unidimensional ormultidimensional measure of environmental concern for our data using factor analysis. Results of these analyses, and discussion of these results, are presentedin an appendix (available upon request). Both proportion of variance explained and Kaiser’s rule suggest that for this study the NEP Scale is multidimensionalboth across all surveys and for each individual survey version. Moreover, the retained factors (components) did not reflect the five facets of environmentalattitudes that the NEP was designed to measure. For these reasons, we analyzed the context dependence of individual NEP items rather than the dimensions ofthe NEP or the (partial) NEP score.
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1547
A shortcoming of these non-parametric tests, however, is the inability to control for differences in the samples or in thesurveys that may be driving the distributional differences in responses. Accordingly, we employ a second stage meta-regres-sion approach to more closely examine distributional differences in NEP Scale items while controlling for sample differencesand survey context. To this end, we specify a logit model that explicitly models the probability of observing differences inNEP Scale item responses between two samples as a function of differences in sample demographics, opinions about govern-ment expenditures and survey design features. By controlling for differences in the distribution of socioeconomic variablesand attitudes towards government spending across samples, the logit model allows us to specifically test for context depen-dency of environmental concern.
6. Non-parametric tests of the NEP scale responses
Results of the Mann–Whitney U tests for each individual NEP item, assuming the 0.05 level of significance, are presentedin Table 4. Given that there are 27 different versions of the PSV survey, 351 Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted for eachvariable to account for all possible unique pairwise comparisons of survey versions.
Across the NEP items, the number of statistically significant distributional differences ranged from 5 to 21 (1.4–6% of allpairwise survey comparisons). The smallest number of statistically significant results are recorded for NEP7 (‘‘Plants and ani-mals have as much right as humans to exist’’), NEP8 (‘‘The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts ofmodern industrial nations’’), and NEP14 (‘‘Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to con-trol it’’), which implies that the distribution of responses to these items are likely to be similar across samples of the pop-ulation. The greatest number of statistically significant differences (6%) were recorded for NEP3 (‘‘When humans interferewith nature it often produces disastrous consequences’’) and NEP4 (‘‘Human ingenuity will insure that we do not makethe earth unlivable’’).
7. Tests of differences in demographics and non-NEP attitudes
To evaluate other differences between pairs of survey versions, Mann–Whitney U tests (0.05 level of significance) wereapplied to several ordinal-level demographic variables and questions pertaining to government program expenditures. Forincome, over 5% of the 351 pairwise survey comparisons showed distributional differences that were statistically significantat the 0.05 significance level (see Table 4). For education and ethnicity, 2.6% and 6.8% of all pairwise comparisons were
Table 2Attitudes toward government spending (over all 27 survey versions).
1548 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
statistically significant, respectively. The incidence of significant differences in the distribution of opinions aboutgovernment program expenditures ranged from less than 1% for drug rehabilitation to 4.3% for education.
Using simple t-tests (0.05 level of significance), differences in the proportion of males were found in 9.4% of the 351 sur-vey comparisons.
8. Modeling environmental attitudinal differences
We posit several possible explanations for the observed differences in the distribution of responses to each of the ten NEPitems across survey versions. Specifically, we test whether these differences in responses are attributable to (a) differences inthe demographic characteristics of survey respondents across survey versions; (b) differences in respondents’ opinions aboutgovernment expenditures across survey versions; and/or (c) differences in the species with which respondents were pre-sented. The last is the primary focus.
As noted above, there is some evidence that environmental concern is influenced by demographic, political, and culturaldifferences across individuals. Limitations in the available data precluded the inclusion of variables related to political ide-ology and cultural beliefs. However, opinions about government spending on social issues can be viewed as a rough proxy forpolitical ideology.18 As per the discussion of determinants of environmental concern in Section 3, the demographic variablesincluded in the model are gender, education, income, and race/ethnicity. Using a simple specification search, we determinedthat other demographic variables, for which distributional differences may affect environmental concern, (namely, age, maritalstatus, household size and region of residence) were not statistically significant determinants in the distribution of responses tothe individual NEP items. As such, we did not include these variables in the final estimation.
To evaluate the role various factors may play in influencing general environmental concern, we employ a parametricmodel to identify which factors increase the probability of statistically significant differences in the distribution of NEP re-sponses between pairs of survey versions. We conduct likelihood ratio tests to evaluate the hypotheses about factors thatinfluence differences in measured levels of NEP endorsement. For this analysis, we explicitly model the probability of observ-ing a significant difference in NEP Scale item distributions (at the 0.05 level of significance), denoted by Pr[significant differ-ence], as a function of differences in demographics and opinions about government spending across samples, and surveycontext, namely which individual species were included on the survey versions. The unit of analysis for the meta-regressionis the nth pairwise comparison (n = 1, . . .,351). We observe Un, which takes a value of one for a significant difference betweenthe NEP Scale item response distributions and zero otherwise. For the nth pairwise comparison, we define the latent functionVn:
18 Althsupportthe struideologAccordi
Vn ¼ aþ b � ddemon þ c � datts
n þ d � dspeciesn þ en ð1Þ
where a, b, c, and d are parameters to be estimated; ddemon and datts
n are a K � 1 and L � 1 vectors of dummy variables asso-ciated with statistically significant differences for K demographic variables and L responses to government expenditure ques-tions, respectively. Each element of these vectors takes a value of 1 if the nth pairwise comparison is statistically significantfor the kth demographic or lth attitudinal response variable and zero otherwise. In the empirical models, K = L = 7. The vectordspecies
n is an M � 1 vector of dummy variables related to the presence or absence of species in the nth pairwise comparison.The additive stochastic error, en, is assumed to be independent and identically distributed logistically for all n. This set-upresults in logit probabilities for observing a significant difference (Un = 1):
The probability of not observing a significant difference in NEP endorsement (Un = 0) is
ough respondents did not explicitly identify their political ideology, responses to items about government spending provide insight into respondents’for liberalism. The items used to measure opinions about government spending were drawn from the General Social Survey, which is designed to studycture and development of American society, with specific focus on societal change in the United States. Individuals who adhere to a modern liberal
y tend to support increased government spending on social welfare programs, including spending on education, health care and the environment.
ngly, modern liberals are likely to answer that spending on social welfare programs is too low.
Table 3Agreement with the NEP statements (over all 27 survey versions).
Statement Mean itemscore (1 to 5)
Stronglydisagree(%)
Somewhatdisagree (%)
Neither agreenor disagree (%)
Somewhatagree (%)
Stronglyagree (%)
NEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number ofpeople the earth can support
3.2 12.1 16.8 22.6 31.6 16.9
NEP2: Humans have the right to modify the naturalenvironment to suit their needs
2.5 19.8 35.9 19.0 20.4 5.0
NEP3: When humans interfere with nature it oftenproduces disastrous consequences
3.8 4.7 9.6 15.4 43.0 27.4
NEP4: Human ingenuity will insure that we do not makethe earth unlivable
2.9 11.1 24.0 29.8 27.7 7.4
NEP5: Humans are abusing the environment 4.0 4.5 6.8 11.2 39.6 38.0NEP6: The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just
learn how to develop them3.6 5.6 16.0 13.5 44.3 20.5
NEP7: Plants and animals have as much right as humansto exist
3.8 5.5 10.9 16.2 33.6 33.8
NEP8: The balance of nature is strong enough to copewith the impacts of modern industrial nations
2.4 22.0 37.7 21.1 15.0 4.1
NEP14: Humans will eventually learn enough about hownature works to be able to control ita
2.5 21.1 30.3 26.5 19.0 3.1
NEP15: If things continue on their present course we willsoon experience an environmental catastrophe
3.5 9.3 12.5 22.3 33.6 22.4
a Statements 9–13, which are included in the complete New Ecological Paradigm, were not included in this survey. To avoid confusion, the originalnumbering for the NEP statements are maintained in this paper.
19 Tomodel.
20 NEquesti(availafacetseach o
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1549
Pr½Un ¼ 0� ¼ Pr½Vn < 0� ¼ 1=½1þ expðVnÞ�: ð3Þ
We postulate that species enter the latent function Vn directly as specific species (Hawaiian monk seal, smalltooth saw-fish, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, North Pacific right whale, North Atlantic rightwhale, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle) that are presented in each survey.
The role of species in each model is included through the use of two dummy variables for each pairwise survey compar-ison indicating (a) whether the particular species is in only one of the two surveys under comparison and (b) whether theparticular species is in both surveys.19 The former variable may be important if the individual species appearing in a surveyinfluences people’s responses to NEP items. The significance of the latter variable may indicate that the effect of one speciesappearing on both surveys helps steer responses to NEP items in the same direction, thereby aligning measured levels ofNEP endorsement. For example, if people in both samples indicate similar levels of agreement with NEP items (either moreor less agreement with the item) after reading information about a particular species than if they had not learned about thatspecies, then the parameter on the variable associated with that species appearing in both surveys will be negative. In effect,information about the species may have aligned measured endorsement of the NEP across samples; that is, information aboutthe species has generated an interpretive carryover effect. Table 5 presents the frequency of occurrences of each specific speciesappearing in only one or in both of each of the 351 pairwise survey comparisons.
We estimate logit models for each of the 10 NEP items.20 The results are presented in Table 6. Positive coefficients indicatethat differences in the sample with respect to the variable lead to a higher probability of observing a significant difference in thedistribution of responses to the NEP Scale item; i.e., the variable results in differences in measured levels of NEP endorsement. Anegative coefficient value, however, suggests that the variable reduces the probability of a significant difference in measuredlevels of NEP endorsement. For the demographic and non-NEP attitudinal dummy variables, a positive coefficient indicates thatobserved sample differences in the variable increases the likelihood of observing a difference in responses to NEP items, whilenegative signs indicate that these variables reduce the likelihood of seeing differences in responses to NEP items.
Overall model fit statistics are presented in Table 6. Likelihood ratio indices (Train, 2003) are at least 0.8 across the modelsand suggest the models are statistically significant.
8.1. Demographic effects
As discussed earlier, we conducted a simple specification search to determine which demographic variables to include inthe final analysis. For the majority of the NEP models demographic variables were not statistically significant, which is
avoid the dummy variable trap, we exclude a dummy variable for the Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon appearing in only one survey in the
P questions were not grouped and analyzed according to the five posited facets of environmental attitudes for two reasons. First, the full set of NEP Scaleons had not been included on the survey, which meant that an incomplete set of facets were available for analysis. Second, as discussed in the appendixble upon request) factor analysis of the NEP Scale resulted in two to three retained factors for each survey version, which did not match the five positedof the NEP Scale. Although each of the NEP Scale questions was analyzed individually, the discussion of the logit results will also refer to the facets thatf these questions is intended to measure.
Table 4Differences in the distribution of variables across samples: Percent of significant non-parametric and parametric test differences.
Percent (out of 351 pairwise comparisons)
NEP Scale questionsNEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 4.0NEP2: Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 4.8NEP3: When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 6.0NEP4: Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable 6.0NEP5: Humans are abusing the environment 4.3NEP6: The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them 5.4NEP7: Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 2.0NEP8: The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations 1.4NEP14: Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it 3.1NEP15: If things continue on their present course we will soon experience an environmental catastrophe 4.3
Attitudes toward spending onAssistance to big cities 3.4Drug rehabilitation 0.6Education 4.3Environment 3.4Health 3.4Law enforcement 16.8Space exploration 8.3
1550 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
consistent with Fransson and Gärling’s (1999) argument that the relationship between socio-demographic variables andenvironmental concern is weak. However, when statistically significant, the parameters on these variables were positive,which indicates that a difference in demographics increases the probability of observing a difference in measured endorse-ment of NEP items, all else being equal.
We find that gender is statistically significant and positive in three models (NEP3, NEP4 and NEP15) that correspond tothe fragility of nature’s balance, human exemptionalism and the possibility of eco-crises affecting people. Education level isalso positive and statistically significant in the NEP3 model. Further, the income and ethnicity parameters are positive andsignificant in one pro-DSP model each (NEP 4 and NEP 14 respectively). Both of these items relate to human exemptionalism.
Likelihood ratio tests were conducted to evaluate whether the demographic variables are jointly significant. These resultsare included in Table 6. We reject the null hypothesis that the demographic parameters are jointly zero for only three of theten models, corresponding to belief in limits to economic growth (NEP6), the fragility of nature’s balance (NEP3), and thepossibility of eco-crises affecting people (NEP15).
To conclude, in the majority of models demographic variables are neither individually nor jointly significant. However,when these variables are individually significant, differences in gender, education, income and ethnicity imply divergent dis-tributions of endorsement of NEP items. Nonetheless, our results suggest that demographics are not key determinants of dif-ferences in measured levels of NEP endorsement.
8.2. Opinions about government spending
Of the seven statements relating to government spending, two were excluded from final estimation of the NEP modelsbecause the parameters were not statistically significant from zero (at either the 0.05 or the less rigorous 0.10 level of sig-nificance). These two statements related to government expenditures on law enforcement and space exploration. Moreover,although differences in attitudes toward spending on assistance to big cities and the environment increase the probability ofobserving differences in responses to NEP3 and NEP7 respectively, these parameters are only significant at the 0.10 level ofsignificance. For our sample, differences in opinion about government spending on assistance to big cities, the environment,law enforcement and space exploration did not affect the distribution of responses to individual NEP items.
However, differences in opinion about government spending on drug rehabilitation, education and healthcare increasedthe probability of observing differences in responses to at least one NEP item. Differences in attitudes toward spending ondrug rehabilitation increased the probability of differences in agreement about the possibility of eco-crises affecting people(NEP15). Disagreement about whether government expenditures on education are sufficient increases the probability of dif-ferences in responses to items relating to the fragility of nature’s balance (NEP3) and human exemptionalism (NEP4). Finally,differences in opinion about government spending on healthcare increases the probability of distributional differences in re-sponses to items associated with limits to economic growth (NEP6) and human exemptionalism (NEP14).
Table 5Frequency of species appearing in unique pairs of survey versions.
Appears on one survey only Appears on both surveys
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1551
In common with demographic variables, likelihood ratio tests indicate that the null hypothesis that opinions about gov-ernment spending are jointly zero could not be rejected for the majority of models. However, the null hypothesis was re-jected for both NEP Scale items relating to the possibility of eco-crises affecting people (NEP5 and NEP15) and for oneitem pertaining to the fragility of nature’s balance (NEP3).
To conclude, there were no statistically significant and negative parameters for opinions about government spending,suggesting that differences in opinions about government spending result in differences in measured endorsement of NEPitems. Given that the majority of government spending variables are neither individually nor jointly significant, we inferthat, for this survey, differences in opinions about government spending are not key determinants of the distribution of re-sponses to the NEP.
8.3. Species effects
In contrast to demographics and opinions about government spending, species effects are individually or jointly signifi-cant for the majority of the NEP models. That is, our survey results suggest that measured levels of endorsement of the NEPare context dependent. However, significant differences in endorsement of the NEP resulting from species included in thesurvey applies to only two models, which are associated with human exemptionalism and the possibility of eco-crises affect-ing people. The presence of the loggerhead sea turtle on both surveys and the North Atlantic right whale on one or both sur-veys is associated with a higher probability of finding a statistically significant difference in agreement with the pro-DSPitem, ‘‘Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable’’ (NEP4). The presence of the Puget Sound Chi-nook salmon on both surveys increased the probability of observing differences in responses to the pro-environmental item,‘‘Humans are abusing the environment’’ (NEP5).
Negative and statistically significant species-related parameters are more commonly found in the models than positiveand significant ones. These parameters indicate that in the presence of these species, one is less likely to observe a statisti-cally significant difference in the distribution of responses to NEP Scale items. For example, in the NEP2 (‘‘Humans have theright to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’’) model, which is associated with anti-anthropocentrism, theNorth Atlantic and North Pacific right whales appearing on one or both surveys and the leatherback sea turtle appearingin both surveys reduced the probability of differences in the distribution of responses to this item; that is, the presenceof these species on the surveys aligned responses to NEP2.
Interestingly, a larger number of negative and statistically significant parameters are observed for species appearing onone survey only, as opposed to species appearing in both surveys. The implication that the appearance of that species on onesurvey only aligned responses to the NEP item, rather than causing divergence in responses, is contrary to our initial expec-tations. However, these negative effects are typically observed for the pro-DSP rather than the pro-NEP items. It appears thatspecies information is more likely to affect the distribution of responses to items that support the DSP, although we cannotdetermine whether this information increases or decreases the probability that individuals will agree with the pro-DSPitems.
Based on both the significance of the individual species parameters and the likelihood ratio tests, species effects are lesslikely to be observed for those items associated with a belief in the fragility of nature’s balance (NEP3 and NEP8) and thepossibility of eco-crises affecting people (NEP5 and NEP15). Nonetheless, in contrast to demographics and opinions aboutgovernment spending, the distribution of responses to NEP items is likely to be affected by survey context.
To conclude, likelihood ratio tests of the null hypothesis that the effect of species presence in one or both surveys is jointlyzero were rejected for seven of the 10 NEP models. This implies that measured endorsement of NEP items is context depen-dent. Moreover, with the exception of two NEP models, species effects reduced the probability of a difference in responses tothe NEP items. In other words, survey context tended to align responses to the NEP items, in particular pro-DSP items. Thesespecies effects were not restricted to charismatic species.
Likelihood ratio tests: Tests of context dependencyAll species parameters are zeroa 37.09 34.69 41.59 61.14 59.37 57.51 11.93 21.16 40.27 18.69All demographic parameters are
Parameters in bold are statistically different from zero at the 5% level; parameters in italics are statistically different from zero at the 10% level.a Critical chi-square values at the 5% and 10% levels are v2(0.95,15) = 24.996 and v2(0.9,15) = 22.307 respectively.b Critical chi-square values at the 5% and 10% levels are v2(0.95,4) = 9.488 and v2(0.9,4) = 7.779 respectively.c Critical chi-square values at the 5% and 10% levels are v2(0.95,5) = 11.070 and v2(0.9,5) = 9.236 respectively.
1552 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
9. Discussion
Our examination of responses to questions relating to environmental concern using these data systematically isolated therole that sample differences and survey-specific features, in the form of threatened and endangered species presented ineach survey, play in influencing differences in responses to NEP items. Differences in response distributions were first testedby using non-parametric statistical tests. Using a logit modeling approach to simultaneously control for sample character-istics and survey differences, these observed statistical differences (from the non-parametric tests) were found to be influ-enced by differences in the surveys, which provides evidence of context-dependency on questions used to measureenvironmental concern (specifically NEP Scale items). Context dependency of environmental concern questions implies thatresulting measures of environmental concern may be influenced by survey context. This is of particular importance given thewide use of the NEP Scale to measure environmental concern by researchers from a variety of disciplines, who may not betrained in environmental psychology or environmental sociology.
The analysis focused on using a subset of 10 of the 15 New Ecological Paradigm Scale items collectively representing thefive facets of environmental concern identified by Dunlap et al. (2000). Our analysis concentrated on analyzing differences inthe distributions of responses to each of the 10 NEP Scale items.
The effects on responses to environmental concern questions from the inclusion of specific species in the surveys werefound to be statistically important across seven of the NEP Scale items. However, species effects are associated with a higherlikelihood of observing significant differences in responses in only two NEP items. Otherwise, the presence of specific species
E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554 1553
in a comparison led to a smaller likelihood of observing a significant difference in responses to the NEP items, in particularfor the pro-DSP items. This implies that when some species appear in one or both surveys, respondents had less variability intheir responses to NEP items. Species effects do not appear to be restricted to charismatic fauna, as only the Hawaiian monkseal was found not to alter the probabilities of seeing a significant difference in responses in any NEP item.
NEP responses appear to be context-dependent in the sense that which species a respondent sees in a survey does seem toaffect the distribution of responses. However, the particular direction and magnitude of that effect likely depends upon thespecies and the specific NEP item asked. For example, species effects may be proxies for effects from particular types of infor-mation presented about each species that are more fundamental to the differences in responses to environmental attitudequestions, such as information about whether species are threatened or endangered, the reasons for the species’ decline,types of actions available to enhance or improve protection, likely cost of protecting the species, etc. Exploration of the effectof these factors in relation to context dependence is left for future research.
Neither differences in demographics nor opinions about government spending significantly altered the distribution of re-sponses to the majority of the NEP items. Differences in sample characteristics increased the likelihood of observing differ-ences in responses to only three of the NEP Scale items (NEP3, NEP6 and NEP15). Differences in opinions about spending ondrug rehabilitation, education and health care significantly increased the probability of differences in responses to the NEP3,NEP5 and NEP15 items.
Importantly, while this analysis does show that context differences affect whether we observe differences in the distri-bution of responses to NEP Scale items, the model results do not provide evidence of how these factors affect environmentalconcern. The current analysis does not determine whether different species and species information are proxies for morefundamental factors that influence environmental concern. Further, since the full set of NEP Scale items was not incorporatedinto the survey, we were unable to conduct a direct test of context dependency on the NEP Scale score, given a full NEP scorefor each respondent could not be calculated.21 This analysis is confined to determining what factors affect differences in re-sponses to questions that are used to measure environmental concern, not the direction or magnitude of those differences.
Despite the limitations of this analysis, it seems clear that the information about each species with which survey respon-dents were provided influences their responses to the NEP Scale items. Thus, in this application, we find that individual NEPScale items are responsive to information differences, as posited by Dunlap et al. (2000). Further research is required to ex-plore exactly how survey context influences responses to questions related to environmental concern. This may have impli-cations for how environmental attitudes may be altered by the dissemination of information about environmental problems,including human threats to threatened and endangered species.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Rita Curtis, Ron Felthoven, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments on thiswork. All remaining errors, if any, are our own. This research was conducted under Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commis-sion Grant #NA04NMF4370384. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’ own, and do not necessarilyreflect those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.
References
Aldrich, G.A., Grimsrud, K.M., Thatcher, J.A., Kotchen, M.J., 2007. Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods foridentifying preference heterogeneity? Environmental and Resource Economics 37, 757–775.
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2001. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues 8, 83–110.Amburgey, J.W., Thoman, D.B., 2012. Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and
Behavior 44, 235–256.Catton, W.R., Dunlap, R.E., 1978. Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. The American Sociologist 13, 41–49.Cordano, M., Welcomer, S.A., Scherer, R.F., 2003. An analysis of the predictive validity of the new ecological paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental
Education 34, 22–28.Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.Dunlap, R.E., 2008a. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education 40, 3–18.Dunlap, R.E., 2008b. Promoting a paradigm change: reflections on early contributions to environmental sociology. Organization & Environment 21, 478–
487.Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The ‘new environmental paradigm’: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education 9, 10–19.Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1984. Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly 65, 1013–
1028.Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social
Issues 56, 425–442.Fransson, N., Gärling, T., 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 19, 369–382.Gagnon Thompson, S.C., Barton, M.A., 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14,
149–157.Grendstad, G., 1999. The new ecological paradigm scale: examination and scale analysis. Environmental Politics 8, 194–205.
21 Although analyses based on partial NEP scores are possible, the interpretation and generalization of the results would be highly dependent upon theparticular NEP questions comprising the constructed partial scores; as a result, these more direct analyses are left for future research.
1554 E.F. Pienaar et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1542–1554
Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L., 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 30, 143–158.
Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Cordell, H.K., 2004. Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigm in asocial psychological context. Environment and Behavior 36, 157–186.
Jones, R.E., Dunlap, R.E., 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57, 28–47.Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered
species. Ecological Economics 32, 93–107.Krosnick, J.A., 1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5, 213–236.Krosnick, J.A., Alwin, D.F., 1987. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. The Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 201–
219.LaLonde, R., Jackson, E.L., 2002. The new environmental paradigm scale: has it outlived its usefulness? The Journal of Environmental Education 33, 28–36.Lundmark, C., 2007. The new ecological paradigm revisited: anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research 13, 329–
347.Mann, H.B., Whitney, D.R., 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical
Statistics 18, 50–60.Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 24, 503–515.Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., 2010. The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 80–94.Pierce, J.C., Lovrich Jr., N.P., Tsurutani, T., Abe, T., 1987. Culture, politics and mass publics: traditional and modern supporters of the new environmental
paradigm in Japan and the United States. The Journal of Politics 49, 54–79.Pirages, D.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1974. Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Imperatives. Freeman, San Francisco.Pouta, E., 2004. Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology 25, 229–242.Rideout, B.E., 2005. The effect of a brief environmental problems module on endorsement of the new ecological paradigm in college students. The Journal of
Environmental Education 37, 3–11.Rideout, B.E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins, S., Tate, J., 2005. Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm in systematic and e-mail samples of college
students. The Journal of Environmental Education 36, 15–23.Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Fazio, R.H., 1997. The role of belief accessibility in attitude formation. Southern Communication Journal 62, 107–116.Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L., 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 19, 255–265.Skogen, K., 1999. Another look at culture and nature: how culture patterns influence environmental orientation among Norwegian youth. Acta Sociologica
42, 223–239.Spash, C.L., 2006. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements.
Land Economics 82, 602–622.Stedman, R.C., 2004. Risk and climate change: perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis 24, 1395–1406.Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social–psychological context. Environment and Behavior 27, 723–743.Swait, J., Adamowicz, W., Hanemann, M., Diederich, A., Krosnik, J., Layton, D., Provencher, W., Schkade, D., Tourangeau, R., 2002. Context dependence and
aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Marketing Letters 13, 195–205.Tourangeau, R., 2003. Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15, 3–7.Tourangeau, R., 2004. Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 775–801.Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K.A., 1988. Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103, 299–314.Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K.A., Bradburn, N., D’Andrade, R., 1989. Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 25, 401–421.Tourangeau, R., Singer, E., Presser, S., 2003. Context effects in attitude surveys: effects on remote items and impact on predictive validity. Sociological
Methods and Research 31, 486–513.Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.Van Liere, K.D., Dunlap, R.E., 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly 44, 181–197.Vikan, A., Camino, C., Biaggio, A., Nordvik, H., 2007. Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a comparison of two Brazilian samples and one Norwegian
sample. Environment and Behavior 39, 217–228.Wallmo, K., Lew, D.K., 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments.
Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1793–1801.
