Environmental Attitudes and Behavior

Abstract

A statewide survey of Pennsylvanians conducted in 1990 provided data on residents' opinions about ideas contained in the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and behaviors engaged in that are environmentally protective. Although Pennsylvanians expressed support for the NEP, they were not likely to engage in actbvities that contribute to environmental protection. Correlation analysis revealed that although support for the NEP was predictive of environmental behavior, the linkages were not strong. Various social characteristics were more predictive of environmentally oriented behaviors than supportive of the NEP.

A Novel Approach to Deepen Understanding of Undergraduates' Environmental Backgrounds

“…Finally, student groups with scores supportive of the NEP were more likely to be female than male. Recent reviews also show that females have more proenvironment attitudes than males (Kalof et al, 2002), with a few inconsistent results (Scott & Willits, 1994). In most other studies, pro-environment attitudes are negatively correlated with age and are positively correlated with education (Arcury, 1990;Scott & Willits, 1994;Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980), but a few studies show no correlation with education (Uysal et al, 1994), as was found here.…”

“…Other studies have shown that pro-environment attitudes P1: ILT MMJN014-02_220 mlm.cls August 23, 2007 18:57 have positive, but weak correlations with pro-environment behaviour (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;Gigliotti, 1994;Kuhn & Jackson, 1989;Scott & Willits, 1994;Shanahan et al, 1999). Environmental instructors should recognise these interactions and build upon them.…”

“…However, Corral-Verdugo and Armendáriz (2000) found that the limits to growth component of the NEP scale were most important in predicting proenvironment behaviour. Similarly, Scott and Willits (1994) found that the combined limits to growth and balance of nature components were more correlated to environmental-friendly consumer behaviour than the humans over nature component.…”

No control, no drive: how noise may undermine conservation behavior in a commons dilemma

“…Why then, one may ask, does environmental concern in some cases fail to correspond to actual behavior? In the present study, we take a closer look at a novel and important answer to this basic-and socially urgent-question (e.g., Gardner & Stern, 1996;Scott & Willits, 1994): The ubiquitous presence of noise in situations of social-ecological interdependence.…”

“…Why then, one may ask, does environmental concern in some cases fail to correspond to actual behavior? In the present study, we take a closer look at a novel and important answer to this basic-and socially urgent-question (e.g., Gardner & Stern, 1996;Scott & Willits, 1994): The ubiquitous presence of noise in situations of social-ecological interdependence.By using the broad concept of noise (see Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Tazelaar, 2002) in the present research, we advance the idea that external forces beyond people's intention and control (i.e., noise) may sometimes unfavorably affect our environmental behavior and lead to outcomes that are less good than intended. 1 For example, a family may be overusing 1 For this particular application of the concept of noise within social-ecological interaction, we focus on negative noise only.…”