Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-01
Effects of the social dominance orientation on environmental attitudes of Chilean university students / Efectos de la orientación a la dominancia social sobre las actitudes ambientales de universitarios chilenos
By adopting a multidimensional approach to environmental attitudes (apathy, anthropocentrism, connectedness and emotional affinity with nature), this study explores the relationships between these dimensions, social dominance orientation (SDO) and political orientation. Two hundred and sixty-two Chilean university students filled out an ad hoc online questionnaire. Two confirmatory factorial analyses showed the four typologies of environmental attitudes and the two factors for SDO, which are labelled group dominance and opposition to equality. Through hierarchical regressions, group dominance showed higher explanatory power of environmental attitudes than political orientation. Furthermore, using the bootstrap procedure we showed that group dominance mediated between political orientation and attitudes of apathy, anthropocentrism and connectedness, while opposition to equality mediated between apathy and emotional affinity. We conclude that SDO is an important variable for measuring political ideology while also providing new nuances when analysing the relationships with environmental attitudes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmérigoM.AragonésJ. I.GarcíaJ. A. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern: An integrative proposal. Psyecology, 3, 353–365. doi:10.1174/217119712802845705
2.
AmérigoM.GarcíaJ. A. (2014). Perspectiva multidimensional de la preocupación por el medio ambiente. Relación entre dimensiones actitudinales y comportamientos. Psico, 45, 406–414. doi:10.15448/1980-8623.2014.3.17411
BechtelR. B.Corral-VerdugoV.AsaiM.González-RiesleA. (2006). A cross-cultural study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 145–151. doi:10.1080/00207590500345401
CattonW. R.DunlapR. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, 41–49. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27702311
8.
Corral-VerdugoV.ArmendárizL. I. (2000). The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 25–31. doi:10.1080/00958960009598642
9.
DunlapR. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions. Environment and Behavior, 7, 428–454. doi:10.1177/001391657500700402
10.
DunlapR. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3–18. doi:10.3200/joee.40.1.3-18
11.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
12.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435
13.
GadermannA. M.GuhnM.ZumboB. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13. Retrieved fromhttp://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf
14.
GoreA. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Rodale.
15.
HäkkinenK.AkramiN. (2014). Ideology and climate change denial. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 62–65. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.030
16.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
17.
HernándezB.CorralV.HessS.SuárezE. (2001). Sistemas de creencias ambientales: un análisis multi-muestra de estructuras factoriales. Estudios de Psicología, 22, 53–64. doi:10.1174/021093901609596
18.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
JacksonL. M.BitacolaL. M.JanesL. M.EssesV. M. (2013). Intergroup ideology and environmental inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 327–346. doi:10.1111/asap.12035
21.
JamesL. R.MulaikS. A.BrettJ. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244. doi:10.1177/1094428105285144
22.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
23.
JostJ. T.ThompsonE. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of selfesteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
24.
KlausV. (2008). Planeta azul (No verde). Madrid: Gota A Gota.
25.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
26.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80–94. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
27.
MilfontT. L.RichterI.SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.FischerR. (2013). Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1127–1138. doi:10.1177/0146167213490805
28.
PáezD.JavaloyF.WlodarczykA.EspeltE.RiméB. (2013). El movimiento 15-M: sus acciones como rituales, compartir social, creencias, valores y emociones. Revista de Psicología Social, 28, 19–33. doi:10.1174/021347413804756078
29.
PalavecinosM.SandovalP.GuevaraL.AmérigoM. (2012). Educación más allá de la evaluación estandarizada, educación para la sustentabilidad. Estudio descriptivo en estudiantes de educación superior en Chile. In ZúñigaC. (Ed.), Psicología, sociedad y equidad. Aportes y desafíos (pp. 201–223). Santiago: Universidad de Chile.
30.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
31.
SandovalJ.HatibovicF. (2010). Socialización política y juventud: El caso de las trayectorias ciudadanas de los estudiantes universitarios de la región de Valparaíso. Última Década, 18(32), 11–36. doi:10.4067/s0718-22362010000100002
32.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP.SchultzP. W. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
Silván-FerreroM. P.BustillosA. (2007). Adaptación de la escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social al castellano: validación de la Dominancia Grupal y la Oposición a la Igualdad como factores subyacentes. Revista de Psicología Social, 22, 3–15. doi:10.1174/021347407779697485
34.
SuárezE.SalazarM.-E.HernándezB.MartínA.-M. (2007). ¿Qué motiva la valoración del medio ambiente? La relación del ecocentrismo y del antropocentrismo con la motivación interna y externa. Revista de Psicología Social, 22, 235–243. doi:10.1174/021347407782194434
35.
TamamesR. (2010). El grito de la tierra. Biosfera y cambio climático. Barcelona: R.B.A.
36.
ThompsonS. C. G.BartonM. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80168-9
37.
UlianovaO.EstenssoroF. (2012). El ambientalismo chileno: la emergencia y la inserción internacional. Si somos americanos, 12(1), 183–214. doi:10.4067/S0719-09482012000100008
