Despite an ever-increasing use of the Environmental Attitude Inventory (EAI), few studies have aimed at checking the dimensional structure of its 24-item version and particularly the structure of the subdimensions and its two main dimensions: utilization and preservation of the environment. Structural analyses confirmed the strength of the structure. Pro-environmental behaviours can be predicted by this scale, mainly through the dimension of preservation. Lastly, two of the ideological and emotional subdimensions of preservation appeared not to be highly specific in the French context of our study: environmental movement activism and ecocentrism, which cover ecological behaviour and the support for interventionist conservation policies. If the objective of the scale is not to study those two dimensions, we suggest a shorter version of the EAI, more balanced, coherent and structured into 20 items comprising 10 clearly distinct subdimensions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ajdukovic. (2015). Appropriation et valorisation sociale de l’orientation pro-environnementale (Appropriation and social valorization of eco-friendly orientation), doctoral thesis. University of Burgundy.
2.
AkaikeH. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.
3.
AmerigoM.AragonésJ. I.GarcíaJ. A. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern. An integrative proposal. Psyecology, 3, 353–365.
4.
ApostolidisT.FieulaineN. (2004). Validation française de l’échelle de temporalité. [French validation of the time-scale]. Revue Europeene de Psychologie Appliquee, 54, 207–217.
5.
AwangZ. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Shah Alam: Universiti Teknologi MARA Publication Centre
6.
BognerF. X.BrengelmannJ. C.WisemanM. (2000). Risk-taking and environmental perception. The Environmentalist, 20, 49–62.
7.
BognerF. X.WisemanM. (2006). Adolescents’ attitudes towards nature and environment: Quantifying the 2-MEV model. The Environmentalist, 26, 247–254.
8.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.
DunlapR. E.JonesR. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In DunlapR. E.MichelsonW. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482–524). London: Greenwood Press.
11.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm.”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19.
12.
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.
13.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.
14.
HawcroftL. J.MilfontT. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143–158.
15.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
16.
JanigoK. A.WuJ. (2015). Collaborative redesign of used clothes as a sustainable fashion solution and potential business opportunity. Fashion Practice, 7, 75–97.
17.
KaiserF. G.ScheuthleH. (2003). Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1033–1048.
18.
Le HebelF.MontpiedP.FontanieuV. (2014). What can influence students’ environmental attitudes? Results from a study of 15-year-old students in France. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 329–345.
19.
MartínA. M.HernándezB.AlonsoI. (2017). Pro-environmental motivation and regulation to respect environmental laws as predictors of illegal anti-environmental behaviour/La motivación pro-ambiental y la motivación para respetar las leyes medioambientales como predictoras de la conducta anti-ecológica ilegal. Psyecology, 8, 33–74.
20.
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.
21.
MilfontT. L.RichterI.SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.FischerR. (2013). Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1127–1138.
22.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2011). Exploring the concept of environmental generativity. International Journal of Hispanic Psychology, 4, 21.
23.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2014). The hierarchy enforcement hypothesis of environmental exploitation: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 188–193.
24.
MorenoI.AmérigoM.GarcíaJ. A. (2016). Design and application of an environmental attitudes scale in primary education/Diseño y aplicación de una escala de actitudes hacia el medio ambiente en educación primaria. Psyecology, 7, 64–88.
25.
MunozF.BognerF.ClementP.CarvalhoG. S. (2009). Teachers’ conceptions of nature and environment in 16 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 407–413.
26.
PansuP.TarquinioC.GilibertD. (2005). Internal attributions in an intergroup business setting. Le Travail humain, 68, 55–72.
27.
PiragesD. C.EhrlichP. R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
28.
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.
29.
Schleyer-LindenmannA.DauvierB.IttnerH.PiolatM. (2014). Mesure des attitudes environnementales: Analyse structurale d’une version française de la NEPS [Measuring environmental attitudes: A structural analysis of a French version of the NEP Scale] (Dunlap et al., 2000). Psychologie Française, 61, 83–102.
30.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
31.
SukH. J.JungH.SatoT. (2009, October). How environmental attitude affects the consumers’ tolerance of paper colors. In The 3rd IASDR Conference, Seoul Korea, CD-ROM, not paged.
32.
TateK.StewartA. J.DalyM. (2014). Influencing green behavior through environmental goal priming: The mediating role of automatic evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 225–232.
33.
UllmanJ. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34.
WhitmarshL.O’NeillS. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305–314.
35.
WisemanM.BognerF. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783–794.
