Using the framework of social representations theory, this article examines predictors of two belief systems linking beliefs about the environment with beliefs about scientific knowledge. In a survey study with 460 Portuguese respondents, the following four hypotheses were tested: (a) New ecological beliefs were expected to receive higher levels of agreement than old anthropocentric ones, (b) social identities (not only objective positions) were expected to be important predictors of respondents’ beliefs, and (c) the explanatory power of social identity variables was expected to be higher for those beliefs receiving lower levels of agreement (d) and for respondents expressing coherent representations. Analyses reconstructed two belief systems: prudence, linking new ecological ideas with a relativist view of science, and confidence, linking old anthropocentric ideas with a positivist view of science. Results support the hypothesis and show that although these systems can be viewed as contradictory, some respondents manage to agree with both.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arcury, T. A. , & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment and Behavior, 22, 387-407.
2.
Bechtel, R. B. , Corral-Verdugo, V., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (1999). Environmental belief systems: United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 122-128.
3.
Beck, U. (1995). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Ltd. (Original work published 1986)
4.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993a). Integrating paradigms, methodological implications. In G. M. Breakwell & D. V. Canter (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 180-201). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
5.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993b). Social representations and social identity. Papers on Social Representations/Textes sur les Representations Sociales, 2, 198-217.
6.
Castro, P. (1995). Contributos para uma comparação crítica de três tradições em psicologia social: Atitudes, representações sociais e cognição social [Contributions for a critical comparison of three traditions in social psychology: Attitudes, social representations and social cognition]. Psicologia, 10, 155-174.
7.
Catton, W. R. , & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 15-47.
8.
Christianson, E. H. , & Arcury, T. A. (1992). Regional diversity in environmental attitudes, knowledge and policy: The Kentucky River Authority. Human Organization, 51, 99-108.
9.
Dake, P. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21-37.
10.
Diekmann, A. , & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31, 540-549.
11.
Doise, W. (1993). Debating social representations. In G. M. Breakwell & D. V. Canter (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 157-170). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
12.
Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul.
13.
Douglas, M. , & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Dovidio, J. F. , & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Dunlap, R. E. (1993). From environmental to ecological problems. In C. Calhoun & G. Ritzer (Eds.), Social problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Dunlap, R. E. , & Catton, W. R. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243-273.
17.
Dunlap, R. E. , & Catton, W. R. (1992-1993). Toward an ecological sociology: The development, current status and probable future of environmental sociology. Annales de l’Institut International de Sociologie, 3, 263-285.
18.
Dunlap, R. E. , & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite?Journal of Social Issues, 51, 121-137.
19.
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.
20.
Dunlap, R. E. , Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., Catton, W. R., Jr., & Howell, R. E. (1992, August). Measuring endorsement of an ecological worldview: A revised NEP Scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Pennsylvania State University.
21.
Elliot, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
Ellis, R. J. , & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897.
23.
Farr, R. M. (1999). Representações sociais: A teoria e sua história [Social representations: Theory and its history]. In P. Guareschi & S. Jovchelovitch (Eds.), Textos em representações sociais (pp. 31-59). Petrópolis, Brasil: Editora Vozes.
24.
Ferry, L. (1993). A nova ordem ecológica [The new ecological order]. Lisbon, Portugal: Asa.
25.
Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 141-160.
26.
Flick, U. (1998). Introduction: Social representations in knowledge and language as approaches to a psychology of the social. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 1-12). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Furman, A. (1998). A note on environmental concern in a developing country: Results from an Istambul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30, 520-534.
28.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). The limits of pure critique. In H. W. Simmons & M. Billig (Eds.), After postmodernism: Reconstructing ideology critique (pp. 58-78). London: Sage Ltd.
29.
Gergen, K. J. , & Semin, G. R. (1990). Everyday understanding in science and daily life. In G. R. Semin & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Everyday understanding: Social and scientific implications (pp. 1-18). London: Sage Ltd.
30.
Gooch, G. D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic States. Environment and Behavior, 27, 513-539.
31.
Grendstad, G. , & Wollebaek, D. (1998). Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley’s ecocentric approach. Environment and Behavior, 30, 653-675.
32.
Hannigan, J. A. (1995). Environmental sociology: A social constructionist perspective. London: Routledge.
33.
Harré, R. (1989). Grammaire et lexiques, vecteurs des representations socials [Grammar and lexicons, vectors of social representations]. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les representations socials (pp. 131-151). Paris: PUF.
34.
Hayward, T. (1994). Ecological thought. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
35.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics, 28, 57-71.
36.
Jasanoff, S. (2000). The “science wars” and American politics. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: Harwood.
37.
Jodelet, D. , & Scipion, C. (1992). Quand la science met l’inconnu dans le monde [When science meets the unknown in the world]. Autrement, January, 210-222.
38.
Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: An empirical study. Environment and Behavior, 25, 126-142.
39.
Mainieri, T. , Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189-204.
40.
Markus, H. , & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzay & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
41.
Marris, C. , Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1996). Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: Detailed results from a questionnaire survey (CSERGE working paper GEC 96-07). Norwich, UK: CSERGE.
42.
Moscovici, S. (1972). A sociedade contranatura [Counternature society]. Lisbon, Portugal: Livraria Bertrand.
43.
Moscovici, S. (1976). La psychanalyse, son image et son public [Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public]. Paris: PUF.
44.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
45.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry, 16, 95-100.
46.
Oliver, M. (1999). Attitudes and inaction: A case study of the manifest demographics of urban water conservation. Environment and Behavior, 31, 372-394.
47.
Parker, J. D. , & McDonough, M. (1999). Environmentalism of African Americans: An analysis of the subculture and barriers theories. Environment and Behavior, 31, 155-177.
48.
Pepper, D. (1996). Modern environmentalism. London: Routledge.
49.
Pettigrew, T. F. , & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-76.
50.
Potter, J. , & Wetherell, M. (1998). Social representations, discourse analysis, and racism. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 138-155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Schultz, P. W. , & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes towards the environment. Environment and Behavior, 26, 25-37.
52.
Schultz, P. W. , & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.
53.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
54.
Scott, D. , & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239-260.
55.
Sessions, R. (1996). Deep ecology versus ecofeminism: Healthy differences or incompatible philosophies? In K. J. Wareen (Ed.), Ecological feminist philosophies (pp. 137-154). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
56.
Singer, P. (1983). La liberátion animale [Animal liberation]. Paris: Editions Grasset. (Original work published 1975)
57.
Soromenho-Marques, V. (1998). O futuro frágil: Os desafios da crise global do ambiente [A fragile future: The challenges of the global environmental crisis]. Lisbon, Portugal: Publicações Europa-América.
58.
Steg, L. , & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250-269.
59.
Stern, P. C. , Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
60.
Stern, P. C. , Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
61.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Tarrant, M. A. , & Cordell, K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29, 618-637.
63.
Vala, J. (1993). Representações sociais: Para uma psicologia social do pensamento social [Social representations: Towards a social psychology of social thought]. In J. Vala & M. B. Monteiro (Eds.), Psicologia social (pp. 353-384). Lisbon, Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
64.
Vala, J. (2000). Representações sociais e psicologia social do conhecimento quotidiano [Social representations and the social psychology of everyday knowledge]. In J. Vala & M. B. Monteiro (Eds.), Psicologia social (3rd ed., pp. 457-502). Lisbon, Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
65.
Warren, K. (1996). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. In K. J. Wareen (Ed.), Ecological feminist philosophies (pp. 19-41). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
66.
Wildavsky, A. (1995). But is it true? A citizen’s guide to environmental health and safety risks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
Wynne, B. (1994). Scientific knowledge and the global environment. In M. Redcliff & T. Benton (Eds.), Social theory and the global environment (pp. 169-189). London: Routledge.
68.
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44-83). London: Sage Ltd.
69.
Yearley, S. (1993). Standing in for nature: The practicalities of environmental organizations’ use of science. In K. Milton (Ed.), Environmentalism: The view from anthropology (pp. 59-72). London: Routledge.
70.
Yearley, S. (1996). Nature’s advocates: Putting science to work in environmental organisations. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 172-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
