Dunlap and colleagues’ New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale is widely used and, thus, merits testing to determine whether it should be treated as one scale, a set of independent scales, or a set of correlated subscales. The authors test for all three possibilities using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and find that a second-order factor structure with five interrelated dimensions provides a better fit for the data than a single factor structure or five independent factors structure. Results show that, as Dunlap originally assumed, the NEP is best represented as correlated scales involving five facets. The authors recommend that future research with the NEP use CFA within a structural equation modeling approach to accurately represent the five interrelated facets structure, and if CFA is unavailable, treating the scale as five correlated subscales is preferred over treating the NEP as a single score reflecting environmental concern.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmanJ. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179-211.
3.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2008). Amos 17.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation.
4.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
6.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
7.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISERAL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1, 55-86.
8.
CarmanC. J. (1998). Dimensions of environmental policy support in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 717-733.
9.
ClaytonS.OpotowS. (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
10.
CordanoM.WelcomerS. A.SchererR. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34, 22-28.
11.
Corral-VerdugoV.BechtelR. B.Fraijo-SingB. (2003). Environmental beliefs and water conservation: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 247-257.
12.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
13.
DunlapR. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3-18.
14.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
15.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013-1028.
16.
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.
17.
FranssonN.GarlingT. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382.
18.
GreenS. B.LissitzR. W.MulaikS. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827-838.
19.
GriceJ. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430-450.
20.
GuberD. L. (1996). Environmental concern and the dimensionality problem: A new approach to an old predicament. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 644-662.
21.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.00310.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
22.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
23.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
24.
JohnsonC. Y.BowkerJ. M.CordellH. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157-186.
25.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
26.
LalondeR.JacksonE. L. (2002). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: Has it outlived its usefulness?Journal of Environmental Education, 33, 28-36.
27.
LoehlinJ. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
MainieriT.BarnettE.ValderoT.UnipanJ.OskampS. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189-204.
29.
MarshH. W.BallaJ. R.McDonaldR. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
30.
McKenzie-MohrD. (2000a). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543-554.
31.
McKenzie-MohrD. (2000b). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531-537.
32.
MilbrathL. (1984). Environmentalists: Vangard for a new society. Albany: State University of New York Press.
33.
MuthénB. O.MuthénL. (2005). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
34.
OlsenM. E.LodwickD. G.DunlapR. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. Boulder, CO: Westview.
35.
PiragesD. C.EhrlichP. R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. New York, NY: Viking.
36.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP.WesleyP. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
37.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
38.
SternP. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302.
39.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
40.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
41.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
42.
TaylorD. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 508-580.
43.
VikanA.CaminoC.BiaggioA.NordvikH. (2007). Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A comparison of two Brazilian samples and one Norwegian sample. Environment and Behavior, 39, 217-228.
44.
WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1997). Personality measurement: Reliability and validity. In HoganR.JohnsonJ.BriggsS. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 139-142). Dallas, TX: Academic Press.
45.
XiaoC.DunlapR. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A U.S.-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 471-493.
