Social scientists have increasingly turned their attention to the conceptualization and measurement of different facets of the self to better understand public concern for the environment. Despite significant progress in this area, theoretical and methodological issues remain that could impede further progress. This article addresses several of these issues by providing a conceptual framework that integrates key features from two major theories used to understand self-environment relations. The framework is then utilized within a multimethod research design that emphasized theoretical and methodological correspondence and precision to develop and assess a measure of ecological identity. The results provide solid evidence of the reliability and validity of the Ecological Identity Scale and the utility of the conceptual framework designed to support it. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that ecological identity influences a wide range of environmental behaviors both directly and indirectly via worldviews and social values. Recommendations for future research are offered.
AndersonD. R.BurnhamK. P.ThompsonW. L. (2000). Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64, 912-923.
2.
AronA.AronE. N.TudorM.NelsonG. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241
3.
AshmoreR. D.DeauxK.McLaughlin-VlopeT. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
4.
BiddleB. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92.
5.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrennerP. S.SerpeR. T.StrykerS. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and salience in Identity Theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 231-252.
7.
BrewerM. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728-738.
8.
BrownC. S. (1992). Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism: The quest for a new worldview. Inquiry, 53, 273-288.
9.
BruggerA.KaiserF. G.RoczenN. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16, 324-333.
10.
BrulleR. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
BullardR. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
12.
BurkeP. J. (2003). Relationships among multiple identities. In BurkeP. J.OwensT. J.SerpeR. T.ThoitsP. A. (Eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and research (pp. 195-214). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9188-1_14
13.
BurkeP. J.StetsJ. E. (2009). Identity Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
BurkeP. J.TullyJ. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55, 881-897. doi:10.2307/2577560
15.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. (1998). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer.
16.
CarterM. J. (2015). Deaf identity centrality: Measurement, influences, and outcomes. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 15, 146-172.
17.
ChangV.OpotowS. (2009). Conservation values, environmental identity, and moral inclusion in the Kunene region, Namibia: A comparative study. Beliefs and Values, 1, 79-89.
18.
ClaytonS. D. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition. In ClaytonS. D.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
ClaytonS. D. (2008). Attending to identities: Ideology, group memberships, and perceptions of justice. Advances in Group Processes, 25, 241-266.
20.
ClaytonS. D. (2012). Environment and identity. In ClaytonS. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental conservation and psychology (pp. 164-180). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
ColvinC.BlockJ.FunderD. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1152-1162. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152
23.
CooleyC. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner.
24.
DavisJ. L.LeB.CoyA. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.004
25.
de GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354. doi:10.1177/0013916506297831
26.
DeauxK.BurkeP. (2010). Bridging identities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 315-320. doi:10.1177/0190272510388996
27.
Devine-WrightP.ClaytonS. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 267-270. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(10)00078-2
28.
DunlapR. E.JonesR. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In DunlapR. E.MichelsonW. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
29.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). Social movement identity: Validating a measure of identification with the environmental movement. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1045-1065. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00573.x
30.
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
31.
DuntemanG. H. (1989). Principal components analysis (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-069). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
DutcherD.FinleyJ.LuloffA.JohnsonJ. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474-493. doi:10.1177/0013916506298794
33.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 1-11. doi:10.3758/BF03203630
34.
FishbeinM. A.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
35.
FoxW. (1989). The deep ecology-ecofeminism debate and its parallels. Environmental Ethics, 11, 5-25.
36.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. doi:10.1037/a0023566
37.
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.2009.10.003
38.
HernandezB.MartinA. M.RuizC.del Carmen HidalgoM. (2010). The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 281-288.
39.
HindsJ.SparksP. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109-120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
40.
HitlinS. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 118-137. doi:10.2307/1519843
41.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J.WhiteK. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269. doi:10.2307/2787127
42.
JasperJ. M. (1997). The art of moral protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
JolliffeI. T. (2002). Principal components analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
44.
JonesR. E.RaineyS. A. (2006). Examining linkages between race, environmental concern, health, and justice in a highly polluted community of color. Journal of Black Studies, 36, 473-496.
45.
KalsE.SchumacherD.MontadaL. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-202. doi:10.1177/00139169921972056
46.
KieslingF.ManningC. M. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 315-327.
47.
KitchellA.HannanE.KemptonW. (2000). Identity through stories: Story structure and function of two environmental groups. Human Organization, 59, 96-105. doi:10.17730/humo.59.1.b52j630n12v30364
48.
Koltko-RiveraM. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8, 3-58.
49.
KorpelaK.YlénM.TyrväinenI.SilvennoinenH. (2009). Stability of self-reported favorite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 95-100.
50.
LearyM. R.TonerK.GanM. (2011). Self, identity, and reactions to distal threats: The case of environmental behavior. Psychological Studies, 56, 159-166. doi:10.1007/s12646-011-0060-7
51.
MarkusH. (1977). Self-Schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
52.
MayerS. F.FrantzC. M. (2004). The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
53.
McCallG. J. (2003). The me and the not-me: Positive and negative poles of identity. In BurkeP. J.OwensT. J.SerpeR. T.ThoitsP. A. (Eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and research (pp. 11-24). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9188-1_2
54.
McCallG. J.SimmonsJ. L. (1978). Identities and interaction: An examination of human association in everyday life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
55.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global environmental change, 21(4), 1163-1172.
56.
MerollaD. M.SerpeR. T.StrykerS.SchultzW. P. (2012). Structural precursors to identity processes: The role of proximate social structures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 149-172.
57.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ.WagnerC. (2010). A cross-cultural test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2791-2813.
58.
MyersG.RussellA. (2003). Human identity in relation to wild black bears: A natural-social ecology of subjective creatures. In ClaytonS.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 67-90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59.
NaessA. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
NigburD.LyonsE.UzzellD. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behavior: Using and expanded theory of planned behavior to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 259-284. doi:10.1348/014466609X449395
61.
NisbettE. K.ZelenskiJ. M.MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715-740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748
62.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
63.
OakesP. (1987). The salience of social categories. In TurnerJ. C. (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group (pp. 117-141). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
64.
OlivosP.AragonesJ. I. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Environmental Identity Scale (EID). Psyecology, 2, 65-74.
65.
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P.Romero-CanyasR. (2016). Social climate science: A new vista for psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 632-650.
66.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
67.
RodmanJ. (1983). Four forms of ecological consciousness reconsidered. In SchererD.AttigT. (Eds.), Ethics and environment (pp. 82-92). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
68.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
69.
RoutheA. S.JonesR. E.FeldmanD. L. (2005). Using theory to understand public support for collective actions that impact the environment: Alleviating water supply problems in a nonarid biome. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 874-897. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00361.x
70.
ScanellL.GiffordR. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
71.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP.Wesley SchultzP. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4
72.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
73.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1-65.
74.
SchwartzS. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116
75.
SchwartzS. J.LuyckxK.VignolesV. L. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of Identity Theory and research. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_1
76.
SpiersR. (2011). Group identities: The social identity perspective. In SchwartzS. J.KoenL.VignolesV. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and research (pp. 201-224). New York, NY: Springer.
77.
StegL.de GrootJ. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In ClaytonS. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental conservation and psychology (pp. 181-200). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
78.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x
79.
StetsJ. E.BigaC. F. (2003). Bringing Identity Theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21, 398-423.
80.
StetsJ. E.BurkeP. J. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224-237.
81.
StrykerS. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
82.
StrykerS. (2008). From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 15-31. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134649
83.
StrykerS.SerpeR. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts?Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 16-35. doi:10.2307/2786972
84.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
86.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behavior. In AustinW. G. (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
87.
TamK. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64-78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
88.
TaylorD. E. (2014). The state of diversity in environmental organizations: Mainstream NGOs, foundations, government agencies. Retrieved from http://www.diversegreen.org/the-challenge/
89.
TerryD. J.HoggM. A.WhiteK. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity, social identity, and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244. doi:10.1348/014466699164149
90.
ThoitsP. A.VirshupL. K. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities. In AshmoreR. D.JussimL. (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106-133). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
91.
ThomashowM. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
92.
ThompsonS. C. G.BartonM. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.
93.
UzzellD.PolE.BadenasD. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34, 26-53. doi:10.1177/0013916502034001003
94.
van DamY. K.FischerA. R. H. (2015). Buying green without being seen. Environment and Behavior, 47, 328-356. doi:10.1177/0013916513509481
95.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63.
96.
VaskeJ. J.KorbinK. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 16-21. doi:10.1080/00958960109598658
97.
WeberM. (1968). Economy and society (RothG.WittichC., Eds.). New York, NY: Bedminster Press. (Reprinted from University of California Press, 1978)
98.
WeigertA. J. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight. Albany: State University of New York Press.
99.
WeigertA. J. (2010). Metatheoretical theses on identity, inequality, time, and hope: Toward a pragmatic cosmopolitanism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40, 249-273. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00432.x
100.
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.
101.
WilberK. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
102.
ZavestoskiS. (2003). Constructing and maintaining ecological identities: The strategies of deep ecologists. In ClaytonS.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the environment (pp. 297-315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
