The focus of this study is on developing a scale that measures elaboration as originally conceptualized by Vezeau et al. (2015), and then tests whether the elaboration scale is able to predict a variety of related behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the validity and reliability of the scale. The results suggest that the scale was successful in improving upon previous research in that all theoretical constructs were present in the second-order model of elaboration. Additionally, structural equation modeling was used to examine the predictive validity of the elaboration scale, which was successful in predicting a variety of related behaviors. This research advances the theoretical understanding and measurement of elaboration. Results can be used for evaluating interpretation efforts, including the assessment of programs and materials. Additionally, the results provide further evidence of elaboration as a measured construct and opens a variety of new avenues for research in environmental interpretation and informal education. Practitioners can use this research to reinforce or change attitudes and behaviors of visitors to those more consistent with an agency or organization mission by promoting interest, awareness, and cognitive engagement (collectively termed elaboration) in their interpretive products.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
BrownM.W., & CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K.A., Long J.S., (Eds.).Testing structural equation models.Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. pp. 136–162.
3.
BrownT. J., HamS. H., & HughesM. (2010). Picking up litter: An application of theory-based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected areas.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (7), 879–900.
4.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming.Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
6.
DeVellisR. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7.
GayL.R. (1991). Educational Evaluation and Measurement: Competencies for Analysis and Application.New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
8.
GrahamJ.M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 (6), 930–944.
9.
HamS. (2013). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose.Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
10.
HooperD., CoughlanJ., & MullenM.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods6 (1), 53–60.
11.
HuL., & BentlerP.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
12.
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), 1–55.
13.
KenrickD. T., NeubergS. L., & CialdiniR. B. (2002). Social Psychology: Unraveling the Mystery (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
KlineP. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis.New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guillford Press.
16.
KlockarsA. J., & HancockG. R. (1993). Manipulations of evaluative ratings.Psychological Reports, 73, 1059–1066.
17.
KollmussA., & AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research8 (3), 239–260.
18.
KyleG., GraefeA., & ManningR. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings.Environment and Behavior, 37 (2), 153–177.
19.
LückM. (2015). Education on marine mammal tours—But what do tourists want to learn?Ocean and Coastal Management, 103, 25–33.
20.
ManningR. (2003). Emerging principles for using information / education in wilderness management.International Journal of Wilderness, 9 (1), 20–27.
21.
ManningR. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (3rd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
22.
MillerM.B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling.Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 255–273.
23.
MillerZ.D. (2017). The Enduring Use of the Theory of Planned Behavior.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22 (6), 583–590.
24.
MillerZ.D., FreimundW., MetcalfE.C., & NickersonN. (2018). Targeting your audience: wildlife value orientations and the relevance of messages about bear safety.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23 (3).
25.
MunshiJ. (2014). A method for constructing Likert scales.SSRN Electronic Journal, (April), 1–12.
26.
MusserL.M., & Malkus (1994). The children's attitudes toward the environment scale.Journal of Environmental Education, 25 (3), 22–26.
27.
NPS. (2017a). National Park Service Certifies 2015 Visitation at 307 Million: Reports Annual Top 10 Lists and Other Highlights [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=1784
OlliffT., & CaslickJ. (2003). Wildlife – human conflicts in Yellowstone: When animals and people get too close.Yellowstone Science, 1 (18), 18–22.
33.
PetersonR.A., & WilsonW.R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact and artifact.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (1), 61–71.
34.
PettyR. E., & CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
35.
PettyR.E., McMichaelS., & BrannonL.A. (1992). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Applications in recreation and tourism. In ManfredoM.J. (Ed.), Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resources Management (pp. 77–101). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
36.
PettyR.E., WegenerD.T., & FabrigarL.R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change.Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–47.
37.
SchultzP.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues.Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 391–406.
38.
SchultzP.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4), 327–339.
39.
SchultzP.W. (2011). Conservation means behavior.Conservation Biology, 25 (6), 1080–1083.
40.
SternM.J., PowellR.B., & ArdoinN.M. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program.The Journal of Environmental Education, 39 (4), 31–43.
41.
StoneG., BarnesJ.H., & MontgomeryC. (1995). Ecoscale: A scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers.Psychology and Marketing, 12 (7), 595–612.
42.
VezeauS.L., PowellR.B., SternM.J., MooreD.D., & WrightB.A. (2015). Development and validation of two scales to measure elaboration and behaviors associated with stewardship in children.Environmental Education Research, (January), 1–22.
43.
WernerC.M. (1999). Psychological perspectives on sustainability. In BeckerE., & JahnT. (Eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation (pp. 223–242). New York: Zed Books.
