|
PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF VALUES AND CONSTRAINTS.
Carlos M. Abella* (research fellow, sociologist);
Dr. Ricardo García Mira* (lecturer of Social Psychology);
- Dr. J. Eulogio Real** (lecturer of Methodology in Behavioral Sciences).
* University of A Coruña; **University of Santiago de Compostela.
KEY WORDS
Environmental Psychology, values, constraints.
Psychologie Environnementale, valeurs, restrictions
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this work, which is part of a wider research [1], is to clarify the role that values and constraints play in the performance of proenvironmental behavior.
More concretely, we analyze the extend to which environmental behavior is influenced by values following a theoretical model anchored in Schwartz’s studies (Schwartz, 1977, 1992). In short, his norm activation theory posits that value orientations explain the performance or inhibition of altruistic behaviors through personal norms (feelings of personal moral obligation). Moreover, values have a universal structure and content. They can be classified in 10 motivational types that are derived from universal human needs.
Stern and collaborators (see e.g. Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993; Stern, Dietz & Guagnano, 1995, 1998) expand Schwart´z model. They conceptualize proenvironmental behavior as altruistic behavior. They also state that only a few motivational types of values would activate, or inhibit activation of, environmental personal norms.
We also analyze the role that constraints hold in the performance of behaviors. We consider that limits or barriers to action can be objective as well as subjctive (Tanner, 1999).
Our hypothesis are: a) altruistic values will predict proenvironmental behaviors positively; inversely, egoistic values will predict behaviors negatively; b) constraints will explain to some degree the presence/absence of proenvironmental behaviors.
METHOD
Data are from a sample of 520 undergraduates at Universities of A Coruña and Santiago de Compostela in October 1999.
Respondents rated 52 value items on a 7-point scale from a judgment that the value is important as a guiding principle in the respondent's life. Responses were factor analyzed using principal components extraction and Varimax rotation. We used the standard conventions of a minimum eigenvalue of 1,0 and a minimum factor loading of 0,4. Factors were then used in a multiple regression analysis to predict behaviors. Table 1 shows the resulting factors.
Three items were used to create a scale indicating frequency of behaviors (shopping ecological products, throwing to dust bin paper and glass, recycling or re-using paper and glass). They were measured using a 7 points Likert-type scale (1 = never).
Four items were used to measure constraints. Two of them (existence of recycling bins near home, difficult to find ecological products in supermarkets) were rated in a 7 points Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree) and were supposed to measure subjective constraints. The remainig 2 items asked for the distance (in metres) from respondent's home to the nearest paper and glass recycling bins (objective constraints). These items were used as predictors in the multiple regression analysis.
RESULTS
Behaviors scale reliability was modest (Cronbach's alpha was a = ,502).
Factor analysis results are showed in table 1.
[INSERT TABLE 1]
We term factors as follows: 1) Security-Conformity; 2) Self-transcendence; 3) Power; 4) Stimulation; 5) Tradition-Security-Conformity; 6) Self-direction-Universalism; 7) Environmentalism; 8) Self-confidence; 9) Hedonism; 10) Tadition-Spirituality.
We expect Self-trascendence and Environmentalism to predict positively behaviors, and Power to predict them negatively.
Table 2 shows results of multiple regression analysis of values and constraints on behaviors.
[INSERT TABLE 2]
As expected, factors that reflect altruisctic values (Environmentalism and Benevolence-Universalism) predict positively behaviors scale, and Power (that reflect egoistic values) is negatively related with it. Subjective constraints play a significant role, while objective ones do not enter into the regression equation. Results show that when people perceive bins to be near their homes, they are more likely to recycle. Unexpected findings were the positive relation of Tradition and the negative of Hedonism.
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, (pp 222-275). New York, Academic Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of ues: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. En M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, (pp. 1-65). Orlando, Academic Press.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. y Kalof, L. (1993). ue orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, pp. 322-348.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. y Guaganano, G. (1995). A brief inventory of ues. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, pp. 984-1001.
Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on evoronmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 145-157.
RESUME
Cette investigation analyse l’influence qui jouent les eurs du sujet sur les comportements proécologiques d’après le modele théoretique de l’activation de la norme de Schwartz. Le rôle des restrictions objectives et subjectives dans la configuration de ces conduites est aussi etudié.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Social order ,616 Politeness ,601 Responsible ,582 Honoring of parents and elders ,540 Successful ,533 Ambitious ,494 Clean ,481 Loyal ,683 Social justice ,636 Equality ,595 True friendship ,567 Broad-minded ,562 Helpful ,400 ,506 Honest ,475 Forgiving ,434 Authority ,805 Social power ,785 Influential ,714 Wealth ,542 Social recognition ,526 Preserving my public image ,456 Daring ,806 A varied life ,762 An exciting life ,724 Wisdom ,640 Creativity ,619 Curiosity