Measurement Scales in the Social Sciences: Environmental Psychology
Achieving environmental sustainability is considered by the United Nations
(2014) as one of humanitys most urgent and challenging development goals for the new millennium. The impact of human activities on our planets ecosystems has been detrimental (Gardner & Stern, 2002), bearing consequences that are now experienced globally. Social scientists and environmental psychologists, in particular, have sought to better understand how we, as human beings, relate to our natural environment, in order to inform policies and interventions that promote environmentally sustainable behavior (e.g., Steg & Vlek, 2009; Van Vugt, 2009). However, to understand how people think, feel, and behave towards the environment, researchers must find ways to measure environmental attitudes in a valid and reliable manner. Measuring Environmental Attitudes Environmental attitudes (EA), defined as the psychological tendency to evaluate the environment in a favorable or unfavorable manner (Milfont, 2007), are central to research in environmental psychology. However, like many other concepts of interest in the social sciences, environmental attitudes are latent, in the sense that they are not directly observable. To infer peoples environmental concern or environmental attitudes, most previous research has used self-report methods, such as questionnaires and interviews (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). Reviews of existing instruments designed to measure environmental attitudes have pointed out recurring problems that, according to Hawcroft and Milfont (2010), result in a failure to accumulate theoretical and practical knowledge in environmental psychology.
The anarchy of measurement reflects theoretical ambiguity about the nature of
environmental concern --Stern (1992) Since the first spark of interest in environmental psychology in the 1960s, several hundred measures of environmental attitudes have been used (Dunlap & Jones, 2002), with researchers continuously generating new scales instead of working with existing ones. According to Dunlap and Jones (2002), existing EA scales can be organized based on whether they tap on one or multiple environmental topics (e.g., pollution, population growth), and on whether they measure one or multiple types of environmental concern expressions (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, behaviors). Most widely used scales have been categorized as both multiple-topic and multiple-expression instruments (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). Whereas some of them, such as the Ecology Scale (Maloney & Ward, 1973) and the Environmental Concern Scale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978), tap specific environmental issues that have arguably become dated, other scales, such as the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) and the Environmental Motives Scale (Schultz, 2001), assess the relationships of humans with their natural environment more generally. The New Environmental Paradigm The New Environmental Paradigm 12-item scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) and its revised 15-item version (Dunlap et al., 2000) are the most widely used measurement instruments of environmental attitudes. They both measure individuals endorsement of an ecocentric worldview or belief system, according to which humans are just one part of natural systems, vs. an anthropocentric
worldview or belief system, according to which humans are independent from,
and superior to other natural organisms. Although both the original and the revised NEP scales have relatively wellestablished reliability and validity, a recent review has highlighted some problems regarding their use (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010). First, whereas the original NEP scale is considered to consist of 3 facets or sub-scales, and the revised one of 5 sub-scales, researchers have typically summed all scale items to create a single-score EA measure, even in the absence of unidimensionality (or without examining dimensionality at all). Further, in many cases, researchers have chosen to include only certain items in their analyses, thus creating their own ad hoc versions of the NEP scale, sometimes containing 5, 7, 8, or 10 items. In addition, it has not been uncommon for researchers to substantially change the wording of NEP items, to fit their particular research questions. In a review of 69 studies, Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) found that such variation in the number of items used, as well as variation in sample composition, can indeed have a significant influence on scores on the NEP scale (accounting for as much as 48% of the between-study variance in average NEP scores). Conclusions A brief examination of the literature on environmental attitudes suggests that some of the problems with the use of measurement scales in the social sciences, as we have previously identified them, are indeed evident in specific research disciplines, such as environmental psychology. Scales that have been developed to measure general worldviews are sometimes used to measure specific behaviors (Fransson & Garling, 1999), and measures that are conceptualized as
multidimensional are used in applied research as reflecting one dimension
(Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010). The proliferation of measures has also made it difficult for researchers who are not familiar with the field to choose an appropriate standard measure of EA to use when designing a new study --Hawcroft & Milfont (2010) Perhaps more importantly, there exist hundreds of measures of environmental attitudes, making it difficult and time-consuming for researchers to find, compare, and evaluate them, in order to choose the most reliable and valid instruments. However, recent work in environmental psychology has attempted to develop an all-encompassing, multi-dimensional measure of environmental attitudes (the Environmental Attitudes Inventory; Milfont & Duckitt, 2010), which is based on a thorough review of all previously examined EA dimensions. In our opinion, this effort highlights how a comprehensive overview of existing measurement scales, which includes information on content similarities and item overlap, can lead to theoretical integration and novel research directions.