Chapter 4: Discussion

While objective of the theoretical chapter was to gather the existing views on the topic of environmental concern, objective of the current study was to test several instances of conflicting data in reviewed literature, as well as introduce several exploratory hypotheses about human - nature relations. Another important purpose of the current work was to produce and test the translated methods of environmental concern investigation.

Since the current study took place in Russia, it required translation of the purchased methods. New Environmental Paradigm scale, Global Awareness of Consequences scale, Environmental Identity scale and Dispositional Empathy with Nature scale were translated and adapted using Behling & Law guidelines (2000).

Study yields promising results. Three methods have been translated and tested, showing good internal consistency. Global Awareness of Consequences scale shows normal alpha scores across all three of its subscales (Egoistic concern б=.83, Altruistic concern =.71, Biospheric concern =.70). Environmental Identity scale translation returned б=.88, which makes it possible tool for endorsing to research community overall. It is an important method which has by far no alternatives in field of measuring environmental identity in Russian language.

New Environmental Paradigm subscales bring in mixed results with 3 subscales б>.70 and 2 subscales б <.70: Fragility of Nature Balance subscale б=.69 and Rejection of Exemptionalism б=.56. It is possible that the translations of the items was inaccurate, in sense of capturing unified sense of the subscale. The most troublesome subscale (Rejection of Exemptionalsim) implies respondent's agreement on the thought that mankind does not possess unique traits that empower it to eventually solve problems of any kind of difficulty, granting fail insurance in case of ecological crisis, or putting it above laws of nature. One particular item seems to be consistently misunderstood: “Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it”. While it implies that possibility of total control of nature is unclear, it also contains assumption about human progress. In order to agree with this item, one must reject the belief that human genius is almighty and accept the concept that nature can never be fully controllable. Some people may disagree with the item based on their optimistic views on scientific progress, showing trust in human exceptional power as species.

However, mistranslation of the item could place not enough emphasis on the matter of uncontrollable nature and/or overly emphasize confidence in future progress. If it is understood more like “Humans will eventually learn new ways to control nature” it does not bring the required rejection of exemptionalism and people do not experience the dissonance between possibility of full control and human genius, hence tend to agree with ease on the item. This hypothesis is proved by overall prevalence of positive answers on this item: “completely disagree” = 4 (2%), “disagree” = 32 (16%), “hard to answer” = 59 (29%), “agree” = 74 (37%), “completely agree” = 32 (16%) against other two items: “Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable (reversed item)” 1 = 7 (3,5%), 2 = 57 (28,5%), 3 = 75 (37,5%), 4 = 55 (27,5%), 5 = 5 (3%), “Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature” 1 = 0 (0%), 2 = 11 (5,5%), 3 = 23 (11,5%), 4 = 120 (60%), 5 = 46 (23%). Based on mentioned hypothesis, it is possible that the translation of the subscale led to misunderstanding of the item and worsened internal consistency results. It should be noted, that based on low alpha score, some results are harder to interpret, since we are working with inaccurate subscale.

The most unexpected result was Interpersonal Reactivity Index (R. Davis's method) returned alpha scores of .72 for Empathetic Concern and .67 for Perspective-taking subscales respectively, which is lower than expected for approved method. It may be the reason that only half of the subscales were used, however, such way of using IRI scale was also proven to get good internal consistency scores in DENS scale studies (link). Moreover, the Dispositional Empathy with Nature scale is based on Davis's IRI scale and uses the similar form of questions with two out of four initial scales (EC, PT) and returned best results on internal consistency across all methods in the current study: .86 for Empathetic Concern and .86 for Perspective-Taking respectively. So far, one difference has been noted: DENS scale has been translated in Russian by author, while items for IRI scale were picked from existing translation - it appears possible that taking half of the subscales out could result in lower internal consistency in Russian translation compared to the original scale, however, in order to provide proof, future testing is required.

Current study focuses on finding interrelation of three concepts of human-nature relationship: Environmental Concern, Environmental Identity and Empathy (Nature and Social). Each of the components have been hypothesized to have several connections with each other, which have been tested in the main study.

New Environmental Paradigm is a core concept for understanding environmental concern. In the current study, connection with environmental concern does not necessarily lead to pro-environmental behavior, but gives evidence about core beliefs on the topic of human-nature relationships. Using NEP scale, it is possible to measure respondent's overall opinion on whether humanity is upsetting nature balance, has physical ability and/or moral right to dominate the nature, reshaping to suit mankind's purposes. Low score on the NEP scale tells that respondent is supporting the idea of DSP, or Dominant Social Paradigm, where nature is treated as an infinite resource and humanity is its eternal consumer. High score on the NEP scale tells that respondent supports another view, where nature is treated as a finite source of resources and humanity as a part of nature system. The core difference is that endorsement of DSP leads to abuse of natural resources, while NEP leads to a sustainable way of existence.

Another scale, Global Awareness of Consequences has been deployed in order to separate environmental concern into types. People tend to care about environment based on egoistic, altruistic or biospheric interests, ultimately leading to overall high scores on NEP scale. High correlation between all three types of GAC and NEP prove that point. Mean scores on the three GAC subscales indicate that people tend to care more based on their personal interests in it (e.g. “environmental protection is beneficial to my health”), then based on other people interests (e.g. “environmental protection benefits everyone”) or nature perspective (e.g. “Over the next decade, thousands of species of plants and animals will become extinct “). On the one hand, it could mean that people tend to prioritize egoistic values above others, but on the other hand, the consequences of the events are more salient for the respondent, since he does not have better knowledge about people or nature around the globe than about their self. At this point it is rather hard to answer the question about the reasons of nature care, however, GAC scale provides a useful filter when comparing scores on other scales.

Environmental identity scores significantly correlate with NEP scores, proving Clayton's, studies (link) that people who consider themselves as a part of a larger natural force also tend to display concern about nature and not treat it as a mere resource base. It would be logical to assume that such people care about nature because of their respect for other forms of live and are disturbed if those life forms are abused and harmed. However, correlations with GAC scales reveal a different view: Biological scale of GAC has the least significant and strong correlation with EID scale. Does it mean that people with high Environmental Identity do not care about nature?

One possible explanation is that people, who achieve higher integration in natural environment consider it as a part of their self, hence, when damage is done to the natural environment, it is perceived as damage done to them personally. Following this thought, it would be harder for such people to draw a line between themselves and natural environment, distancing subject from object. Environmental identity is the trait that blurs the borders between human and nature, as social identity blurs the borders between the group and the individual. Based on these reasons, it becomes more clear why people with high environmental identity show higher scores on egoistic and altruistic environmental concern scales than biospheric scale. On the other hand, it would mean that people who display higher scores on biological scale, have less environmental identity and it is easier for them to distinct human from nature.

It all gets more interesting according to Nature empathy correlations with environmental concern. First of all, DENS scores have significant correlations with NEP scale scores, which in general means the higher empathy towards nature, the higher becomes environmental concern of the individual. However, not all of the subscales are connected. Empathetic Concern subscale is not correlated to Rejection of Exemptionalism, stating that there is no link between emotional involvement in nature and belief that human-nature relationship is important and requires attention. Besides the upfront results, it should be noted, that listed NEP subscale has low internal consistency, which could result in absence of correlation.

Another subscale, perspective-taking, also does not have correlation with Rejection of Exemptionalism, but it does not correlate with Fragility of Nature Balance as well. It could mean that people with higher ability to position themselves as a different entity, such as nature, do not necessarily believe that balance of natural order is easily spoiled and harmed by humanity.

While DENS correlates reveals significant correlations with NEP, it does not repeat the same consistency with GAC scale. There was strong significant correlation between DENS and Biospheric concern, a weaker connection to Altruistic concern and only slight tendency towards Egoistic concern (only involving Perspective-Taking subscale). Compared to the results of EID scale, this appears to be opposite outcome: Environmental Identity was strongly connected to Egoistic and Altruistic concerns with much weaker tendency towards Biospheric aspect. In other words, people with higher empathy towards nature tend to care about it based on more natural perspective and less based on egoistic perspective.

Most certainly, we are experiencing a contradiction in these findings. It seems that Environmental Identity and Environmental Empathy are acting as counterparts in terms of reasoning the environmental concern. And adding more to this, correlational analysis indicated connection between empathy to nature and environmental identity! It means that people with higher empathy would also have higher environmental identity, however, these two traits lead to different types of environmental concern! It means that people with higher empathy, being more emotionally open, feel the urge to protect suffering animals and plants because of their pain and discomfort. On the other hand, people who consider themselves parts of nature, are prone to protect nature because of their own discomfort or personal interests. Does it mean that it is harder for people with higher environmental identity to experience empathy towards nature? Or perhaps it is easier for more environmentally empathetic people to distinct nature as an object of their empathy? But doesn't empathy make the subject and object closer to each other?

There appears to be a logical explanation based on the side, affected by environmental degradation process. For instance, if environmental conditions in one area affect health of human population, there will be higher need to fix environmental problems in order to solve health issues, making one course of actions (environmental campaign) benefit both nature and humans, as it is indeed the egoistic (my well-being) and altruistic (other people well-being) reason to help nature. Such circumstance could cause people to put themselves in one group with suffering nature, and also consider themselves as a part of this community in distress, resulting in growth of environmental identity. In other case, where people are not being directly affected by environmental degradation, but evidence the wildlife taking damage from it, it could cause environmental empathy towards the pain and discomfort of suffering plants and animals, resulting in biospherical reason to help the environment. So, the latter situation requires gratuitous help towards nature, while the former case involves self-beneficial help towards nature.

Social empathy showed partial correlation with NEP subscales: Anthropocentrism and Possibility of Ecocrisis were strongly correlated, Limits to Growth was slightly correlated and Fragility of Nature's Balance and Rejection of Exemptionalism were not correlated. According to Dunlap (link), the Anthropocentrism scale is a reverse scale, which is actually collecting data on Anti-anthropocentrism (which is in favor of endorsing NEP). People with high empathy towards people are also likely to believe in oncoming ecological crisis, focus less on human dominance over nature and believe that mankind's power has its limits.

It was hypothesized that social empathy would correlate with altruistic type of environmental concern, based on care about other people. However, it correlates with all three types of GAC, which makes it complicated to confirm or disprove the hypothesis completely. It brings in the idea that social and environmental empathy are both displaying the general ability to empathize towards any object, whether human or natural, which is approved by Pearson correlation analysis (DENS correlates with IRI, p<0.05). It means, that the higher the empathy, the higher environmental concern. The further confirmation of general empathy assumption is provided further.

Based on good correlation results, theoretical model included type of environmental concern, environmental identity, social and environmental empathy as independent variables, with environmental concern as dependent variable. However, only two of the listed components were actually predicting environmental concern: biological type of concern and environmental identity. Neither environmental, nor social empathy contributed to environmental concern. It appears that these two are components which are most connected to nature-related topic, - however, they are both included in the contradiction, described above. Environmental identity does not correlate with biospherical concern, however, they are both predictors for environmental concern. Due to the affected side explanation of the contradiction, it is hard to find person both with high environmental identity and biospherical type of environmental concern. However, environmental identity could have two ways of understanding: holistic (I am representation of a universal force of life) and elementary (I am a part of numerous beings that form a universal force of life). If we follow the elementary way it becomes reasonable that environmental identity could form biospherical type of concern: when a person perceives themselves as an element of nature, helping nature, even if it involves helping yourself, is reasoned as help towards universal force of life.

There were also three more theoretical models regarding Environmental Identity, Environmental Empathy and Social Empathy.

It was presumed that Environmental identity is strongly connected with environmental concern and environmental empathy. Correlational analysis revealed that environmental identity is associated with egoistic and altruistic concern type more than with biospheric concern type. Due to the multiple regression model, significant predictors of environmental identity were environmental concern, environmental empathy and egoistic concern. The absence of biospherical concern type is expected due to the results of the correlational analysis and supports the consequences explanation. However, it would be most interesting to explore this phenomenon further, revealing the antecedents of environmental identity.

It was presumed that environmental empathy is strongly connected with environmental identity, environmental concern and social empathy. The results on the multiple regression indicated that biospheric concern, environmental identity and social empathy were significant predictors of environmental empathy. These results were expected based on reviewed findings (K. P. Tam, 2013; Schultz, 2007).

However, there was an unexpected result: while specific type of environmental concern (Biospheric) predicted environmental empathy, scores on NEP scale were not significant to predict DENS scores. This is interesting notion, because GAC scale which measures specific types of environmental concern is strongly to related to environmental concern scale such as NEP. In other words, it could be that environmental empathy is associated not with environmental concern, but with specific personal traits that are predictors of environmental concern: as discussed above, environmental concern is predicted with environmental identity and biospherical concern as well.

The fact that social empathy predicted environmental empathy proves the assumption about general ability to show empathy - as we studied dispositional empathy, which is, as opposed to induced empathy, less situational and understood as a stable trait of character.

Theoretical model of social empathy also provides support for it, since its significant predictors are altruistic environmental concern and environmental empathy. It seems that some people are generally more empathetic than others, however, these models imply that there is a difference between environmental and social empathy. Social empathy connection to altruistic concern about environment appears as a logical outcome: those respondents who empathize with people are prone to show more interest in environmental protection if the consequences of it change affects other people.



Summary

Hypothesis 1 confirmed: environmental empathy correlates with environmental concern.

Hypothesis 2 confirmed: Social empathy positively correlates with altruistic environmental concern.

Hypothesis 3 confirmed: environmental empathy positively correlates with biospheric environmental concern.

Research Question 1: social empathy is positively associated with environmental empathy and they are mutual predictors.

Research Question 2: social empathy is positively associated with environmental concern, but does not predict it.



Conclusion

Current Thesis is dedicated to modern, yet already complex area of environmentalism. Technological and population growth of human species have put mankind on the brink of the new time: the era of ecological crisis. Worldwide ecological changes are causing formidable impact on the environment and its habitats, making vast territories unsuitable for living. Regardless of how pretentious it may sound, it is in our power to stop the oncoming ecological crisis until it makes the whole planet completely uninhabitable.

The field of environmentalism is speckled with new theories, outlooks and research data, which, due to its recency, have not yet developed a comprehensive and well-orchestrated paradigm. The present study provides insight on major theoretical attempts to explain one of the core phenomena of ecological psychology: environmental concern. During past decades, social psychologists attempted to explain what arouses people's interest in ecology and causes them to protect natural environment. Theoretical chapter of the current research describes and compares social-demographic approach, personal value approach and the most prodigious identity approach to explaining environmental concern. Moreover, current work connects environmentalism with a previously neglected construct of dispositional empathy with nature in attempt to investigate relations between three core constructs: Environmental concern, environmental identity and empathy.

The empirical part of the research puts to the test several hypotheses and research questions, based on most contradictory data from literature sources: relations between environmental concern and demographic parameters, personal values, environmental identity, social and environmental empathy. The most interesting findings confirmed positive association between social empathy and environmental concern, proved that environmental empathy predicts environmental identity, which is a predictor of environmental concern. During discussion of the results it was found that people with higher environmental identity are concerned about environmental changes in relation to their egoistic and altruistic values, while people with higher environmental empathy are environmentally concerned based on their appreciation of nature as a separate construct.

There are several limitations of the study: the majority of the sample were Russian undergraduates of various universities, implying that discovered results may vary depending on age and profession of respondents. Also, there was significant prevalence of female respondents (84%).

Present study also provides the variety of research instruments that globally approved for studying environmental concern. Regarding Russian context of the research, several scales were translated and tested (Dunlap's New Environmental Paradigm scale, Clayton's Environmental Identity scale, Dispositional Empathy with Nature scale, Global Awareness of Consequences scale). While there were some complications, these scales are ready to use in future environmental research in Russian-speaking countries. As an author I express great hope that these translations along with theoretical findings will result in growing number of environmental studies in future, which is a both critically important and interesting area of research.



References

4. Arcury, T. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human organization, 49(4), 300-304.

5. Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions (Vol. 133). Sage.

6. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation (vol. 2).

7. Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10(3), 237-256.

8. Catton Jr, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 41-49.

9. Clayton, S. D. (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Mit Press.

10. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

11. De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47(4).

12. Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and behavior, 31(4), 540-549.

13. Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and behavior, 30(4), 450-471.

14. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1994, July). Global environmental concern: a challenge to the post-materialism thesis. In XIII. World Congress of Sociology in Bielefeld, Mimeo.

15. Dunlap, R. E., & Michelson, W. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood Publishing Group.

16. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The journal of environmental education, 9(4), 10-19.

17. Elklit, A., Shevlin, M., Solomon, Z., & Dekel, R. (2007). Factor structure and concurrent validity of the world assumptions scale. Journal of traumatic stress, 20(3), 291-301.

18. Fransson, N., & Gдrling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(4), 369-382.

19. Gebhard, U., Nevers, P., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2003). Moralizing trees: anthropomorphism and identity in children's relationships to nature. Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature, 91-111.

20. Gebhard, U., Nevers, P., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2003). Moralizing trees: anthropomorphism and identity in children's relationships to nature. Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature, 91-111.

21. Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999). Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European planning studies, 7(5), 623-646.

22. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of environmental psychology, 28(2), 109-120.

23. Hornback, K. E. (1974). Orbits of Opinion: The Role of Age in the Environmental Movement's Attentive Public, 1968-1972. by Kenneth Elmer Hornback. Michigan State University.

24. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press.

25. Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. 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(2), 157-186.

26. Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American sociological review, 328-339.

27. Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and behavior, 30(1), 28-59.

28. Lewicka, M. (2013). Localism and Activity as two dimensions of people-place bonding: The role of cultural capital. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 43-53.

29. Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz's value survey. Journal of personality assessment, 85(2), 170-178.

30. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment. In Place attachment (pp. 1-12). Springer US.

31. McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. Random House Incorporated.

32. McLean, P. (2011). The impact of a values-based change method on the environmental performance of an organisation. Unpublished MSc thesis for Graduate School of the Environment, Centre for Alternative Technology and University of East London.

33. Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and behavior, 30(4), 504-519.

34. Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2006). A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 745-767.

35. Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society & Natural Resources, 5(1), 1-19.

36. Olivos, P., & Aragonйs, J. I. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Environmental Identity scale (EID). Psyecology, 2(1), 65-74.

37. Passino, E. M., & Lounsbury, J. W. (1976). Sex differences in opposition to and support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. The behavioral basis of design, book, 1, 1-5.

38. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), 84.

39. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and behavior, 36(1), 70-93.

40. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of environmental psychology, 3(1), 57-83.

41. Rothschild, B. (2006). Help for the helper: The psychophysiology of compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma. WW Norton & Co.

42. Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern specification and test of the model. Environment and behavior, 21(1), 57-81.

43. Schultz, P. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 391-406.

44. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(4), 327-339.

45. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(3), 255-265.

46. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 221-279.

47. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied psychology, 48(1), 23-47.

48. Sevillano, V., Aragonйs, J. I., & Schultz, P. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environment and behavior, 39(5), 685-705.

49. Shen, J., & Saijo, T. (2008). Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 42-50.

50. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of social issues, 50(3), 65-84.

51. Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of consumer marketing, 16(6), 558-575.

52. Tam, K. P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92-104.

53. Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environment and behavior, 33(2), 249-263.

54. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure sciences, 14(1), 29-46.

55. Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: a motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608.



Appendix

Online survey (in Russian)



Размещено на Allbest.ru