Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:26:49.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Underlying Dimensions of Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Environmental Beliefs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

María Amérigo ,
Juan Ignacio Aragonés ,
Belinda de Frutos ,
Verónica Sevillano  and
Beatriz Cortés
María Amérigo*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Juan Ignacio Aragonés
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense
Belinda de Frutos
Affiliation:
Universidad San Pablo CEU
Verónica Sevillano
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense
Beatriz Cortés
Affiliation:
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María Amérigo, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza de Padilla, 4, 45071 Toledo (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focuses on the cognitive components of general environmental attitudes. Taking as a starting point the scale of Thompson and Barton (1994) to identify ecocentric and anthropocentric motives in environmental conservation, the beliefs that guide attitudes in the person-environment relationship are analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to contrast the tripartite structure of these beliefs—based on egoistic, socioaltruistic, and biospheric aspects—with a two-dimensional structure that confronts ecocentric and anthropocentric orientations. The results obtained from two samples, a student sample (n = 212) and a sample from the general population of Madrid (n = 205), indicate the existence of a three-dimensional structure of environmental beliefs: an anthropocentric dimension based on the instrumental value of the environment for human beings, a biospheric dimension that values the environment for its own sake, and, lastly, an egobiocentric dimension that values the human being within nature as a whole.

La presente investigación está centrada en los componentes cognitivos de las actitudes generales hacia el medio ambiente. Partiendo de la escala utilizada por Thompson y Barton (1994) para identificar motivos ecocéntricos y antropocéntricos en la conservación medioambiental, se analizan las creencias que orientan la relación individuo-medio ambiente. Mediante análisis factorial confirmatorio se contrasta una estructura tripartita de estas creencias basada en dimensiones egoístas, socioaltruistas y biosféricas con una estructura bidimensional en la que se enfrentan una orientación ecocéntrica y una orientación antropocéntrica. Los resultados obtenidos con dos muestras, una de estudiantes (n = 212) y otra extraída de la población general de la ciudad de Madrid (n = 205), apuntan hacia la existencia de una estructura de tres dimensiones de las creencias ambientales: una dimensión antropocéntrica vinculada al valor instrumental del medio ambiente para el ser humano; una dimensión biosférica que contempla el medio ambiente por el valor intrínseco de éste y, finalmente, una dimensión egobiocéntrica que valora al ser humano en la naturaleza.

Keywords

environmental beliefsanthropocentrismecocentrismself in naturecreencias hacia el medio ambienteantropocentrismoecocentrismoself en la naturaleza
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 2007 , pp. 97 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J.I., Sevillano, V., & Cortés, B. (2005). La estructura de las creencias sobre la problemática ambiental. Psicothema, 17, 246–251.Google Scholar
Aragonés, J.I., Amérigo, M., & Cortés, B. (2000, September). Las creencias, los valores y la preocupación por el medio ambiente. Unpublished communication presented at the VII National Congress of Social Psychology. Oviedo, Spain.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, J.L. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Cuddeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A. & Long, (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Merting, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 5, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, A., & Amérigo, M. (1999). Actitudes hacia el medio ambiente y conducta ecológica responsable. Psicothema, 11, 13–25.Google Scholar
Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (1998). Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley's ecocentric approach. Environment and Behavior, 3, 653–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, B., Suárez, E., Martínez-Torvisco, J., & Hess, S. (2000). The study of environmental beliefs byfacet analysis. Research in the Canary Islands, Spain. Environment and Behavior, 32, 612–636.Google Scholar
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, 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.J., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI user's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
Milbrath, L.W. (1986) Environmental beliefs and values. In Hermann, M.G. (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 97–138). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Milfont, T.L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, Ch. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behaviour. A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective-taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior. A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 5, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S.H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory ofthe universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 5, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G.A. (1995). The New Ecological Paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokols, D. (1990). Instrumental and spiritual views of people-environment relations. American Psychologist, 45, 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.C.G, & Barton, M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203–1207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed