Analysis of the structure and factorial invariance of the multidimensional environmental concern scale (MECS)

  1. María Amérigo 1
  2. Juan A. García 1
  3. Raquel Pérez-López 2
  4. Gabriela Cassullo 3
  5. Alberto Ramos 4
  6. Siva Kalyan Venumbaka 5
  7. Juan I. Aragonés 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
    info

    Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

    Ciudad Real, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05r78ng12

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  3. 3 Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
  4. 4 Universidad de Nuevo León (México)
  5. 5 Mamata Dental College (India)
Montrer des affiliations +
Revue:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Année de publication: 2020

Volumen: 32

Número: 2

Pages: 275-283

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2019.281 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

D'autres publications dans: Psicothema

Résumé

Antecedentes: la mayoría de los estudios que miden actitudes ambientales utilizan una medida unidimensional de pro/anti-ambientalismo como la escala NPE. Sin embargo, investigaciones recientes han mostrado la adecuación de enfoques multidimensionales al medir las relaciones complejas entre las personas y el entorno natural, particularmente sobre una base cultural. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo probar las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala Multidimensional de Ambientalismo (EMA) y, en particular, su invarianza factorial. Método: se realizaron dos estudios. El primero evaluó la invarianza a través de dos enfoques diferentes (análisis factorial confirmatorio multigrupo y método de alineamiento) en una muestra de 907 estudiantes universitarios de Argentina, India y España. El segundo estudio, llevado a cabo en México y España con 557 adultos de la población general, evaluó además la validez de criterio sobre las puntuaciones obtenidas con la EMA. Resultados: se obtiene un nivel de invarianza aceptable de la EMA entre los países considerados y según género (estudios 1 y 2), edad y nivel educativo (estudio 2). Conclusiones: los resultados apoyan un enfoque multidimensional de las actitudes ambientales, mostrando que el interés ambiental presenta distintas asociaciones según el país analizado. Ello permitirá estudiar en profundidad las diferentes conceptualizaciones del ambientalismo.

Références bibliographiques

  • Ajdukovic, I., Gilibert, D., & Fointiat, V. (2019). Structural confirmation of the 24-item Environmental Attitude Inventory. Psyecology, 10, 14-26. doi:10.1080/21711976.2019.1586140
  • Amburgey, J. W., & Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the New Ecological Paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44, 235-256. doi:10.1177/0013916511402064
  • Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J. I., & García, J. A. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern: An integrative proposal. Psyecology, 3, 353-365. doi:10.1174/217119712802845705
  • Amérigo, M., García, J. A., & Côrtes, P. L. (2017). Analysis of environmental attitudes and behaviors: An exploratory study with a sample of Brazilian university students. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(3), 1-20. doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc300r1v2032017
  • Amérigo, M., Palavecinos, M., García, J. A., Román, F., & TrizanoHermosilla, I. (2017). Effects of the social dominance orientation on environmental attitudes of Chilean university students. Revista de Psicología Social, 32, 136-163. doi:10.1080/02134748.2016.1248023
  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 495-508. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
  • Bernaards, C. A., & Jennrich, R. I. (2005). Gradient projection algorithms and software for arbitrary rotation criteria in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 676-696. doi:10.1177/0013164404272507
  • Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29, 539-551. doi:10.7334/psicothema2017.178
  • Chatterjee, D. P. (2008). Oriental disadvantage versus occidental exuberance: Appraising environmental concern in India-A case study in a local context. International Sociology. 23, 5-33. doi: 10.1177/0268580907084384
  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
  • Corral, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. B. P. (2008). Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation. Toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environment and Behavior, 40, 703-725. doi:10.1177/0013916507308786
  • Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121-149. doi:10.1177/0748175610373459
  • Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3-18. doi:10.3200/joee.40.1.3-18
  • Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: The “New Environmental Paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  • Eom, K., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Ishii, K. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27, 1331-1339. doi:10.1177/0956797616660078
  • Fox, J., & Bouchet-Valat, M. (2019). Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 2.5-2. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ Rcmdr/index.html
  • Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf
  • Geiger, S. M., Dombois, C., & Funke, J. (2018). The role of environmental knowledge and attitude: Predictors for ecological behavior across cultures? An analysis of Argentinean and German students. Umweltpsychologie, 22, 69-87. Retrieved from http://umps.de/php/artikeldetails.php?id=664
  • Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143-158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
  • Hernández, B., Suárez, E., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Hess, S. (2012). The relationship between social and environmental interdependence as an explanation of proenvironmental behavior. Human Ecology Review, 19, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707610
  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 12:e0183962.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224- 253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
  • Medina, V., DeRonda, A., Ross, N., Curtin, D., & Jia, F. (2019). Revisiting environmental belief and behavior among ethnic groups in the U.S. Frontiers in Psycholgy, 10, 629. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00629
  • Milfont, T. L. (2012). Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In S.D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 181-200). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80-94. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
  • Moyano-Díaz, E., & Palomo-Vélez, G. (2014). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala Nuevo Paradigma Ecológico (NEP-R) en población chilena [Psychometric properties of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP-R) in Chilean population]. Psico, 45, 415-423. doi:10.15448/1980-8623.2014.3.17276
  • Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2018). Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 637-664. doi:10.1177/0049124117701488
  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r3_web.pdf
  • Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017). Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65-82. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002
  • Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
  • Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package version 1.8.12. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html
  • Reyna, C., Bressán, E., Mola, D., Belaus, A., & Ortiz, M. V. (2018). Validating the structure of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale among Argentine citizens through different approaches. Pensamiento Psicológico, 16, 107-118. doi:10.11144/Javeria nacali.PPSI16-1.vsne
  • Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
  • Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of humannature relations. In P. Schmuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107. doi:10.1086/209528
  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743. doi:10.1177/0013916595276001
  • Tam, K.P., & Chan, H.W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213-223. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
  • Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80168-9
  • Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33, 755-782. doi:10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
  • Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3-15. doi:10.1177/0013916578101001
  • White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207. doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
La source de données: Dialnet