Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Originalarbeiten

Die NEP-Skala – hinter den (deutschen) Kulissen des Umweltbewusstseins

Published Online:February 28, 2018https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000202

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Angesichts existentieller Umweltprobleme ist eine valide Messung von Umweltbewusstsein und -einstellungen nach wie vor ein zentrales Anliegen umwelt- und sozialpsychologischer Forschung. Es überrascht daher, dass für das seit Jahrzehnten international und disziplinübergreifend meistgenutzte Instrument, die New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP-Skala) von Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones (2000), bislang keine psychometrisch differenziert betrachtete deutsche Fassung vorliegt. Dabei wird die theoretische und empirische Verwendung der Originalskala durchaus kritisch diskutiert. Diese Lücke will der vorliegende Beitrag schließen: Es wird eine deutschsprachige Übersetzung der NEP-Skala vorgestellt, für die anhand einer universitären Stichprobe (N = 573) erste empirische Validitätshinweise vorgelegt werden. Dabei ergibt sich ein Faktormodell zweiter Ordnung mit 4 korrelierten Faktoren erster Ordnung, das theoretisch differenziert betrachtet wird. Eine Schmid-Leiman-Lösung weist auf die Möglichkeit einer verkürzten Skala hin, die direkt das höher angesiedelte Konstrukt „Umweltbewusstsein“ messen könnte. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit, stets die Dimensionalität der Skala methodisch angemessen zu überprüfen als auch, 20 Jahre nach der letzten Überarbeitung, inhaltliche Erweiterungen anzustoßen.


The NEP Scale – behind the (German) scenes of environmental concern

Abstract. With ongoing environmental problems, the valid measurement of environmental concern and attitudes is still an essential issue in environmental and social psychology research. Since decades the most widely used instrument across cultures and disciplines is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones (2000). Surprisingly, to date no German version thoroughly analyzed from a psychometric point of view is available – although theoretical and particularly empirical implementations of the original scale are a matter of critical discussion. With this paper we wish to fill this gap: A German translation of the NEP Scale is presented, together with first empirical indications of its validity on the basis of an university sample (N = 573). Analyses result in a second-order factor structure with 4 interrelated primary factors which is examined with regard to the theoretically proposed structure. A Schmid-Leiman Solution points to the possibility of a shorter scale, able to measure directly the higher construct “environmental concern”. Our results emphasize the necessity to always examine thoroughly the scale dimensions as well as – 20 years since the last revision – to think about its further theoretical development.

Literatur

  • Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888 – 918. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Amburgey, J. W. & Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44, 235 – 265. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bates, D. (2012). Sem: Structural Equation Models, R package (Version 3.0.0) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bogner, F. X. & Wiseman, M. (1999). Toward measuring adolescent environmental perception. European Psychologist, 4, 139 – 151. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Bogner, F. X. & Wiseman, M. (2002). Environmental perception: Factor profiles of extreme groups. European Psychologist, 7, 225 – 237. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 17 – 32. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Corral-Verdugo, 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3 – 18. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. DunlapW. MichelsonEds., Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482 – 524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10 – 19. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272 – 299. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fleury-Bahi, G., Marcouyeux, A., Renard, E. & Roussiau, N. (2014). Factorial Structure of the New Ecological Paradigm scale in two French samples. Environmental Education Research, 21, 821 – 831. 10.1080/13504622.2014.913127 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holzinger, K. J. & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41 – 54. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • IPCC (2014). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva, CH: IPCC. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ittner, H. (2002). Verkehrspolitische Engagements und Mobilitätsentscheidungen: Eine Frage von Moral, eigenem Nutzen oder Lebensstilen? Trier: Universitätsbibliothek Trier. Verfügbar unter: http://ub-dok.uni-trier.de/diss/diss11/20011218/20011218.htm First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ittner, H. & Montada, L. (2009). Gerechtigkeit und Umweltpolitik. Umweltpsychologie, 13 (1), 35 – 51. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ittner, H. & Ohl, C. (2012). International negotiations on climate change: Integrating justice psychology and economics – a way out of the normative blind alley? In E. KalsJ. MaesEds., Justice and conflicts. Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 269 – 282). Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kaiser, F. G., Hartig, T., Brügger, A. & Duvier, C. (2013). Environmental protection and nature as distinct attitudinal objects: An application of the Campbell paradigm. Environment and Behavior, 45, 369 – 398. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B. & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 242 – 251. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Koring, B. (1999). Verantwortung und Kontrolle: Zusammenhänge und Unterschiede. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Trier, Fachbereich I – Psychologie. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lundmark, C. (2007). The New Ecological Paradigm revisited: Anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research, 13, 329 – 347. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maes, J., Schmitt, M. & Schmal, A. (1995). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Werthaltungen, Kontrollüberzeugungen, Freiheitsüberzeugungen, Drakonität, Soziale Einstellungen, Empathie und Protestantische Arbeitsethik als Kovariate (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe „Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral“ Nr. 85). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I – Psychologie. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Maloney, M. P. & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583 – 586. First citation in articleCrossref, 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Montada, L. & Kals, E. (2000). Political implications of psychological research on ecological justice and proenvironmental behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 168 – 176. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Montada, L., Kals, E. & Becker, R. (2007). Willingness for continued social commitment. A new concept for environmental research. Environment and Behavior, 39, 287 – 316. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mulaik, S. A. & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or higher order general factor? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 193 – 211. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55, 496 – 508. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pirages, D. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Preacher, K. J. & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2, 13 – 43. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M. & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544 – 559. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 129 – 156. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schleyer-Lindenmann, A., Dauvier, B., Ittner, H. & Piolat, M. (2016). Mesure des attitudes environnementales: Analyse structurale d’une version française de la NEPS (Dunlap et al., 2000) [Messung der Umwelteinstellungen: Strukturanalyse einer französischen Version der NEP-Skala (Dunlap et al., 2000)]. Psychologie Française, 61, 83 – 102. 10.1016/j.psfr.2014.07.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schmid, J. & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53 – 61. First citation in articleCrossref, Google 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 25, pp. 1 – 65). Orlando, FLA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism / collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. KimH. TriandisC. KagitcibasiS-C. ChoiG. YoonEds., Individualism and Collectivism (pp. 85 – 119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Swim, J. K., Clayton, S. & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66, 251 – 264. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Syme, G. J. (2012). Justice and environmental decision making. In E. KalsJ. MaesEds., Justice and conflicts. Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 283 – 295). Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vigneau, F., Dauvier, B. & Bors, A. (2010). Polarité des Items de l’échelle de besoin de cognition [Polarität der Items der Kognitionsbedürfnis-Skala]. In A. de RibaupierreP. GhislettaT. LecerfJ. L. RoulinEds., Identité et spécificités de la psychologie différentielle (pp. 231 – 235). Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Weigel, R. & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3 – 15. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wolff, H. G. & Preising, K. (2005) Exploring Item and higher order factor structure with the Schmid–Leiman solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and SAS. Behavior Research Methods, 37 (1), 48 – 58. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar