Environment and Behavior

10.1177/0013916504269665ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2005Meinhold, Malkus / ADOLESCENT ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS

ADOLESCENT ENVIRONMENTALBEHAVIORSCan Knowledge, Attitudes, andSelf-Efficacy Make a Difference?

JANA L. MEINHOLD is an instructor with the Child and Family Studies Programat Portland State University. She is a Ph.D. candidate with the Department of HumanDevelopment and Family Sciences at Oregon State University and received an M.A.and a B.A. in human development from Washington State University, Pullman.

AMY J. MALKUS is an assistant professor of early childhood education at EastTennessee State University, Johnson City. She received an M.S. and a Ph.D. in childdevelopment/early childhood education from Purdue University and a bachelorsdegree in psychology from Washington College.

ABSTRACT: This article examines the relationships among adolescent environmen-tal behaviors and self-efficacy, knowledge, and attitudes. It was hypothesized thatadolescents who demonstrate more proenvironmental attitudes are more likely todemonstrate proenvironmental behaviors. It was further hypothesized that perceivedself-efficacy would have a moderating effect on the environmental attitude-behaviorrelationship in that the relationship between proenvironmental attitudes and behav-iors would be stronger among adolescents with high levels of self-efficacy. Partici-pants were 848 students from three academically achieving high schools on the Westcoast. Hierarchical regression analyses were used for all subsequent analyses. Resultsindicated that proenvironmental attitudes significantly predicted proenvironmentalbehaviors and that environmental knowledge was a significant moderator for the rela-tionship between environmental attitudes and environmental behaviors. This wasespecially true for males.

Keywords: adolescent environmental attitudes; behaviors; knowledge; self-efficacy

The environment that supports mankinds survival has always been aheated topic of discussion. Whether it is concern about the ozone layer, the

511

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 4, July 2005 511-532DOI: 10.1177/0013916504269665 2005 Sage Publications

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 8, 2015eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

depletion of the rain forests, or air and water pollution, human effects on theenvironment have historically been, and will continue to be, of great concernto many individuals. Scientists, teachers, children, and farmers each havetheir own stake in the environment. The leaders of today are working globallyand locally to develop programs and laws to protect many beautiful and valu-able areas of the world. Laws, especially environmental laws, are importantfor the sustainability of the earth and the resources important for human sur-vival. Who is it that will make decisions about the environment in the future?Who will create programs and fight for policies and laws to protect theenvironment? Todays young people.

It is clear that the attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and concerns that ado-lescents have about the environment will directly and indirectly affect futuredecisions concerning our natural resources and how they will be used andsustained. Youth of today are the future policy and decision makers. There-fore, if we examine adolescents attitudes, concerns, and knowledge aboutthe environment around them and throughout the world, we can have a betterunderstanding of the direction we are headed. It is important to know whatadolescents think and feel about the environment, where they learn about it,and how much they know. It is also important to learn the direct contributionsthey are making to sustain and support the environment. For this reason, it isvital that we examine the possible connection adolescent environmental atti-tudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy have on environmental behaviors.

Self-efficacy is defined as the confidence that individuals have in theirability to plan and execute a course of action and to accomplish a task or solvea problem (Bandura, 1994). Self-efficacy is an important topic to examinebecause of its close relationship to self-esteem, locus of control, and pro-social development. Those individuals showing both high levels of confi-dence and of control in their abilities to execute and accomplish tasks arelikely to show tendencies toward participating in prosocial behaviors, thosebehaviors that are intended to help or benefit an individual or group of people(Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Adolescents may participate in prosocial actsfor many reasons: to gain approval, to receive feelings of caring, or to showsympathy toward another. There is a level of confidence adolescents may

512 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2005

AUTHORSNOTE: This project was presented as a poster at the 2003 biennial meet-ing of the Society for Research in Child Development in Tampa, Florida. Correspon-dence concerning this article should be addressed to Jana L. Meinhold, Child andFamily Studies, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751;phone: (503) 725-8562; fax: (503) 725-5430; e-mail: [email protected].


achieve when participating in prosocial acts; this should be similar to feelingsof confidence they may have when participating in prosocial acts toward theenvironment. Fogel, Melson, and Mistry (1986) believe definitions of pro-social behavior should be expanded. This expansion should include the dis-play of nurturance toward and voluntary acts intended to benefit animals,plants, and the environment in general, not just human beings.

Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) state that childrens feelings of sympathy orcaring toward people can lead to prosocial behaviors on their behalf. It hasbeen hypothesized that children and adolescents who experience feelings ofconcern or caring about the environment will most likely produce those sameprosocial behaviors. However, in this instance, these prosocial behaviors willbe directed toward different environmental causes as opposed to otherhumans (Malkus & Musser, 1993, 1997; Szagun & Mesenholl, 1993). There-fore, when using the expanded definition presented by Fogel et al. (1986), itcan be seen that proenvironmental behaviors and attitudes fit nicely into theframework of prosocial behaviors and development.

Specifically, there is a connection hypothesized between adolescentsprosocial acts toward the environment and their positive feelings about them-selves and the contributions they can make in the future. One can assume thatas adolescents engage in and feel better about proenvironmental acts, theirlevels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and internal locus of control in their liveswill increase as well. Some aspects of this assumption have been demon-strated with younger children in previous research on the connections amongproenvironmental attitudes, perceived competence, and locus of control(Malkus & Musser, 1993, 1997). Researchers have also looked at the rela-tionships among environmental actions and variables such as locus of controlin adolescents, with similar connections being found (Szagun & Mesenholl,1993; Szagun & Pavlov, 1993).

It is important to identify the environmental attitudes, behaviors, andknowledge of todays adolescents so researchers can work to better under-stand adolescents actions within their environment and what it means tothem. Self-efficacy is another variable that would allow researchers to under-stand and gauge levels of adolescent behavior, knowledge, and attitudestoward the environment. Overall, adolescent populations are important to thefuture sustainability of our environment both in this country and throughoutthe world. High levels of general self-efficacy in an individual may allowresearchers to identify the types of individuals that will be more likely to havepositive attitudes and behaviors toward and a greater knowledge about theenvironment.

Meinhold, Malkus / ADOLESCENT ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 513


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Environmental researchers and educators have focused on the attitudes,knowledge, and behaviors of adolescents for several decades. There has beensubstantial research compiled looking at adolescents and the environment,and demographic variables, in relation to their environmental attitudes andbehaviors (Bradley, Waliczek, & Zajicek, 1997; Hausbeck, Milbrath, &Enright, 1992; Kahn & Friedman, 1995; Lyons & Breakwell, 1994; Mohai,1992; Ostman & Parker, 1987; Riechard & McGarrity, 1994; Riechard &Peterson, 1998; Schahn & Holzer, 1990). There have also been numerousprojects that address the relationships environmental behaviors, knowledge,and attitudes have with one another (Armstrong & Impara, 1991; Campbell,Waliczek, Bradley, Zajicek, & Townsend, 1997; Lyons & Breakwell, 1994;Oskamp et al., 1991; Ramsey & Rickson, 1976). Unfortunately, within thefield of environmental studies, there has been little, if any, research publisheddiscussing self-efficacy and its connection to environmental issues. Therehave been a number of studies addressing self-efficacy and its connection toissues such as smoking, drinking, pregnancy, and drug use in the lives of ado-lescents (Denoff, 1987; Kaliski, Rubinson, Lawrance, & Levely, 1990;Lawrance, Levely, & Rubinson, 1990; OLeary, 1985; Roberts, 1982; Walker& Greene, 1987), but this has not yet been extended to environmental issues.

Self-efficacy, as described by Bandura (1977), tells us that an individualsbeliefs have a profound effect on actions and intended outcomes. Banduras(1977, 1986) theory of self-efficacy suggests that peoples ability to success-fully execute an action is determined by their belief in their ability to do so. Ifpeople have strong beliefs in their abilities to change the world around them,they will produce more effective coping strategies and higher levels ofachievement than those showing lower levels of belief in their abilities.Banduras theory of self-efficacy gives researchers a framework to predictand more accurately explain behavior and the changes in behavior humansexperience. Self-efficacy is not only a perception of ability; it also affects anindividuals motivation. Bandura (1986) believed that an individual producesself-appraisals (judgments about abilities), and these self-appraisals can havea powerful effect on motivation. When people believe they are proficient at atask, there is a greater amount of motivation to work on those tasks with littledifficulty.

The current project will address issues of self-efficacy both in a generalsense and in the sense of adolescents environmental self-efficacy. Littleresearch has focused on the general self-efficacy of normal to high achievingadolescents; the current project hopes to address this hole within theresearch. Not only are there few studies addressing adolescent self-efficacy,



there is little research looking at the connection self-efficacy has to environ-mental actions, behaviors, and knowledge. The current project will, in part,be an exploratory study designed to address these gaps in the field, bothenvironmental and efficacious.

LINKING SELF-EFFICACY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

When examining the environmental attitudes, behaviors, and knowledgeof adolescents in connection with their perceived self-efficacy, there has beenlimited research available. Concepts related to self-efficacy (i.e., locus ofcontrol, self-concept, and self-esteem or perceived competence; three con-cepts which have definite parallels) have been addressed within the field ofenvironmental research. These three concepts, although not identical to self-efficacy, are related enough to provide a tentative link between environmen-tal behaviors and perceived self-efficacy.

Locus of control is expressed along a continuum, with an internal locus ofcontrol at one end and an external locus of control at the other. An internallocus of control indicates that an individual perceives that his or her actionswill produce the desired outcome, whereas an external locus of control repre-sents the individuals belief that life outcomes, such as the one in question,are due to outside forces (Bandura, 1986; Gecas, 1989). Locus of control canbe linked to self-efficacy using the parallels seen within ones belief or per-ceived abilities to change or control ones life. Self-esteem is another conceptthat is often associated with self-efficacy and locus of control. Self-esteemdeals with the judgment of ones personal self-worth (Bandura, 1986; Stan-ley & Murphy, 1996). Self-worth is not associated with actions and controlissues the way self-efficacy and locus of control are but instead deals with theindividuals perceptions and beliefs of the self. Self-concept, the third vari-able that holds similarities to self-efficacy, is defined as the self-appraisal thatis formed through the experiences and roles the individual ascribes (Bandura,1997; Solberg, OBrian, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993). An individualwho ascribes to the team player role when involved in sporting events willproduce a self-concept that is reflective of the role he or she is playing at thetime. Self-concept is different from self-esteem in that self-concept places avalue on the concept or role, whereas self-esteem only refers to the individ-uals sense of worth.

Each of these concepts of self are related to prosocial behavior, the volun-tary action that an individual produces with the intention to help or benefitanother individual or group of individuals (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989).



Children may participate in prosocial acts for many reasons, but mostprosocial acts are to gain approval from others. Recently, researchers havebeen addressing the link between prosocial development and environmentalattitudes and concerns (Malkus & Musser, 1993, 1997; Szagun & Mesenholl,1993; Szagun & Pavlov, 1993). When environmental attitudes and behaviorsare applied to the variables related to prosocial development (i.e., locus ofcontrol, self-esteem, self-efficacy), the definition takes on an expanded form.This expanded definition includes voluntary behaviors and actions directednot only at others but also toward pets, animals, and the protection and con-servation of the environment (Fogel et al., 1986). Researchers have foundsignificant positive correlations among perceived competence and globalself-worth, internal locus of control, and proenvironmental attitudes and con-cerns (Malkus & Musser, 1993, 1997). Overall, findings show a connectionbetween childrens positive feelings toward the environment and their levelof prosocial development. It can be inferred that childrens attitudes aboutand direct actions on the environment can have an impact both ecologicallyand in the positive feelings children have about themselves (Malkus &Musser, 1993, 1997).

When individuals show concern and empathy toward the environment,and in turn act on these feelings, it can be seen as a form of prosocial develop-ment. Previous research (Malkus & Musser, 1997; Szagun & Mesenholl,1993) has shown a relationship between environmental attitudes and pro-social development in the form of concern. When an individual comes in con-tact with a distressing situation concerning the environment, and when theresponse is one of concern and positive action, the individual is engaging inprosocial behavior.

In summary, it has been tentatively demonstrated that environmental con-cern is closely related to prosocial development through the common vari-ables of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Individuals whoshow concern for the environment and act on these concerns demonstrate ahigh level of prosocial development. This, in turn, may allow individuals togenerate positive feelings about themselves. When experiencing positivefeelings, individuals may also experience an increase in the degree to whichthey feel the future execution of actions and behaviors will consistently pro-duce positive outcomes. At the same time, this increases the likelihood offuture incidences of prosocial behavior, whether directed at the environmentor at other people, and so it is hypothesized to continue in an ever-expandingcircle.

Based on the research and theoretical explanations provided above, thefollowing hypotheses were produced. First, adolescents who demonstratemore proenvironmental attitudes will be more likely to demonstrate proenvi-



ronmental behaviors compared to adolescents who demonstrate lower levelsof proenvironmental attitudes. Second, adolescents who demonstrate moreproenvironmental attitudes and high perceived self-efficacy will demonstratemore proenvironmental behaviors than will adolescents with less proenvi-ronmental attitudes and lower self-efficacy. And third, adolescents whodemonstrate more proenvironmental attitudes and greater environmentalknowledge will demonstrate more proenvironmental behaviors than willadolescents with less proenvironmental attitudes and lower environmentalknowledge.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Participants for this project were 848 adolescents (377 males, 469 females,2 unknowns), between 14 and 18 years old, from high schools located inthree large cities on the West coast of the United States (Seattle, Portland, LosAngeles). A single high school from each city was selected to participatebased on the criteria outlined below. Schools were selected from three differ-ent geographic locations to allow for a more diverse population. This resultedin a range of different ethnicities represented (White = 70%, Asian = 11%,Hispanic = 8%, Black = 5%, Other = 7%). The sample population includedall public schools within chosen counties that fall in the three cities.Researchers utilized state assessment scores from the 1997-1998 or 1998-1999 (depending on availability of data) school year in the selection process.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

In the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000, data were collected in one highachieving school from each of the cities. In selecting the sample, a list of allpublic schools in each of the three cities was obtained from the appropriateState Board of Education Internet sites for Washington, Oregon, and Califor-nia. Distinct but complementary sampling strategies were used in each state.Sampling procedures among the three states were kept as similar as possible,but the ranking method used to determine the highest achieving schools var-ied by state, due to differences in the assessments used, the year for whichdata were available, and the grade level of students assessed. Therefore, thesampling strategy for each state is described separately. In Washington, thedata from the Iowa Test of Educational Development (Iowa) for the 1999



school year were used. In Oregon, the data for the Oregon Statewide Assess-ment (OSA) from the 1998 school year were used. And in California, scoreson the SAT for the 1997-1998 school year were used.

Once top ranked schools were identified for each list, school names werechosen at random and placed on the lists in the order they were selected.Schools were contacted in the order they were chosen until participationfrom one school on the list was secured. Once a school agreed to participate,parental letters and parental consent forms were distributed by a member ofthe research team or by school personnel, depending on school preference, toall sophomores and juniors at the school. Students were given about 1 weekto return parental consent forms depending on the school schedule.

Approximately 1 week after students received parental forms, theresearch team administered the survey during school hours to all studentswith parental permission in a classroom setting or in a location determinedsafe by teachers and school administrators. Once students were briefed, theywere asked to fill in the demographic portion of their survey, and a specialcode number was assigned to each school for identification purposes. Thesurvey was confidential, and names were not gathered on the data collectionsheet. As a student completed the survey, it was placed in a pile at the front ofthe room, and the student was either asked to wait quietly or to return to par-ticipation in the regularly scheduled classroom assignment. All schools par-ticipating in the project were formally thanked with a letter.

MEASURES

A 142-item survey, Young People and the Environment, was used to mea-sure adolescent attitudes, knowledge, goals, self-efficacy, and behaviors rel-ative to the environment (Pursley, 2000). The original 29-item questionnairedeveloped by researchers in Australia (Fien, Yencken, & Sykes, 2002) wasadapted by the researchers for use in a larger international study and for use inthis project to be certain that is was culturally appropriate for a U.S. audienceand to allow for the use of Scantron sheets during data collection.

Dependent variable. Environmental behaviors were assessed using a 10-item subscale of the Young People and the Environment survey. Self-reported behavior is a continuous variable with a score ranging from 0 to 20based on the sum of answers to 10 questions, with 20 being the most environ-mental action and 0 being no environmental action. Questions addressedwhether students have engaged in or would engage in any environmentalactions (e.g., choosing household products that are better for the environ-ment). Responses included, I have done this in the last 12 months, I would



consider doing this, and I would not consider doing this. Items were codedas 2 (have done), 1 (consider doing), and 0 (not consider doing). Cronbachsalpha for this subscale was .78 with scores ranging from 0 to 20 and a mean of11.25 (skewness = .58, kurtosis = .42).

Independent variable. Environmental attitudes were assessed using anearly version of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). This instrument,reported in Olsen, Lodwick, and Dunlap (1992), adapts Dunlap and VanLieres (1978) original NEP scale to a bipolar format. The NEP scale used inthis project is a 12-item scale addressing both environmental and technologi-cal issues relative to the environment. Students were asked to rank where theyfall on a 5-point scale that measured the degree to which they were more envi-ronmental or less environmental. For each question, students indicated theirdegree of agreement to a pair of opposing statements. An example of an envi-ronmental statement contrasts the view that people should adapt to the envi-ronment whenever possible with the view that the environment should bechanged to meet peoples needs. Students indicated that they strongly agreeor agree with the first statement, are undecided, or agree or strongly agreewith the contrasting statement.

The dimensionality of the 12 items from the NEP measure were analyzedusing factor analysis. Discussions with the creator of the NEP (R. Dunlap,personal communication, March 30, 2000) indicated the possibility that themeasure was not unidimensional and would break into two factors: an envi-ronmental factor and a technology factor. Two factors were forced androtated using a varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution confirmedthat the measure broke into the two previously predicted factors: technologyattitudes and environmental attitudes. The environmental attitudes factoraccounted for 24.6% of the variance, and the technology factor accounted for14.8% of the item variance. Two of the items did not clearly load on one fac-tor over the other, leading the primary researcher to use the factor score insubsequent analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) rather than to split the mea-sure into separate subscales using raw data only. After factor scores wereobtained, a theoretical decision was made to utilize only the environmentalfactor score and to drop the technology factor score from the analysesbecause those four items used to create that score had limited usefulness tothe construct of environmental attitudes. The environmental factor score wasused in all subsequent analyses.

Moderating independent variables. Self-efficacy was assessed using asingle 10-item scale. Total self-efficacy is a combination of the 7-item PearlinMastery Scale (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981) and three



environmental self-efficacy questions that were created by the researchersfor use in this study. Total self-efficacy is a continuous variable with scoresranging from 1 to 5 based on the average of answers to 10 questions. Partici-pants responded to statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging fromstrongly agree to strongly disagree with a middle option of undecided. Itemswere coded from 5 (most self-efficacy) to 1 (least self-efficacy). Low scoresrepresent low self-efficacy, whereas high scores represent high self-efficacy.Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .78. Scores for this scale ranged from1.50 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.62 (skewness = .36, kurtosis = .08).

Environmental knowledge was assessed using a combined score from twoknowledge subscales: actual knowledge and familiar knowledge. Actualknowledge is a continuous variable with a score ranging from 0 to 11 basedon the sum of correct answers to 11 questions given in the form of a multiple-choice environmental test. Knowledge familiarity was also a continuousvariable with a score ranging from 0 to 11 based on the sum of responses to 11questions. Students were asked to identify how familiar they are with theenvironmental terms provided. Both familiar knowledge and actual knowl-edge were combined to create a 22-item environmental knowledge measure.A sum score was calculated by adding the overall scores of the two subscalestogether. Cronbachs alpha for the combined knowledge scale was .69.Scores for this scale ranged from 3 to 22, with a mean of 13.79 (skewness = .15, kurtosis = .31).

Demographic and control variables. Sex was a categorical variable with 0being male and 1 being female. Question two of the survey asked to whatracial or ethnic group the adolescent belongs. The race variable is categoricalwith answers being coded 1 through 5: 1 = Asian, 2 = Black, 3 = Caucasian,4 = Hispanic, and 5 = Other. Socioeconomic status (SES) is a continuousvariable ranging from 1 to 5 based on the average of answers on two ques-tions. Questions three and four ask students their mother and fathers highestlevel of education. By combining these questions, researchers were able toidentify a more accurate level of SES for each student. This continuous vari-able ranged from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of SES and 1 being thelowest. Father and mothers education levels were used as a proxy measurefor SES (as per Miller, 1991). Those students who had either father ormothers education missing were given a score based on the education of theremaining parent. Scores for this two-item measure ranged from 1 to 5, with amean of 3.72. Perceived grade point average was a continuous variable rang-ing from 1 to 5 based on the answer to a single question that identified the per-ceived grades a student received in school, with 5 being mostly As and 1being mostly below Ds. Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with a mean of 3.35.



RESULTS

This study examined adolescents environmental attitudes in relation totheir self-reported environmental behaviors. The moderating effects thatself-efficacy and environmental knowledge have upon the relationshipbetween proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors were also addressed.Descriptive statistics were run followed by a series of hierarchical regres-sions. A correlation matrix for all relevant variables for the total sample canbe seen in Table 1.

The first hypothesis addressed the relationship adolescents environmen-tal attitudes have on adolescents environmental behaviors. It was predictedthat those adolescents who demonstrate more proenvironmental attitudes aremore likely to demonstrate proenvironmental behaviors. A hierarchal regres-sion was run, controlling for gender (see Table 2). Findings showed pro-environmental attitudes explained 22% of the variance, with an R2 of .22 andan adjusted R2 of .22. There was a significant linear relationship betweenproenvironmental attitudes and adolescents environmental behaviors, F(2,836) = 116.68, p < .001.

The second hypothesis predicted adolescents who demonstrate moreproenvironmental attitudes and high self-efficacy would have more proenvi-ronmental behaviors than would adolescents who have lower proenviron-


TABLE 1Environmental Variables, Self-Efficacy, and Control Variables: Correlations and

Descriptive Statistics

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-efficacy .2. Environmental attitudes .23*** .3. Environmental knowledge .16*** .18*** .4. Environmental behavior .30*** .45*** .34*** .5. Gendera .13*** .11*** .08* .17*** .6. Socioeconomic status (SES)b .06 .11** .23*** .08* .04 .7. Perceived grade pointc .24*** .16*** .23*** .13*** .09** .25***M 3.6 . 16.6 11.3 0.55 3.7 3.4SD 0.62 . 4.7 3.6 0.50 0.90 0.69Range 1-5 . 0-32 0-20 0-1 1-5 1-5 .78 . .69 .78 . . .NOTE: N = 847.a. Gender is coded 0 for male and 1 for female.b. SES is coded 1 for lowest SES and 5 for highest SES.c. Perceived grade point is coded 1 for mostly below Ds, 2 for mostly Ds, 3 for mostly Cs, 4 for mostlyBs, and 5 for mostly As.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


mental attitudes and lower self-efficacy. A hierarchical regression was run,controlling for gender, to evaluate the moderating effect self-efficacy has onthe attitude-behavior relationship (see Table 3). For model 1, the R2 was .03,and the adjusted R2 was .03. Model 2 produced an R2 of .26 and an adjusted R2of .26. The model itself was significant, F(2, 814) = 94.55, p < .001. Model 3produced an R2 of .26 and an adjusted R2 of .26. The model was also signifi-cant, F(1, 813) = 71.07, p < .001. However, the interaction term added littleto the explained variance of the model 2. Total self-efficacy was not a moder-ator of the environmental attitudes-behavior relationship, indicating thatadolescents who demonstrate high environmental attitudes and greater


TABLE 2Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Gender and Environmental

Attitudes Variables Predicting Adolescents Environmental Behaviors

Model 1 Model 2

Variable B SE B B SE B

Gender 1.25 0.24 0.17*** 0.91 0.22 0.13***Environmental attitudes 1.56 0.11 0.44***R 2 0.03 0.22F for change in R 2 26.22 200.88NOTE: N = 839.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

TABLE 3Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Gender, EnvironmentalAttitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Attitudes Self-Efficacy Variables Predicting

Adolescents Environmental Behaviors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE B B SE B B SE B

Gender 1.29 0.25 0.18*** 0.79 0.22 0.11*** 0.79 0.22 0.11***Environmental

attitudes 1.40 0.11 0.39*** 0.94 0.56 0.27Self-efficacy 1.15 0.18 0.20*** 1.16 0.18 0.20***Attitudes

self-efficacy 0.13 0.16 0.13R 2 0.03 0.26 0.26F for change

in R 2 27.08 124.21 0.69NOTE: N = 818.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


amounts of self-efficacy will not always demonstrate greater proenviron-mental behaviors.

Although the hypothesis was not supported, there is an apparent relation-ship between adolescent environmental behaviors and self-efficacy seen inthe model. A possible explanation is self-efficacy is its own independent vari-able and not a moderating variable. Correlations for environmental attitudesand behaviors by sex and by high and low self-efficacy can be seen in Table 4.With the exception of the female subsample, the correlations between envi-ronmental attitudes and behaviors are similar among high and low self-effi-cacy. These correlations indicate that although self-efficacy does not appearto play a role in the environmental attitudes-behavior relationship for males,it does appear to moderate the relationship for females.

The third hypothesis predicted that adolescents who demonstrate moreproenvironmental attitudes and high environmental knowledge would reportmore proenvironmental behaviors than would adolescents who demonstratelower proenvironmental attitudes and less environmental knowledge. A hier-archical regression, controlling for sex, was again conducted to evaluate themoderating effect knowledge has on the attitude-behavior relationship (seeTable 5).

In model 2, the R2 was .29, and the adjusted R2 was .28, explaining 28% ofthe variance. Model 2 tells us that proenvironmental attitudes are signifi-cantly related to proenvironmental behaviors, F(3, 808) = 107.91, p < .001.For model 3, the R2 was .30, and the adjusted R2 was .29, explaining 29% ofthe variance. The third hypothesis was supported, F(4, 807) = 85.59, p < .001.Environmental knowledge is a moderator of the environmental attitudes-behavior relationship, indicating that adolescents who demonstrate moreproenvironmental attitudes and greater environmental knowledge will reportgreater amounts of proenvironmental behaviors.


TABLE 4Correlations Among Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors

for High and Low Self-Efficacy Groups, by Gender

Environmental Behaviors

Variable High Self-Efficacy Low Self-Efficacy

Environmental attitudesTotal sample .50*** .38***

Males .34* .38***Females .60*** .28*

*p < .05. ***p < .001.


To illustrate the interaction and significance of the third hypothesis, a nor-mal distribution was run on environmental knowledge, and students wereplaced into high, medium, or low knowledge groups. Using this normal dis-tribution, researchers selected those adolescents who fell more than 1 stan-dard deviation above the mean (> 17.12) as the high environmental knowl-edge group, those falling less than 1 standard deviation below the mean (

Environment and Behavior

Documents

Transcript of Environment and Behavior