ecoscale: a scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers

ECOSCALE: A Scale for the Measurement of Environmentally Responsible Consumers George Stone, James H. Barnes, and Cameron Montgomery The University of Mississippi

ABSTRACT

The authors develop a 31-item instrument (ECOSCALE) for the assessment of environmental responsibility. Discussion of the conceptualization and operational functions used in constructing and refining the multiple-item scale to measure the construct environmental responsibility are described. Also presented is evidence that the scale has been validated through assessment of content validity, predictive validity, and construct validity. A final description of the theoretical uses of such a scale is provided. 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Much has been written about the rapid deterioration of the world’s ecosystems. Apparently there is a need to achieve a balance between preserving the environmental integrity of fragile ecological systems and maintaining sustainable economic growth. Evidence suggests that a growing number of consumers in the United States and Western Europe are becoming more environmentally responsible in terms of their personal habits and life-styles. Evidence of this growing concern for the environment can be seen in the rapid increase in economic clout by the environmental movement and its representative groups. For example, a decade ago the environmental group

Psychology & Marketing 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vol. 12(7):595-612 (October 1995) CCC 0742-6046/95/070595-18

595

Greenpeace had about 100,000 member contributors in the U.S. and Europe. The total budget for Greenpeace at that time was about $1 million annually. In 1991 the projected budget had risen to around $160 million and the organization itself had nearly 5 million con- tributing members representing some 23 nations. Half of the mem- bership and almost a third of the budget came from members residing in the U.S. (Horton, 1991).

The question of deciding whether environmental protection and public health matters outweigh decisions based on economic impact is now a major concern of virtually every segment of American society. Marketing practitioners are attempting to address this relatively new phenomenon, sometimes labeled the green revolution, by using advertising campaigns directed specifically at this target market, that is, the environmentally concerned consumer.

As with any market segment, a need exists to be able to identify the environmentally concerned individual. The purpose of the present research effort is twofold: (a) to develop a multiple-item scale for measuring environmental responsibility (ECOSCALE), and (b) to discuss the scale’s properties and the relative merit and applicability of the scale for future research studies. Much of the procedure used in development of this scale comes from procedures outlined by Nunnally (1978) and Churchill (1979), and from Peter’s (1981) review of basic issues concerning construct validity.

This article is divided into three sections, the first of which dis- cusses the literature and the process used to define the domain enui- ronmentally responsible. We also provide an operational definition for the construct that was the guide for developing the scale. The second section describes the statistical validation of the developed scale as well as an assessment and evaluation of findings. The final section is a discussion of potential applications for this scale.

DOMAIN OF THE CONSTRUCT ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE

The first requirement in developing a construct is to define it. It was initially assumed that the construct environmentally responsible would already be operationally defined somewhere in the copious amount of environmental literature. An assimilation of ideas from a literature review of articles spanning three decades revealed that this particular construct perhaps existed in an amorphous fashion, but the various dimensions had not been assimilated into a single domain. It was also discovered that in order to combine all the suggested subcon- structs under one domain, the operational definition would need to be more inclusive than the authors originally imagined.

596 STONE ET AL.

Environmental Responsibility

Attitude. Several authors have suggested that attitude is one element that must be present in individuals who exhibit environmental responsibility (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Jackson, 1985; Kinnear, Taylor, & Ahmed, 1974; Maloney & Ward, 1973; McGuire, 1969; Thompson & Gasteigner, 1985).

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) posited that a new environmental paradigm was necessary, one consisting of an attitude and certain behaviors that would be engaged in by the environmentally concerned individual. They felt that ecological problems stemmed in large part from more traditional attitudes and beliefs prevalent in society. Their paradigm suggested that man should live in harmony with nature and limits should be placed on economic growth. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) discovered, using a 12-item measure assessing consumer attitude, that a large percentage of respondents agreed with this new paradigm. Their scale had a reliability of 0.813 and with it they assured predictive, content, and construct validity.

Prior to the development of the Dunlap and Van Liere scale, Mal- oney and Ward (1973) developed a 128-item ecology test with four subscales. This test identified attitude as one of the dimensions that must be present in consumers concerned with the ecology. They further suggested that the antecedent factors affect, which corresponds to the degree of emotionality related to pollution-environmental issues, and knowledge, which corresponds to specific factual knowledge related to ecological issues, must exist.

Bennet (1974) proposed a psychological-behavioral model composed in part by the feeling/knowledge/action-tendency triad. According to Borden and Schettino (1979), this triad is similar to the attitudinal components presented by Maloney and Ward. Bennet (1974) posited that attitudes consist of affective and cognitive components that form a third component referred to as a tendency to act.

Thompson and Gasteigner (1985) studied differences in attitudinal responses of two groups of Cornell students (1971 and 1981) toward material and energy resource use. They found that students in the lat- ter group were more reluctant to give up household items, followed by transportation, foodstuffs, personal, and recreational categories than were students responding a decade earlier. They suggested that the difference between the two groups was primarily a result of political leanings, income, gender, and geographic background. Education, they found, did not play a major role in attitudinal responses on energyke- source issues in either survey. One conclusion reached by the authors was that environmental issues were more prevalent in the early 1970s than in the 1980s.

Jackson (1985) however, found growing evidence to suggest that life-styles based on energy-intensive, fossil-fuel consumption were

ECOSCALE 597

limited. He suggested that changes were emerging among significant proportions of the population and that two attitudinal groups, ecocen- trists and technocentrists, occur simultaneously in the population. He subsequently recommended an examination to measure the influence of social variables on the two groups. He suggested that such a measurement should qualify the behavioral and attitudinal distinctions existing between the two groups.

Kinnear et al. (1974) posited that ecological concern was similar in context to environmental responsibility and is composed of two dimensions: (a) an attitude that must express concern for the environment, and (b) a purchasing behavior that must be consistent with mainte- nance of the environment. They further indicate that the level of ecological concern is a function of both attitudes and behavior.

Knowledge. In addition to attitude, knowledge of the environment and awareness must also be present in environmentally responsible consumers. As mentioned earlier, Maloney and Ward (1973) identified factual knowledge of environmental issues as one of their four subscales. Arcury (1990) mentions that Americans have been exposed to a plethora of environmental information for years, yet researchers have very little information about how much the public actually knows about the environment. We also know very little about the relationship between the public’s knowledge and their environmental attitudes.

Arcury (1990) suggested that an individual’s gender may be a factor in the amount of environmental knowledge he or she possesses as well as the amount of concern the individual displays for the environment. Arcury (1990) indicated that age, educational attainment, and exposure to television news also played a significant role in developing knowledge about the environment. Finally, Arcury’s research indicated that an individual income level and view of world affairs had a positive influence on environmental knowledge.

Arbuthnot (1977) concluded that educationally oriented information might be the key to gaining public environmental commitment. South- ern (1972) mentions that if children acquire a broad environmental understanding, or knowledge, then they will develop social consciousness, or attitude, that will affect their behavior, or action, toward the environment.

Hines, Hungerf‘ord, and Tomera (19861, using a meta-analysis of 128 environmental studies identify variables that are found to be associated with responsible environmental behavior. They suggested that knowledge must be present in environmentally conscious consumers.

Hines et al. (1986) further propose an environmental behavior model in which the intention to take action is determined to be a combination of other factors including cognitive knowledge, cognitive skills, and personality variables. Cognitive knowledge, in this model, relates to an individual’s awareness of existing environmental problems.

598 STONE ET AL.

The work done by Schann and Holzer (1990) tends to corroborate the assessment of Hines et al. (1986):

For behavior to be effective in the domain of environmental protection, a certain amount of information is also necessary. If this suppo- sition is correct, applicable knowledge should have a moderator effect on the relationship between attitudes (VC) and self-reported behavior (SAC); Abstract knowledge should have no moderating effect. (Schann & Holzer, 1990, p. 773)

Behavior. Besides attitude and knowledge (awareness), environmentally responsible consumers must engage in certain behaviors (Bennet, 1974; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Two of the four subscales of Maloney and Ward (1973) measured behavioral tendencies. According to Mal- oney and Ward (1973) both attitude and knowledge determine the environmentally relevant behaviors that comprise actions that individuals currently undertake or would be willing to undertake. In the Hines et al. (1986) study, one subscale that was suggested as necessary was actual commitment, which is a measure of an individual's current behavior.

Willingness to Act. Environmentally concerned consumers must also be willing to act. They must also be in possession of a desire to act. Verbal commitment is a measure of the individual's probable future actions (Maloney & Ward, 1973). It is, more or less, the individual's willingness to act (Hines et al., 1986). Hines et al. (1986) indicated that a desire to act was closely associated with personality factors such as the individual's locus of control, his or her attitude, and exhibited personal responsibility:

Thus, an individual with an internal locus of control, positive attitudes toward the environment and taking action, and with a sense of obligation toward the environment will likely develop a desire to take action. (Hines et al., 1986, p. 7)

Berkowitz and Daniels (1964) found that individuals who scored high in social responsibility were more active in church and commu- nity affairs and were more willing to contribute their time, money, and energy to these types of activities. This is similar to having a willingness to act.

Ability to Act. Environmentally concerned consumers must also have the ability to act. Individuals must have a minimum required skill level to be able to undertake a course of action toward the environment. As the environmental literature suggests, individuals must be aware that a problem exists, they must be willing to take action to alleviate the problem, and they must have the requisite ability to

E C OSC ALE 599

act. The last requirement is similar in nature to possessing highly developed logical reasoning. An individual who has logical reasoning skills will more likely understand the measures needed to take action. Berkowitz and Daniels (1964) found that socially responsible individuals were involved in politics, understood the issues, and were familiar with the candidates (see Table 1 for a summary of the literature review).

Table 1. Summary of the Literature

Author

Berkowitz & Daniels (1964)

McGuire (1969)

Southern (1972)

Maloney & Ward (1973)

Bennet (1974)

Kinnear et al. (1974)

Arbuthnot (1977)

Dunlap & Van Liere (1978)

Borden & Schettino (1979)

Thompson & Gastiegner (1985)

Jackson (1985)

Hines et al. (1986)

Arcury (1990)

Schann & Holzer (1990)

~

Findings

Environmentally conscious consumers must be

Individuals who are environmentally responsible

Attitudes must predict behaviors

Developed 128-item ecology test, with four sub-

willing and have ability to act

must display an attitude

scales reflecting affect, knowledge commitment (actual and verbal)

Outlined a behavioral model using feelings knowledge, action and tendency

Noted that the ecological concerned consumer has both attitudes and behaviors

Providing information and education to consumers is necessary to gain commitment for environmental concerns

Developed and validated a 12-item scale called the new environmental paradigm, which suggests “limits to growth, a balance with nature,” well accepted by consumers

The attitude environmental responsibility consists of three components, conations, cognitions, and affect

ward energy use and found students were reluctant to sacrifice certain luxuries

Suggested there are behavioral and attitudinal dis-

Said commitment, laws, attitude, personal responsibility, knowledge education, income, age, and gender affected environmental concern

Gender, age, and education should play an impor- tant role in ecological concern

Environmentally concerned consumers must pos- sess knowledge

Measured the attudinal response of students to-

tinctions that exist with consumers

600 STONE ET AL.

Based on the literature cited above, we propose the following operational definition: Environmental responsibility is a state in which a person expresses an intention to take action directed toward remedia- tion of environmental problems, acting not as a n individual concerned with his lher own economic interests, but through a citizen consumer concept of societal-environmental well-being. Further, this action will be characterized by awareness of environmental problems, knowledge of remedial alternatives best suited for alleviation of the problem, skill in pursuing his or her chosen action, and possession of a genuine desire to act after having weighed his lher own locus of control and determining that these actions can be meaningful in alleviation of the problem.

GENERATING AN ITEM POOL

An initial pool of 50 questions was developed from the literature review of 20 studies of environmental behavior. From this review, we concluded that there were five dimensions of environmental responsibility. These are: (1) the consumer’s knowledge and awareness, (2) the consumer’s desire and willingness to act, (3) the consumer’s ability to act, (4) the consumer’s opinions and attitudes concerning the environment, ( 5 ) and the consumer’s behaviors. Scale items were generated and the measurement scale was constructed so as to measure each of these five dimensions. Questions were developed and then scrutinized against the literature as well as before a group of university profes- sors. To assess both content and construct validity, it was necessary to define and sample the domain. According to the literature review, the domain consists of five subelements. The peer review indicated that all five were adequately examined.

Face validity asks whether the construct measures what it purports to measure (Nunnally, 1978). In almost all indications the volunteers knew that the survey/questionnaire was attempting to measure some type of response concerning their involvement with the environment. The questionnaire was also generally well received by the volunteers, thus supporting face validity.

ADMINISTRATION OF ITEMS TO A DEVELOPMENT SAMPLE

The initial 50-item scale was administered to a sample of 238 gradu- ate and undergraduate student volunteers majoring primarily in business, psychology, and pharmacy at a major southeastern state university. Several dozen foreign students, mainly of Oriental and In- dian descent, were represented in the makeup of these class samples. Although no demographic information was actually collected in the

ECOSCALE 601

questionnaire, it was expected that the sample was representative of the population. Sampling characteristics have negligible effects on psychometric properties of a scale development process.

The size of the sample is related negatively to reliability, suggesting that there may be a trade-off in response quality from attempts to gen- erate large samples. As a general rule of thumb there should be at least five cases for each observed variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). In this case a final sample of 238 was deemed sufficient.

EVALUATION OF THE ITEMS AND OPTIMIZATION OF SCALE LENGTH

Reliability Analysis

Coefficient alpha was used to assess reliability of the overall scale and to assess the reliability of each subscale discovered through exploratory factor analysis. Fourteen items with low item-to-total correlations (less than 0.20) were deleted from the scale. Five final items were deleted that did not load on any factor when exploratory factor analysis revealed that some of these items made up a single factor that explained less than 5% of the variance (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). The end result of this analysis was a 31-item scale with a coefficient alpha of 0.9288. The high coefficient alpha indicates that the scale possesses high internal scorer reliability.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was used to determine and confirm the number of dimensions of environmental responsibility. Factor analysis can help to determine how many latent variables underlie a set of items and form coherent subsets that are independent from one another (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). From the literature it was suggested that five dimensions of environmental responsibility exist.

Results. The results of exploratory alpha factor analysis using vari- max rotation yielded seven factors that had eigenvalues higher than 1.00 and that explained 86.3% of the variance (see Table 2). The first factor explained 31.9% of the variance and was labeled. “Opinions and Beliefs.” This factor had six items, which included questions that elicited beliefs and opinions related to knowledge and awareness. These six items loaded from 0.59474 to 0.95395, and from the literature review correlate well with the cognitiveknowledgeable and affective/psychosocial factors.

The second factor had four items, and with its addition, 46.8% of the total variance was explained. Factor 2 was labeled simply “Affective Awareness,” but it should be noted that affective awareness in this

602 STONE ET AL.

Table 2. Item-to-Total Correlations, and Factor Loadings for ECOSCALE

Factor 1, Opinions and Beliefs* (31.9% variance explained)

Question Item-to-Total Factor

Correlation Loading

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The burning of the oil fields in Kuwait, the meltdown at Chernobyl, and the oil spill in Alaska are exam- ples of environmental accidents whose impact is only short term.

The United States is the biggest producer of fluoro- carbons, a major source of air pollution

The earth’s population is now approaching 2 billion

Excess packaging is one source of pollution that could be avoided if manufacturers were more environmentally aware

Economic growth should take precedence over environmental considerations

The earth’s resources are infinite and should be used to the fullest to increase the human standard of liv- ing

Factor 2, Awareness* (14.9% variance explained)

7.

8.

9.

10.

The amount of energy I use does not effect the environment to any significant degree

This country needs more restrictions on residential development (construction of new mall on farmland, new subdivisions ect.)

(male only) If I were a hunter or fisherman, I would kill or catch more if there were no limits

In order to save energy, this university should not heat the pool during the winter

Factor 3, Willing to Act**

11.

(12.9% variance explained)

I attend environmentallconservation group meetings (Green Peace, Ducks Unlimited ect.)

I have startedjoined consumer boycott programs aimed at companies that produce excess pollution

Whenever no one is looking I litter

(female only) Wearing exotic furs and leather is not offensive

12.

13.

14.

Factor 4, Attitude*

15.

(9.4% variance explained) One of the primary reasons for concern in destruc- tion of the ozone layer is its ability to screen ultravi- olet radiation

0.4616

0.5800

0.6258

0.5714

0.5619

0.7165

0.5633

0.3505

0.5240

0.3483

0.3642

0.3566

0.6360

0.5840

0.3140

0.87560

0.80747

0.68392

0.95395

0.89569

0.59475

0.83336

0.75827

0.82570

0.74347

0.78916

0.61725

0.92102

0.53350

0.81091

(Continued)

ECOSCALE 603

Table 2. Item-to-Total Correlations, and Factor Loadings for ECOSCALE (Continued)

Item-to-Total Factor Question Correlation Loading

16. There is nothing the average citizen can do to help 0.4515 0.55826

17. My involvement in environmental activities today 0.5585 0.80180

stop environmental pollution

will help save the environment for future genera- tions

inconvenient 18. I would not carpool unless I was forced to. It is too 0.3685 0.89271

Factor 5, Action Taken** (7.2% variance explained)

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

I turn in polluters when I see them dumping toxic liquids.

I have my engine tuned to help stop unwanted air pollution

I have my oil changed at installations which recycle oil

The earth is so large that people have little effect on the overall environment

People who litter should be fined $500 and be forced to work on road crews and pick up garbage

0.4103 0.66793

0.3776 0.94787

0.4229 0.54127

0.3133 0.58852

0.6672 0.62158

Factor 6, Ability to Act**

24. The EPA stands for “Environmental Planning Associ- 0.4189 0.55904


ation” and it is responsible for matters dealing with protection of the environment

pollution 25. I do not purchase products that are known to cause 0.6428 0.92802

26. I vote for proenvironmental politicians 0.6988 0.72085

27. I cut up plastic rings around six-packs of soft drinks 0.7265 0.54547

Factor 7, Knowledge*

28. Ivory is a hard white stone when that when polished 0.6534 0.54140

29. Acid rain only affects Canada 0.5983 0.56297 30. It is no use worrying about environmental issues: I 0.5029 0.95611

31. I would describe myself as environmentally responsi- 0.6973 0.69070


can be used in making piano keys

can’t do anything about them anyway

ble

:%core this scale by circling the appropriate response on a 1-5 Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and

‘”Y3core this scale by circling the appropriate frequency of response on a 1-5 Likert scale with 1 = never 5 = strongly agree.

and 5 = always.

604 STONE ET AL.

case means awareness of the negative factors affecting the environment and one’s feelings about these negative factors. These items explained 14.9% of the variance and were made up of statements that elicited an emotional response. These statements were basically judg- mental decisions that were designed to indicate an individual’s true emotional or gut feeling on key environmental issues. These four items loaded from 0.74347 to 0.83336 and from the literature review correlate well with affective/psychosocial factors.

The third factor was labeled “Willingness to Act” and has four items that loaded from 0.53350 to 0.92102. Alone it accounted for 12.9% of the variance, and in combination with the other two factors accounted for 59.6% of the total variance. This factor was labeled “Willingness to act” because it was an indication of a person’s beliefs about his/her personal involvement in the environmental movement, and the willingness to act in terms of his or her actions. This factor could be associated with the suggestion from the literature review that a person who is environmentally responsible will exhibit traits that are conativehehavioral (skilled in remedial alternatives) regarding the environment. That is, an environmentally responsible person will be willing to act and know how to act.

The fourth factor was “Attitude,” and the individual items load from 0.55826 to 239271. These items accounted for 9.4% of the total variance and 69.1% of the cumulative variance. As indicated, these items were a measure of a person’s attitude in terms of LOC (locus of control). If a person was not knowledgeable or if he or she was apathetic then the scores should be very different from those of an environmentally responsible person. These items correlate well to the literature review’s suggestion of knowledgeable of remedial alternatives and affective-psychosocial.

The fifth factor was labeled “Action Taken.” The loadings are from 0.54127 to 0.94787, and these items account for 7.2% of the total variance as well as 76.3% of the cumulative total. Actions taken include actual behavior exhibited by the individual and can be classified as conativehehavioral from the literature review.

The sixth factor was labeled “Ability to Act.” The factor loadings range from 0.54547 to 0.92802. The literature would again suggest that this factor closely resembles skill in pursuing action or conative/ behavioral action. The factor loadings on the sixth factor loaded simi- larly with those of Factor 5, based on the sample items the differences appeared to be slight. Factor 6 might also be labeled as “theoretical ability to act,” as these items seem to be actions that could be taken where the individual is aware of these actions and would do these things if the opportunity presented itself.

Factor 7 was labeled ‘‘Confirmatory/Mective Knowledge,” and had factor loadings of between 0.54140 and 0.95611. The total variance accounted for by Factor 7 is 4.6% with a final cumulative total of 86.3%.

ECOSCALE 605

The items in this factor are indicative of the emotional awareness of those who claim to be environmentally responsible.

Discussion

Although seven factors were discovered, there is a high degree of cor- respondence between the hypothesized dimensions and the actual factors. Factor analysis revealed that attitude and opinions are two separate dimensions, as are knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the opinions and awareness subscales had very poor predictive validity, indicating that perhaps these two subscales should be dropped from the instrument as there were nonsignificant correlations between these two dimensions and actual environmental actions. Table 2 shows the factors, the 31 items classified under each factor, factor loadings, and item-to-total correlations.

PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

To assess predictive validity of the scale, a second study was con- ducted. Two hundred fifteen college students were given the 31-item scale along with a set of behaviors in which they might engage. Be- cause environmental responsibility is an attitude that consumers have, it was thought that one way to assess predictive validity was to see if, indeed, environmentally conscious consumers actually followed through with this attitude and engaged in certain types of environmental behaviors.

It was determined from the literature that environmentally responsible consumers might engage in the following behaviors; recycling, boycotting products, educating others, making life-style changes, making personal sacrifices, and changing their political strategy and beliefs. A series of 32 questions was developed to measure these six types of behaviors and was administered to the sample along with the ECOSCALE (31 items). The subjects were asked if they had ever engaged in these behaviors or would engage in these behaviors.

A zero-order correlation matrix was calculated for each subscale of ECOSCALE and each behavior. The subscales were opinions and beliefs, awareness, willingness to act, attitude, action taken, ability to act, and knowledge. These subscales were correlated with the six behaviors; boycotting, recycling, educating others, life-style changes, personal sacrifice, and changes in strategy.

All the subscales of ECOSCALE had significant correlations at 0.01 or less with each behavior except for the opinion and awareness subscales. Thus, it was determined that ECOSCALE possesses a high degree of predictive validity. For a closer look at the zero-order correlation matrix see Table 3.

606 STONE ET AL.

Tab

le 3

. Z

ero-

Ord

er C

orre

lati

on M

atri

x: B

ehav

iors

ver

sus

Su

bsc

ales

of

En

viro

nm

enta

l Beh

avio

r

Rec

B

oy

Edu

c Li

fe

Sacf

S

trat

O

pin

Aw

are

Will

A

tt

Act

A

bil

Kno

w

Rec

BO

Y E

duc

Life

Sa

cf

Stra

O

pin

Aw a

r W

ill

Att

A

ct

Abi

l K

now

1

0.45

1

0.42

0.

57

1

0.37

0.

42

0.57

0.

37

0.46

0.

50

0.40

0.

55

0.69

0.

05

0.07

0.

10

0.09

0.

09

0.20

0.

24

0.12

0.

26

0.31

0.

20

0.25

0.

26

0.16

0.

32

0.29

0.

22

0.31

0.

19

0.17

0.

24

1

0.64

1

0.59

0.

57

1

0.08

0.

05

0.10

1

0.21

0.

16

0.26

0.

30

1

0.23

0.

25

0.37

0.

19

0.24

1

0.22

0.

34

0.40

0.

01

0.22

0.

46

1

0.40

0.

33

0.33

0.

18

0.21

0.

15

0.17

1

0.

19

0.13

0.

32

0.13

0.

18

0.14

0.

14

0.21

1

0.26

0.

21

0.32

0.

24

0.15

0.

24

0.16

0.

20

0.27

3

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test a priori hypotheses about the nature of the ECOSCALE factors. LISREL was used to assess the unidimensionality of each subscale. Malhotra (1988) suggests that after a model is derived that shows reasonable fit, the model should be submitted to such a program as LISREL for final respecifi- cation, parameter estimation, and test of fit. Wilson (1988) mentions that internal construct validity is addressed by positing the existence of a one-dimensional factor structure and by using a confirmatory factor analytic approach to assess how well the observed relationships among the items are summarized by this factor structure. Gomez- Mejia (1986) as well as Gerbing and Anderson (1988) also note that confirmatory factor analysis can assess unidimensionality. Each subscale was fitted to a single-factor LISREL model. If the model achieved acceptable fit, then the AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit) should be about 0.95 and the root mean square (error term) should be about 0.05 or less. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that Factors 1-7 had acceptable levels of adjusted goodness of fit. The root-mean- square residuals had levels of 0.05 or less for all factors (see Table 4).

DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Discriminant validity is the degree to which a test relates to other tests that measure the same construct. This is the most difficult type of validity to assess. Because of time and expense limitations we chose not to employ the multimethod, multitrait approach. Instead, we have some evidence of discriminant validity because of the seven different factors. Another way to assess discriminant validity is to correlate the scores of our seven basic dimensions with each other. If the items have higher correlations within the same dimension than between dimensions, then we have some degree of discriminant validity (Gomez- Mejia, 1986). They also indicate that if item-to-total correlations are calculated for each dimension and the within-scale dimension total correlations exceeded the between-scale correlations, then one has some evidence for discriminant and construct validity. The item-to- total correlation should be 0.50 or higher for within-scale correlations. Using this approach we found evidence of discriminant validity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS

Why would marketers be interested in a scale that measures the consumer’s environmental responsibility? First, as mentioned earlier, these types of consumers are more likely to boycott certain types of

608 STONE ET AL.

Table 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Factor 1-Opinions and Beliefs

Item No. Squared Multiple Correlations

v2 0.339 V8 0.124 v11 0.007 V18 0.316 v44 0.192 v49 0.295

Coefficient of determination = 0.641 Goodness of fit = 0.984 Adjusted goodness of fit = 0.962 Root-mean-square residual = 0.055

Factor 2-Awareness

v37 0.226 V4 1 0.178 V46 0.254 V50 0.065


Factor 3-Willingness to Act

V27 0.466 V29 0.399 V3 1 0.143 V48 0.107


Factor 4-Attitude

v 7 0.108 V13 0.287 v35 0.378 v39 0.100


Factor 5-Action Taken

v20 v2 1 v22 V38

0.298 0.581 0.216 0.014

(Continued)

ECOSCALE 609

Table 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Continued from previous page)

Factor 5-Action Taken

v45 0.039 Coefficient of determination = 0.682 Goodness of fit = 0.984 Adjusted goodness of fit = 0.953 Root-mean-square residual = 0.068

Factor 6-Ability to Act

V16 0.001 V25 0.222 V28 0.495 v30 0.205 Coefficient of determination = 0.604 Goodness of fit = 0.995 Adjusted goodness of fit = 0.974 Root-mean-square residual = 0.041

Factor 7 -Knowledge

V6 0.092 v 9 0.397 v33 0.291 v47 0.086 Coefficient of determination = 0.558 Goodness of fit = 0.998 Adjusted goodness of fit = 0.988 Root-mean-square residual = 0.023

consumer products. These environmentally concerned consumers are also willing to educate other consumers and willing to make sacrifices in their purchases.

Marketers may want to identify these consumers in order to more effectively target certain markets for their products. They can get a better idea of what percentage of consumers who purchase their products are sensitive to environmental issues. Exxon may have been un- aware that many of its consumers were environmentally sensitive; thus when the Valdez oil spill occurred many of these consumers cut up their credit cards because of the way Exxon handled the issue.

CONCLUSION

ECOSCALE can be used to determine an individual's level of environmental responsibility. Such information is potentially useful to marketers in evaluating production sites, determining whether or not to use green advertising campaigns, and in assessing public relations in

610 STONE ET AL.

terms of ongoing public environmental perceptions. The literature review inferred that part of the basic problem with promoting environmental awareness is that the general public has such limited environmental knowledge or educational expertise and does not understand how to evaluate the message. The average person knows little if anything about oil spills or other man-made disasters, yet may become easily aroused by media hype. This may or may not have been the case with the Exxon Valdez, for example, but the effect on Exxon’s public relations department was evident. Does a boycott of a major corporation after an environmental accident benefit the environment in the long run by forcing the corporation to alter its methods of operation, or does it only hurt that corporation’s ability to assist in the cleanup by damaging its profitability in the short run? And what is the long-term effect on the profitability of the corporation and the people it employs?

The literature also suggests that a potential problem exists with some environmental measurement scales relating to the public’s relatively short memory. Scales measuring awareness of environmental problems need to be contemporary. In 1991 the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to unleash a flow of oil into the Persian Gulf that was purportedly 80 times greater than that released in the accident involving the Exxon Valdez. This will probably not be the last great environmental disaster. Future studies should therefore relate to the most recent environmental calamity as well as those that are continual, such as erosion or deforestation.

Marketing practitioners are now being faced with the unenviable position of being part of public environmental policy. The measurement scale developed here may serve a useful purpose in helping cor- porate planners shape their strategies to meet the increasing demands of environmentalists. By accurately predicting the level of environmental responsibility prevalent in a society, we hope to assist those in the marketing function with a clearer understanding of what the public actually feels about the environment.

REFERENCES

Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment and Be- havior, 9 , 217-237.

Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge. Human Organization, 49,300-304.

Bennet, D. B. (1974). Evaluating environmental education programs. In J. A. Swain & W. B. Stapp (Eds.), Environmental Education (pp. 113-164). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1964). Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 275-281.

ECOSCALE 611

Borden, R. J., & Schettino A. (1979). Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 35 - 39.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). Paradigm for developing measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64- 73.

Dunlap R. E., & Van Liere K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10- 19.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186- 192.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1986). The cross-cultural structure of task related and contextual constructs. Journal of Psychology, 120, 5- 19.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Envi- ronmental Education, 18, 1-8.

Horton, T. (1991). The green. Rolling Stone, 5,42-112. Jackson, E. L. (1985). Environmental attitudes and preferences for energy re-

source options. Journal of Environmental Education, 17,23 -30. Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned

consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38,20-24. Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Some observations on the state of the art in market-

ing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 4-24. Maloney, M. P. & M. P. Ward (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear it from the people.

American Psychologist, 28, 583-586. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.

Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Nunnally, J . C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Peter, J . P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issue and marketing

practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133- 145. Schann, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern:

The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786.

Southern, C. (1972). Vitalizing natural resources education. Journal of Envi- ronmental Education, 3,45.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed). New York: Harper & Row.

Thompson, J. C., Jr., & Gasteigner, E. L. (1985). Environmental attitude survey of university students: 1971- 1981. Journal of Environmental Educa- tion, 17, 13-22.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,414-424.

Wilson, M. (1988). Internal construct validity and reliability of a quality of school life instrument across nationality and school levels. Education and Psychological Measurement, 4,995- 1009.

George Stone and Cameron Montgomery are doctoral students in marketing and James H. Barnes is holder of the Morns Lewis Lectureship in Market- ing and Associate Professor of Marketing and Pharmacy Administration a t the School of Business Administration, The University of Mississippi, Uni- versity, MS 38677. Contact second author at (601) 232-7497 or BITNET MKBARNES@UMSVM

612 STONE ET AL.

ecoscale: a scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers

Documents