Russian Scale of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Development and Psychometric Assessment

164

Abstract

Pro-environmental behavior largely depends on the socio-cultural context and the availability of specific infrastructure. Thus, the use of Western scales for measuring this behavior in Russia does not allow for in-depth analysis of both the variability of pro-environmental behavior and of the effects of its determinants. Current study aims to develop a scale of pro-environmental behavior using qualitative and quantitative methods: literature analysis (n = 61), semi-structured interviews (n = 65), as well as socio-psychological surveys (n1 = 542; n2 = 56; n3 = 462). Based on the obtained data, a five-factor scale of pro-environmental behavior was developed. The created scale consists of 23 questions and 5 categories: household waste management, social actions, resource conservation, green consumption, and climate (transport) actions.

General Information

Keywords: pro-environmental behavior, scale development, household waste management, social actions, resource conservation, sustainable consumption, climate action, transport behavior

Journal rubric: Tools

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2023160213

Funding. The publication was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the HSE University in 2020—2022 (grant № 21-04-058).

Received: 09.08.2022

Accepted:

For citation: Ivanova A.A., Agissova F.B., Sautkina E.V., Kabanova V.S., Patrakova N.A., Ivande K.S. Russian Scale of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Development and Psychometric Assessment. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2023. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 218–234. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2023160213. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Ivanova A.A., Agisova F.B., Sautkina E.V. Proekologicheskoye povedeniye v Rossii: adaptatsiya shkaly Kemerona Brika I svyaz' s ekologicheskoy obespokoyennost'yu [Pro-environmental behavior in Russia: adaptation of the Cameron Brick scale and connection with environmental concern]. Psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya, Vol. 13, no. 70. DOI:10.54359/ps.v13i70.199 (In Russ.).
  2. Nestik T.A., Zhuravlev A.L. Psikhologiya global'nykh riskov [Psychology of global risks]. Institut psikhologii RAN, 2018. (In Russ.).
  3. Sautkina E.V., Agisova F.B., Ivanova A.A., Ivande S.K., Kabanova V.S. Proekologicheskoye povedeniye v Rossii. Sistematicheskiy obzor issledovaniy [Pro-environmental behavior in Russia. Systematic review of research]. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya, 2022. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 172—193. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150213 (In Russ.).
  4. Shabanova M.A. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskiye praktiki naseleniya kak resurs oslableniya musornoy problemy v Rossii [Socio-economic practices of the population as a resource for mitigating the garbage problem in Russia]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya, No. 6, pp. 50—63. DOI:10.31857/S013216250005481-2 (In Russ.).
  5. Alisat S., Riemer M. The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 13—23. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
  6. Biesbroek R., Klostermann J., Termeer C., Kabat P. Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law, Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 181—199. DOI:10.3233/CL-2011-033
  7. Boateng G.O., Neilands T.B., Frongillo E.A., H.R. Melgar-Quinonez H.R., Young S.L. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 2018. Vol. 6. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  8. Bratt C., Stern P. C., Matthies E., Nenseth V. Home, car use, and vacation: The structure of environmentally significant individual behavior. Environment and Behavior, 2015. Vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 436—473. DOI:10.1177/0013916514525038
  9. Brick C., Sherman D. K., Kim H. S. «Green to be seen» and «brown to keep down»: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 226—238. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
  10. Dono J., Webb J., Richardson B. The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 178—186. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006
  11. Gatersleben B. Measuring environmental behavior // In eds. L. Steg, J.I.M. Groot. Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, Second Edition. Chapter 16. P. 155—166. DOI:10.1002/9781119241072.ch16
  12. Gatersleben B., Murtagh N., Cherry M., Watkins M. Moral, wasteful, frugal, or thrifty? Identifying consumer identities to understand and manage pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 2019. Vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 24—49. DOI:10.1177/0013916517733782
  13. Gatersleben B., Steg L., Vlek C. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and behavior, 2002. Vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 335—362.
  14. Geiger S.M., Otto S., Diaz-Marin J.S.A diagnostic Environmental Knowledge Scale for Latin America. Escala diagnóstica de conocimientos ambientales para Latinoamérica. PsyEcology, 2014. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1—36. DOI:10.1080/21711976.2014.881664
  15. Kaiser F.G. A general measure of ecological behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998. Vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 395—422. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x
  16. Kaiser F.G., Wilson M. Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000. Vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 952—978. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02505.x
  17. Koo T.K., Li M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 2016. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 155—163. DOI:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  18. Kormos C., Gifford R. (2014) The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2014. Vol. 40, pp. 359—371. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
  19. Krettenauer T., Wang W., Jia F., Yao Y. Connectedness with nature and the decline of pro-environmental behavior in adolescence: A comparison of Canada and China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2020. Vol. 71. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101348
  20. Kurz T., Gardner B., Verplanken B., Abraham C. Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate‐relevant actions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 113—128. DOI:10.1002/wcc.327
  21. Lange F., Dewitte S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 92—100. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
  22. Markle G.L. Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 2013. Vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 905—914. DOI:10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
  23. Morren M.H., Grinstein A. Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2016. Vol. 47, pp. 91—106. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.003
  24. Murtagh N., Gatersleben B., Cowen L., Uzzell D. Does perception of automation undermine pro-environmental behaviour? Findings from three everyday settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2015. Vol. 42, pp. 139—148. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.002
  25. Nash N., Whitmarsh L., Capstick S., Hargreaves T., Poortinga W., Thomas G., Sautkina E., Xenias D. Climate‐relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. WIREs Climate Change, 2017. Vol. 8, no. 6. DOI:10.1002/wcc.481
  26. Pelletier L.G., Dion S., Tuson K., Green-Demers I. Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999. Vol. 29, no, 12, pp. 2481—2504. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00122.x
  27. Reznichenko S.I., Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Irkhin B.D. Do authentic people care about the environment? A view from two paradigms. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2021. Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 81—102. DOI:10.11621/pir.2021.0306
  28. Sarti S., Darnall N., Testa F. Market segmentation of consumers based on their actual sustainability and health-related purchases. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 192, pp. 270—280. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.188
  29. Sautkina E.V., Agissova F.B., Ivanova A.A., Ivande K.S., Kabanova V.S., Patrakova N.A.Political, environmental and social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour in Russia. National Research University Higher School of Economics. Series WP BRP "Basic research program", 2021. No. 130. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3995972
  30. Schultz P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2011. Vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 327—339. DOI:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
  31. Steg L., Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009. Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 309—317. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  32. Stern P. C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 2000. Vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 407—424. DOI:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  33. Tam K.P., Chan H.W. Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017. Vol. 53, pp. 213—223. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
  34. Thomas G.O., Sautkina E., Poortinga W., Wolstenholme E., Whitmarsh L. The english plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019. Vol. 10. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00266
  35. Truelove H.B., Carrico A.R., Weber E.U., Raimi K.T., Vandenbergh M.P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 2014. Vol. 29, pp. 127—138. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
  36. Unal A.B., Steg L., Granskaya J. «To support or not to support, that is the question». Testing the VBN theory in predicting support for car use reduction policies in Russia. Transportation Research. Part A: Policy and Practice, 2019. Vol. 119, pp. 73—81. DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.042
  37. Valko D. Environmental attitudes and contextual stimuli in emerging environmental culture: An empirical study from Russia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2021. Vol. 27, pp. 2075—2089. DOI:10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.008
  38. Vries G. Public communication as a tool to implement environmental policies. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2020. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 244—272. DOI:10.1111/sipr.12061
  39. Whitmarsh L. Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009. Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 13—23. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003
  40. Whitmarsh L., O’Neill S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010. Vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 305—314. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003

Information About the Authors

Alexandra A. Ivanova, PhD student in Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-2256, e-mail: aa.ivanova@hse.ru

Fatikha B. Agissova, PhD student in Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8668-2687, e-mail: fagisova@hse.ru

Elena V. Sautkina, PhD, Professor,Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9043-0906, e-mail: esautkina@hse.ru

Veronika S. Kabanova, Bachelor student in Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5068-7443, e-mail: vskabanova@edu.hse.ru

Nataliya A. Patrakova, Master’s in Applied Social Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3285-1083, e-mail: napatrakova@edu.hse.ru

Kingsley S. Ivande, Master’s in Applied Social Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9002-1654, e-mail: sivande@edu.hse.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 402
Previous month: 19
Current month: 4

Downloads

Total: 164
Previous month: 8
Current month: 4