envparadigmshift paper

8/3/2019 EnvParadigmShift Paper

1/5

Proceedings of the National Conferenceon Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2006

The University of North Carolina at AshevilleAsheville, North Carolina

April 68, 2006

Environmental Paradigm Shifts: Their Causes, Attributes, and Implications

for Environmental Sustainability

Timothy E. Putnam

Department of Environmental StudiesThe University of North Carolina at Asheville

One University HeightsAsheville, North Carolina 28804 USA

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Dolores (Dee) M. Eggers

Abstract

Understanding environmental paradigms and the adoption of pro-environmental beliefs will be a critical endeavor inthis century as anthropic environmental degradation threatens to drastically diminish the quality of life for all globalcitizens, including and especially non-human citizens. Lasting, positive change in humanitys treatment of theenvironment may not occur until environmentally supportive paradigms replace the underlying paradigms thatproduce current ecologically destructive actions, requiring a paradigm shift within society. While many studies haveinvestigated the significance of environmental paradigms, the causes of environmental paradigm shifts remainunexamined. This article develops the concept of the environmental paradigm shift (EPS) as a phenomenonwhereby an individual socialized with an anti- or non-environmental paradigm undergoes some experience thattriggers a shift to a pro-environmental paradigm. This study explores EPSs in an undergraduate student populationthrough a survey by determining endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm and the Connectedness to NatureScale, causes of EPSs, and the frequencies of performing pro-environmental behaviors. The relationships among

environmental perspectives (values and beliefs), pro-environmental behavior (action), and paradigm shiftingexperiences hold implications for utilizing the institutions of society to induce EPSs within the general public,creating a more sustainability-minded society. This study is a preliminary analysis of the factors, attributes, andprevalence of EPSs; the results yield a refinement of the EPS as a concept and proposals for more comprehensiveassessment methods.Keywords: environmental paradigm shifts (EPS), connecting experiences, pro-environmental behaviors,

environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB), New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), Connectedness to Nature

Scale (CNS)

1. Introduction

Environmental paradigms have been studied in both environmental sociology1,2,3,4,5 and environmentalpsychology6,7, generating a broad base of knowledge about individuals values, beliefs, and perceptions concerning

the natural world and humanitys place therein. Various scales have been created to identify patterns within thoseparadigms, such as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale8 and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS)9.Complicating studies of environmental paradigms are the varying aspects of paradigms being explored. Olsen,Lodwick, and Dunlap10 note that paradigms are based upon beliefs, values, and attitudes, which form the basis ofmuch of ecopsychologys repertoire11,12,13,14, creating a broad range of influences on behavior.

The most widely used test of environmental paradigms is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale15, which is acognitively based scale16 that attempts to tap primitive beliefs about the nature of the earth and humanitysrelationship with it17. A recently designed scale, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), is designed to tap anindividuals affective, experiential connection to nature16. These two scales, like others, use beliefs, values, andfeelings to obtain insight into paradigms, which cannot be directly measured.


2/5

402

In investigating environmental paradigms, the literature has focused on correlations between values or beliefs andbehavior. Various behavioral scales have been used, but most of those in the literature apply to specificallyEuropean cultures, are outdated in terms of ERBs that are likely to occur in present U.S. society, or are poorlysuited to college students18,19,20. Additionally, correlations have been somewhat weak21 due to the valueactiongap, a disconnection between beliefs and behaviors22,23,24, or because individuals may not have an adequateunderstanding of environmental issues25,26.

Though the NEP Scale and the CNS investigate paradigms, the research does not fully identify or explain whatcauses individuals to adopt pro-environmental paradigms after being first socialized into the dominant socialparadigm, which operates in contradiction to values of environmental sustainability27. Olsen, Lodwick, andDunlap28 examined internal inconsistencies and external discrepancies as reasons for paradigm shifts. However,such shifts would occur more frequently in society if inconsistencies and discrepancies were causal factors. It ishere proposed that experiences are causal in the environmental paradigm shift. For example, a person holds thedominant social paradigm, then has an experience that cognitively, affectively, or otherwise connects one to theenvironment. The environmental paradigm already exists in the social world, so after the connecting experience, theindividual is able to perceive the environmental paradigm as relevant to his/her changing views in the context ofinconsistencies and discrepancies. Over time, ones paradigm shifts to the new pro-environmental paradigm that isconsistent with the values generated through the connecting experience. As the shift begins, perhaps by a slowinfiltration of the new paradigm with beliefs and values most relevant to that particular individuals connectingexperience, the floodgates are opened to more and more aspects of the environmental paradigm. However, it is theconnecting experience that opens the valve, not the internal inconsistencies and external discrepancies.

2. The Environmental Paradigm Shift (EPS) Hypothesis

It is here proposed that individuals may experience environmental paradigm shifts (EPSs), whereby an experienceor a set of experiences triggers a shift in paradigm. Unlike the research conducted by social psychologists up to thispoint, the environmental paradigm shift hypothesis explains the humannature interaction from a primarilysociological standpoint with the psychological component being largely irrelevant. From this perspective, it may bepossible to construct the theoretical framework for societys role in environmental paradigms, then to add thepsychological component back into the mix. Ironically, a number of ecopsychological studies and surveys wereused to elicit the broader social paradigms that cannot be measured independently of subjective individuals.

In discussing environmental sustainability, the phrase paradigm shift is tossed about meaninglesslyit is notdefined, nor are processes or ends detailed. Consequently, not much is known about how to cause or encourage theenvironmental paradigm shift, how to know if and when it is occurring, or even what the results of a paradigm shift

will mean for environmental sustainability beyond broad predictions of better than at present.Unlike the NEP and CNS, this hypothesis relies on experiences rather than values, beliefs, attitudes, or feelings

toward the natural world. It is the experiential process that may forge the connection between individual andenvironment from which such values, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings may arise. This study differentiates itself fromthe CNS, for instance, which measures individuals trait levels of feeling emotionally connected to the naturalworld29. Reading a thought-provoking book or taking an enlightening course is an influential experience, thoughnot directly dependent upon emotional connection to nature. Cognitive experiences must be incorporated, too, in theattempt to understand environmental paradigm shifts.

Respondents who have had EPSs are predicted to endorse the NEP and rate higher on the CNS, while those whohave not had EPSs and were not socialized into the NEP are predicted to score lower on the NEP Scale and CNS.Both scales function to sort paradigms into anti- and pro-environmental categories of values and beliefs, indicatingwhich individuals have not experienced EPSs. Though the parameters of the survey are loosely defined, theenvironmental behavior index should provide an analysis of the types of EPSs that encourage the greatest action as

a result. This will allow future studies to be more narrowly defined and to suggest possible strategies for inducingEPSs in the general population, creating a more sustainability-minded society. This study explores EPSs in anundergraduate student population through a survey by determining endorsement of the NEP and CNS, potentialcauses of EPSs, and the frequency of performed pro-environmental behaviors.

3. Methodology

A survey was administered to 213 undergraduate college students from the four levels of a required generaleducation program as well as from several environmental studies courses. The survey contained 80 items, including


3/5

403

the NEP scale and CNS, as well as original assessments of environmental behavior and experiences of theenvironment. The NEP scale, CNS, and behavior items were all on a five-point Likert scale. Questions regardingexperiences with the environment were open-ended and asked the respondents to describe any experiences thatsignificantly increased their connection to the environment. If respondents answered this question, then they werecoded as having had a connecting experience with the environment; if there was no response, then they wereseparated into a group without a connecting experience.

4. Results

The correlation between NEP and pro-environmental behaviors for the whole sample is r=0.52,p


4/5

404

trash and being interrupted and informed, then recycling cans in the future). Thus, connecting experiences maycause individuals to be more open to environmental values and behaviors.

The connecting experiences in the sample were insufficient in number to draw specific conclusions on which typesof experiences led to greater frequencies of pro-environmental behaviors. Larger sample sizes should clarify thedata. As this study was exploratory, it raised more questions than it answered. Additional research is necessary toascertain whether a more explicit determination of connection to the environment will correlate more stronglywith pro-environmental behaviors. It is also worth investigating the nature of the measured concept connection.Doesand shouldthe measured connection distinguish between our connection to the natural world and ourconnection to the anthropocentric social, economic, and political uses of the natural world? Is a biocentricdimension suitably present in the current definition? If not, then to what degree does it affect behavior and is itrelevant to environmental paradigm shifts?

Further research should also include interviews to more clearly define environmental paradigm shifts in terms oftheir manifestation in individuals. Additionally, a survey of environmental awareness may lead to a greaterunderstanding of the effects of EPSs on pro-environmental behavior. Experimental research will be necessary todetermine causality of connecting experiences (if causal, then they would be homologous to environmentalparadigm shifts). Experimenting would be ideal to determine the effects of intentionally induced connectingexperiences on values, beliefs, and behaviors. By attempting to induce environmental paradigm shifts, it will beeasier to examine their operationalization.

6. Conclusion

Environmental paradigms influence an individuals frequency of pro-environmental behavior. By inducingenvironmental paradigm shifts, it may be possible to improve the environmental sustainability of human actions. Itis likely that environmental paradigm shifts occur due to events or sets of experiences that make a pro-environmental paradigm more attractive. This research clearly demonstrates a link between such connectingexperiences, environmental paradigms, and pro-environmental behavior. Future research should be conducted tomore precisely indicate whether an individuals experience was transformative or not; empirically, this could takethe form of a survey with NEP, CNS, and pro-environmental behavior, followed by a program designed to cause anEPS, concluded with a re-taking of the initial survey.

7. Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express appreciation to Dr. Dee Eggers, the faculty advisor, for her guidance, wisdom, andenthusiasm for this research. Gratitude is extended to Dr. Steve Patch for statistical assistance. Deep thanks go tothe participants of this study and the professors who helped administer the survey, without whom this would nothave been possible.

8. References

1. Riley E. Dunlap and William Michelson, eds.,Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 2002), 616 pp.2. Marvin E. Olsen et al., Viewing the World Ecologically (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), 214 pp.3. Chenyang Xiao, The Coherence of Public Concern for the Environment: A Conceptual and MethodologicalAnalysis, (dissertation, Washington State University, 2004), 181 pp.4. Thomas A. Arcury et al., Ecological Worldview and Environmental Knowledge: The New EnvironmentalParadigm,Journal of Environmental Education 17 (1986): 3540.

5. Richard Elliot Benedick, Tomorrows Environment Is Global, Futures 31 (1999): 937947.6. John Thgersen, A Cognitive Dissonance Interpretation of Consistencies and Inconsistencies inEnvironmentally Responsible Behavior,Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004): 93103.7. Elizabeth Ann Bragg, Towards Ecological Self: Deep Ecology Meets Constructionist Self-theory,Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 16 (1996): 93108.8. Riley E. Dunlap et al., Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000): 425442.


5/5

405

9. F. Stephan Mayer and Cynthia McPherson Frantz, The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure ofIndividuals Feeling in Community with Nature,Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004): 503515.10. Olsen et al., 1621.11. P. Wesley Schultz and Lynnette Zelezny, Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence forConsistency Across 14 Countries,Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1999): 255265.12. Franz X. Bogner and Michael Wiseman, Toward Measuring Adolescent Environmental Perception,EuropeanPsychologist4 (1999): 139151.13. P. Wesley Schultz, The Structure of Environmental Concerns: Concern for Self, Other People, and theBiosphere,Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (2001): 327339.14. Taciano L. Milfont and John Duckitt, The Structure of Environmental Attitudes: A First- and Second-orderConfirmatory Factor Analysis,Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004): 289303.15. Dunlap et al., 425442.16. Mayer and Frantz, 504.17. Dunlap et al., 427.18. Thgersen, 97.19. John Thgersen and Folke lander, Spillover of Environment-friendly Consumer Behaviour,Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 23 (2003): 225236.20. Florian G. Kaiser et al., Ecological Behavior and Its Environmental Consequences: A Life Cycle Assessmentof a Self-report Measure,Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003): 1120.

21. P. Wesley Schultz et al., Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors,Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 15 (1995): 105121.22. Stewart Barr, Are We All Environmentalists Now? Rhetoric and Reality in Environmental Action, Geoforum35 (2004): 231249.23. Thgersen, 94.24. Sebastian Bamberg, How Does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally RelatedBehaviors? A New Question to an Old Answer,Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003): 2132.25. Niklas Fransson and Tommy Grling, Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, MeasurementMethods, and Research Findings,Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1999): 369382.26. Florian G. Kaiser et al., Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behaviour,Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 19 (1999): 119.27. Dunlap et al., 426427.28. Olsen et al., 135.

29. Mayer and Frantz, 503.

envparadigmshift paper

Documents