Assessing the Diversity of Contemporary Environmentalism: Time for a New Paradigm

  • Jennifer M. BernsteinEmail author
  • Brian Szuster
  • Li Philips
Research paper


The New Environmental Paradigm scale (NEP) is the most widely used measure of environmental attitudes globally, consisting of 15 unidimensional question items. Given the increased diversification of the environment movement in the 40 years since the NEP was introduced, this study used quantitative and qualitative methodologies to explore environmentalism’s heterogeneity and suggest areas in which the NEP might be modified. We fielded short surveys containing the NEP question items, and conducted in-depth, open-ended repertory grid interviews to supplement the survey data and minimize the priming influence of the researchers. Participants, despite harboring strong pro-environmental attitudes, expressed heterogeneous responses to the NEP question items. During the interview process, participants suggested a wide range of solutions to environmental problems, differentiating them on the basis of cost, scale, exigence, and agency. Despite expressing skepticism of technology in the survey data, green technologies proved salient in the repertory grid interviews. Differential analysis by age suggested attitudinal differences, but statistical significance was stymied by the small sample size. The results indicate that while aspects of the NEP remain theoretically relevant and analytically powerful, other components merit re-examination. The mixed methodologies suggest that repertory grid interviews can add depth and provide direction for construct development in traditional survey data collection. Further research could operationalize these findings with the goal of establishing a valid and reliable measure that expresses the diversity of contemporary pro-environmental attitudes.


New Environmental Paradigm scale New Ecological Paradigm scale Social movements Content analysis American environmentalism Repertory grid Personal construct theory Environmental attitudes 


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht D, Bultena G, Hoiberg E, Nowak P (1982) Measuring environmental concern: the new environmental paradigm scale. J Environ Educ 13(3):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock IW, Taylor T, Coldwell DF, Gribble MO, Evans KL, Fleming L (2017) ‘Green’on the ground but not in the air: pro-environmental attitudes are related to household behaviours but not discretionary air travel. Glob Environ Change 42:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beail N (1985) An introduction to repertory grid technique. Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  5. Bezzi A (1999) What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Sci Educ 83(6):675–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black K (2009) Business statistics: contemporary decision making, 6th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttel F, Flinn W (1974) The structure of support for the environmental movement, 1968–1970. Rural Sociol 39(Spring):56–69Google Scholar
  8. Buttel FH, Flinn WL (1978) Social class and mass environmental beliefs: a reconsideration. Environ Behav 10(3):433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang G (2015) Materialist value orientations as correlates of the New Ecological Paradigm among university students in China. Psychol Rep 116(2):597–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark LA, Watson D (1995) Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 7(3):309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen D, Crabtree B (2006) Maximum variation sampling. Qualitative research guidelines. Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  12. Corral-Verdugo V, Armendariz LI (2000) The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community. J Environ Educ 31(3):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coshall JT (2000) Measurement of tourists’ images: The repertory grid approach. J travel res 39(1):85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossman A (2016). Understanding purposive sampling. About education. Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  15. Crutzen PJ, Steffen W (2003) How long have we been in the Anthropocene era? Clim Change 61(3):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cruz SM (2017) The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 53:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM (2003) Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56(6):465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietz T, Kalof L, Stern PC (2002) Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Sci Q 83(1):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudovskiy J (2016) Purposive sampling. Research methodology. Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  20. Dunlap RE (2008) The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. J Environ Educ 40(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm. J Environ Educ 9(4):10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Embacher J, Buttle F (1989) A repertory grid analysis of Austria’s image as a summer vacation destination. J Travel Res 27(3):3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ernst J, Blood N, Beery T (2017) Environmental action and student environmental leaders: exploring the influence of environmental attitudes, locus of control, and sense of personal responsibility. Environ Educ Res 23(2):149–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fahy D, Nisbet MC (2017) The Ecomodernists: journalists who are reimagining a sustainable future. In: Berglez P, Olausson U, Ots M (eds) What is sustainable journalism. Peter Lang, BernGoogle Scholar
  25. Fielding KS, McDonald R, Louis WR (2008) Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. J Environ Psychol 28:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fleury-Bahi G, Marcouyeux A, Renard E, Roussiau N (2015) Factorial structure of the New Ecological Paradigm scale in two French samples. Environ Educ Res 21(6):821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geller JM, Lasley P (1985) The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamination. J Environ Educ 17(1):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gottleib R (1993) Forcing the spring. The transformation of the american environmental movement. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Green B (2004) Personal construct theory and content analysis. Pers Constr Theory Pract 1:82–91Google Scholar
  30. Hawcroft LJ, Milfont TL (2010) The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 30(2):143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jankowicz D (2005) The easy guide to repertory grids. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK (2004) Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environ Behav 36(2):157–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahan D (2014) What you “believe” about climate change doesn’t reflect what you know; it expresses *who you are*. Cultural cognition project at Yale School of Law. Accessed 3 Jan 2017
  34. Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs, vol 1. WW Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kopnina H (2011) Qualitative revision of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale for children. Int J Environ Res 5(4):1025–1034Google Scholar
  37. Kortenkamp KV, Moore CF (2006) Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(5):603–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kroufek RC (2016) The use of New Ecological Paradigm scale among pre-service primary teachers: limits and possibilities. In: INTCESS 2016 proceedings, pp. 534–540Google Scholar
  39. Lalonde R, Jackson E (2002) The new environmental paradigm scale: has it outlived its usefulness? J Environ Educ 33(4):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken C (2002) Content analysis in mass communication assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28(4):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lundmark C (2007) The new ecological paradigm revisited: anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environ Educ Res 13(3):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Let’s hear from the people: an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 28(7):573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McKibben B (1989) The end of nature. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Milfont TL (2007) Psychology of environmental attitudes: A cross-cultural study of their content and structure (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@Auckland)Google Scholar
  46. Milfont T, Duckitt J (2010) The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 30(1):80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nash R (1982) Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  48. Neimeyer RA, Bridges SK (2003) Postmodern approaches to psychotherapy. Essent psychother 2:272–316Google Scholar
  49. Olli E, Grendstad G, Wollebaek D (2001) Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context. Environ Behav 33(2):181–208Google Scholar
  50. Pew Research Center (2014) Public trust in government: 1958–2014. Pew research center: U.S. politics and policy. Accessed 1 Jan 2017
  51. Pienaar EF, Lew DK, Wallmo K (2015) The importance of survey content: testing for the context dependency of the new ecological paradigm scale. Soc Sci Res 51:338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierce J, Lovrich N (1980) Belief systems concerning the environment: the general public, attentive publics, and state legislators. Polit Behav 2(3):259–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pike S (2003) The use of repertory grid analysis to elicit salient short-break holiday destination attributes in New Zealand. J Travel Res 41(3):315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pires P, Junior R, de Castro R, Hora G, Filgueiras A, Lopes D (2016) Psychometric properties for the brazilian version of the new ecological paradigm: revised. Temas Psicol 24(4):1407–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robottom I (1991) Technocratic environmental education: a critique and some alternatives. J Exp Educ 14(1):20–26Google Scholar
  56. Ryals LJ, Rogers B (2006) Holding up the mirror: The impact of strategic procurement practices on account management. Bus Horiz 49(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saldana J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  58. Samdahl DM, Robertson R (1989) Social determinants of environmental concern: specification and test of the model. Environ Behav 21(1):57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC (1999) Values as predictors of environmental atti- tudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwartz SH (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl psychol 48(1):23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stanley SK, Wilson MS, Milfont TL (2017) Exploring short-term longitudinal effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on environmentalism. Personal Individ Differ 108:174–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel TD, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97Google Scholar
  63. Tan FB, Hunter MG (2002) The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. Mis Q 26(1):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tate K, Stewart AJ, Daly M (2014) Influencing green behaviour through environmental goal priming: the mediating role of automatic evaluation. J Environ Psychol 38:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trochim W (2006) The qualitative debate. Research methods knowledge base: Accessed 22 Feb 2017
  66. Wals AE, Brody M, Dillon J, Stevenson RB (2014) Convergence between science and environmental education. Science 344(6184):583–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weigel R, Weigel J (1978) Environmental concern the development of a measure. Environ Behav 10(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whyte G, Bytheway A (1996) Factors affecting information systems’ success. Int J Serv Ind Manag 7(1):74–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xiao C, Dunlap RE (2007) Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern crossnationally: a U.S.–Canadian comparison. Soc Sci Q 88:471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xue W, Marks AD, Hine DW, Phillips WJ, Zhao S (2016) The new ecological paradigm and responses to climate change in China. J Risk Res. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1200655 Google Scholar
  71. Zuber-Skerritt O (1992) Action research in higher education: examples and reflections. Kogan Page Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Tehran 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer M. Bernstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian Szuster
    • 2
  • Li Philips
    • 2
  1. 1.Spatial Sciences Institute, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations