Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The structure and correlates of anthropocentrism as a psychological construct

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the debate concerning environmental protection issues there is a clash between the positions held by the advocates of anthropocentric and eco-bio-centric environmental ethics. Although wildlife conservators criticize anthropocentrism as the main cause behind the ecological crisis, (1) its structure as a psychological construct underlying the anthropocentric orientation is unclear and (2) there is no psychometrically adequate measure of anthropocentrism that would allow for determining its relations to other constructs. To fill this gap, we conducted two studies. The concept of anthropocentrism, understood as including the finalistic, metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological aspects distinguished in the philosophical debate, was operationalized as the Anthropocentric Beliefs Scale (ABS). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the results of Studies 1 and 2 showed that anthropocentrism was a one-dimensional construct. Study 2 also revealed that it was negatively related to environmental attitudes and positively related to negative attitudes toward robots, centrality of religiosity, and right-wing authoritarianism. The construct validity and measurement reliability of the ABS were supported.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DPSD3P

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1z5MwwJp7ksjQbdoLTGXu54qBQ9I9KtGlE0f_dFC0hOs/edit

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1v9oT13xFP5c-dmuhXPDyYoVqh1tP1IzXyS5uGu6fgqA/edit

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-VaUoajlgv9-35q-EKaYu5L0-n2s2WVC9Vdk2tAC_ww/edit

References

  • Aquino, A., Picconi, L., & Alparone F. R. (2018). Validation of the Italian version of the need for cognition scale—Short version. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata (Applied Psychology Bulletin), 66(283), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.26387/bpa.283.2.

  • Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  • Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.

  • Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. University of Manitoba Press.

  • Auer, A. (1984). Umweltethik. Ein theologischer Beitrag zur ökologischen Diskussion. Patmos.

  • Boddice, R. (2011). Introduction: The end of anthropocentrism. In R. Boddice (Ed.), Anthropocentrism: Human, animals, environments (pp. 1–18). Brill.

  • Boslaug, S. E. (2016). Antrhropocentrism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthropocentrism accessed 15.11.2020.

  • Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press Ltd..

  • Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist., 39, 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchvarov, P. (2015). Anthropocentrism in philosophy: Realism, antirealism, semirealism. De Gruyter.

  • Castelo, N., & Ward, A. (2016). Political affiliation moderates attitudes towards artificial intelligence. In P. Moreau & S. Puntoni (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 44, pp. 723–723). Association for Consumer Research.

  • Chandler, E. W., & Dreger, R. M. (1993). Anthropocentrism: Construct validity and measurement. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(2), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, E. W. (1981). Anthropocentrism: Construct validity and measurement. LSU historical dissertations and theses. 3589. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3589 Accessed 22.08.2020.

  • de Chardin, T. P. (2003). The human phenomenon: A new edition and translation of Le phénomène humain by Sarah Appleton-weber. Sussex Academic Press.

  • Cwalina, W., & Leoniak, K. (2019). Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu jako strategia kształtowania pozytywnego wizerunku i reputacji hotelu [corporate social responsibility as a strategy for shaping a positive image and reputation of the hotel]. Folia Turistica, https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.7484, 53, 2.

  • Dreger, R. M., & Chandler, E. W. (1993). Confirmation of the construct validity and factor structure of the measure of anthropocentrism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(2), 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6.

  • Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzwonkowska, D. (2018). Is environmental virtue ethics anthropocentric? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31, 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9751-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L. (1992). The new ecological order. University of Chicago Press.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortuna, P., & Modliński, A. (2021). A(I)rtist or counterfeiter? Artificial intelligence as (D)evaluating factor on the art market. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 51, 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1887032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gloy, K. (1995). Die Geschichte des wissenschaftlichen Denkens: Das Verständnis der Natur. Komet.

  • Hawkins, R. (2018). Anthropocentrism, logocentrism, and neural networks: Victoria davion prefigures some important lessons from nature. Ethics and the Environment., 23, 37. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.23.2.04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.1.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, T. (1997). Anthropocentrism: A misunderstood problem. Environmental Values, 6, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327197776679185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harari, Y. (2016). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Harvill Secker.

  • Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets. The cultural evolution of thinking. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  • Horan, D. P. (2019). Deconstructing anthropocentric privilege: Imago Dei and human agency. Heythrop Journal, 60, 560–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.13279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.3.4.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, S. (2003). Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein neues multidimensionales Messmodell der Religiosität. Leske–Budrich.

  • Kaplan, J. (2016). Artificial intelligence: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.

  • Katz, E. (1999). A pragmatic reconsideration of anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 21, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19992144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Norton.

  • Kinder, D. (2014). Why ‘anthropocentrism’ is not anthropocentric. Dialectical Anthropology, 38, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-014-9345-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopnina, H. (2012). Evaluating education for sustainable development (ESD): Using Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the sustainable development (EAATSD) scale. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9395-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & Piccolo, J. J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics, 31, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krok, D., & Żak, A. (2007). Zależności między religijnością i prawicowym autorytaryzmem wśród młodzieży akademickiej [relationships between religiosity and right-wing authoritarianism among academic youth]. Studia Teologiczno-Historyczne Śląska Opolskiego, 2, 353–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. John Wiley and Sons.

  • Lin, P., Jenkins, K., & Abney, R. (Eds.). (2017). Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press.

  • Łozowski, B. (2007). Bio- i ekocentryzm jako źródło deprecjacji życia ludzkiego w świetle refleksji etycznej i chrześcijańskiej wizji człowieka [bio- and ecocentrism as a source of depreciation of human life in the light of ethical reflection and the Christian vision of man]. Problemy Ekologii, 11(4), 177–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism - engineering the human condition. History, philosophy and current status. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04958-4.

  • Mason, O. J., Stevenson, C., & Freedman, F. (2014). Ever-present threats from information technology: The cyber-paranoia and fear scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01298.

  • Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.

  • Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. Ai and Society, 20, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oesterreich, D. (2005). Flight into security: A new approach and measure of the authoritarian personality. Political Psychology, 26, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00418.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Oliveira, A. J., & Oliveira, L. (2019). Technology exposure in large Portuguese catholic families. Proceedings of the International Conferences on ICT, Society and Human Beings 2019. https://doi.org/10.33965/ict2019_201908L001.

  • Piquemall, M. (2003). Les philo fables. Alex Stanke.

  • Pochwatko, G., Giger, J. C., Różańska-Walczuk, M., Świdrak, J., Kukiełka, K., Możaryn, J. & Picarra, N. (2015). Polish version of the negative attitude toward robot scale (NARS-PL). Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_3-2015/25.

  • Radkiewicz, P. (2011). Ile jest autorytaryzmu w prawicowym autorytaryzmie? [how much authoritarianism is there in right-wing authoritarianism?]. Psychologia Społeczna, 2(17), 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, L. (1987). Selbstbestimmung und Naturverhältnis des Mensche. In: O. Schwemmer (Ed.), Über Natur. Philosophische Beiträge zum Naturverständnis, (pp. 15-36). Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

  • Scruton, R. (2017). On human nature. Princeton University Press.

  • Simkins, R. A. (2014). The bible and anthropocentrism: Putting humans in their place. Dialectical Anthropology, 38, 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-014-9348-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. HarperCollins.

  • Snodgrass, C. E., & Gates, L. (1998). Doctrinal orthodoxy, religious orientation and anthropocentrism. Current Psychology, 17, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-998-1008-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, G. (2005). Anthropocentrism and its discontents: The moral status of animals in the history of western philosophy. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, J. H. (2018). Metaphysical anthropocentrism, limitrophy, and lesponsibility: An explication of the subject of animal rights. PER/PELJ, https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a5320.

  • de Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton University Press.

  • de Waal, F. B. M., & Ferrari, P. F. (Eds.). (2012). The primate mind: Built to connect with other minds. Harvard University Press.

  • Wang, Y. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2019). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482.2019.1674887.

  • Washington, H. (2013). Human dependence on nature: How to help solve the environmental crisis. Routledge.

  • Weigel, R. H., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern. The development of measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578101001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203–1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits, F. M. (1990). Evolutionary epistemology and its implications for humankind. State University of New York Press.

  • Zarzycka, B. (2008). Tradition or charisma - religiosity in Poland. What the world believes: Analysis and commentary on the Religion Monitor, 201–222.

  • Zarzycka, B., Bartczuk, R. P., & Rybarski, R. (2020). Centrality of religiosity scale in polish research: A curvilinear mechanism that explains the categories of centrality of religiosity. Religions, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020064.

  • Zhu, X., & Lu, C. (2017). Re-evaluation of the new ecological paradigm scale using item response theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.1.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950, Lublin, Poland

    Paweł Fortuna & Oleg Gorbaniuk

  2. Institute of Philosophy, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950, Lublin, Poland

    Zbigniew Wróblewski

Authors
  1. Paweł Fortuna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zbigniew Wróblewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oleg Gorbaniuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paweł Fortuna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Komisja Etyki Badań Naukowych; The John Paul II Catholic University Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20–950 Lublin, Poland.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual adult participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fortuna, P., Wróblewski, Z. & Gorbaniuk, O. The structure and correlates of anthropocentrism as a psychological construct. Curr Psychol 42, 3630–3642 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01835-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01835-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation