Building on the work we’ve done with ENVS 220 students on many shades of green, here are some results from a similar survey taken by approximately 60 students currently enrolled in ENVS 160, our introductory environmental studies course. The survey included 21 broad values items developed by Shalom Schwartz as part of his abbreviated Portrait Values Questionnaire, and the five EcoTypes scales (fifteen items total) my ENVS 220 students and I developed, summarized here. Now, surveys are just a starter for understanding similarities and differences among ourselves, often provoking more questions than answers…which is good! Let’s look at preliminary results and venture a few tentative interpretations, and I’ll see what sort of light the students themselves may shed on these results when I discuss these results with them in person.
First, the Schwartz PVQ items. I factor-analyzed them using the same basic procedure as here (e.g., Varimax rotation constrained to two factors to produce a 2D result), and obtained these rotated components (again, similar to previous post):
[table id=2 /]
Factor 1 explains 29% of overall values variance; factor 2 explains 25%. It’s not hard to put a word on the two tails of factor 1: the components suggest adventure (the positive direction) vs. obedience (the negative direction). This values factor is similar to the Openness to Change vs. Conservation axis Schwartz derived from his (much larger) data on human values; here, let’s call it Autonomous Novelty here. Factor 2, while statistically independent of factor 1 in the overall dataset, nonetheless included several components that scored opposite to that of factor 1, and none that scored strongly in the negative direction. This factor is thus difficult to identify, but we’ll call it Social Support based on its chief components, all of which provide socially based security (close friends, social order, prestige).
Student scores on these two factors are presented in the graph below. Those scoring toward the right prioritize autonomous novelty vs. following rules, and those scoring toward the top prioritize more vs. less socially based support and recognition. As you can see (and as is the objective of factor analysis), there is quite a spread among student values according to these two factors.
Where, we may ask, does environmental concern fit among these broad values? One Schwartz value statement reads “They strongly believe that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to them.” This item had only a weak correlation with both autonomous novelty (r = +0.24) and social support (r = +0.26), suggesting that, indeed, our ENVS 160 students’ green values (at least as expressed by this statement) are grounded in different broad values orientations. From these results alone, there are indeed different shades of ENVS 160 students in their general value orientations, and their broad values grounds for environmental concern.
Now, let’s consider the EcoTypes items. We were aware of common environmental attitude measures, e.g., those differentiating anthropocentric vs. nonanthropocentric outlooks, or Steffen’s bright/light/dark green taxonomy, so the five items we developed were intentionally designed to be different. First, simple descriptives (Likert-type answers ranged from a low of 1 to high of 6, with midpoint 3.5):
[table id=3 /]
From these descriptives alone, we can see a very strong level of concern over dystopian futures, a strong sense of nature as pure, and support for inclusive solutions, with ambivalence over science/technology as good and stronger support for individual- vs. large-scale solutions. These results are more pronounced than our earlier results with a slightly larger sample, but the basic patterns remain the same. The dystopian dread scale in particular could bear further discussion, given how strongly our ENVS 160 students agreed with it; it comes from earlier work I and colleague Evan Berry did around ecological utopias and dystopias—which suggested that both are highly associated with environmental self-identification. Here, for reference, are the three items we included in that scale:
- I don’t want the next generation to inherit this mess that we’re leaving for them.
- We all need to take action immediately to avert global disaster.
- Sometimes I’m afraid that my worst nightmares about the state of this world may come true.
Factor analysis of the EcoTypes items yielded a mixed result, so we will simply present a correlation table of these five items, together with the two Schwartz values factors and the Schwartz environmental values item (very weak correlations under 0.2 omitted):
[table id=4 /]
The first item in this table, the Schwartz environmental values item, is quite strongly associated with dystopian dread and nature as pure; as noted in the previous analysis, these are key notions from classic U.S. environmental thought of latter 20th century:
…things are bad and getting worse, people are destroying nature…
Otherwise, though there are some slight correlations between the five EcoTypes scales, none were strong enough to boil down to a smaller number of coherent factors. What this means, in short, is that (excepting the association between the environmental values item and classic environmental thought) there are indeed many shades of green in our current ENVS 160 class—as many as the five scale items we included in the survey. Those who believe in large vs. small-scale action, for instance, may or may not strongly feel dystopian dread; or, those who believe in inclusive solutions may or may not believe in science and technology as a force for good. (The nature as pure item seems to evoke the strongest associations with other EcoType scale items; this item requires further inquiry would to interpret.)
What have we learned overall from this analysis?:
- Yes, even among a quite homogeneous group of ENVS 160 students there are differences in broad values;
- These differences in broad values suggest a variety of ways to ground environmental concern;
- Certain EcoTypes attitudes, in particular dystopian dread, are very strong among ENVS 160 students;
- Overall, environmental concern is strongly associated with dystopian dread and nature as pure (two important elements of classic U.S. environmentalism), though these and the other three EcoTypes items are not strongly associated with each other, suggesting further values diversity.
The limitations of this ENVS 220-derived survey and the above analysis notwithstanding, what we see is indeed a picture in line with contemporary environmental thought, in that “green” is a plural category. To some, this result may simply suggest confusion; but to others, it better reflects the complexity of human diversity, and may even be a strength as we seek to craft a more nuanced, variegated environmentalism.
Leave a Reply