IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2387-d504185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Clayton

    (Department of Psychology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH 44691, USA)

  • Sandor Czellar

    (Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)

  • Sonya Nartova-Bochaver

    (Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 101000, Russia)

  • Jeffrey C. Skibins

    (Department of Recreation Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA)

  • Gabby Salazar

    (School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

  • Yu-Chi Tseng

    (Department of Science Education and Application, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung City 403454, Taiwan)

  • Boris Irkhin

    (Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 101000, Russia)

  • Fredy S. Monge-Rodriguez

    (Department of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Cusco 08000, Peru)

Abstract

The environmental identity (EID) scale, first published in 2003, was developed to measure individual differences in a stable sense of interdependence and connectedness with nature. Since then, it has been reliably correlated with measures of environmental behavior and concern. However, the original scale was developed based on U.S. college students, raising questions about its validity for other types of populations. This study revised the EID scale and tested it in five countries (four continents) with a total sample size of 1717 participants. Results support strong internal consistency across all locations. Importantly, EID was significantly correlated with behavior and with environmental concern. This research gives us greater confidence that the EID construct is meaningful across different cultural contexts. Because the revised EID was designed to be relevant to a wider range of people and experiences, it is recommended as a replacement for the 2003 version.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Clayton & Sandor Czellar & Sonya Nartova-Bochaver & Jeffrey C. Skibins & Gabby Salazar & Yu-Chi Tseng & Boris Irkhin & Fredy S. Monge-Rodriguez, 2021. "Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2387-:d:504185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire M. Hart & Timothy D. Ritchie & Erica G. Hepper & Jochen E. Gebauer, 2015. "The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16)," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, December.
    2. Massimiliano Scopelliti & Erica Molinario & Flavia Bonaiuto & Mirilia Bonnes & Lavinia Cicero & Stefano De Dominicis & Ferdinando Fornara & Jeroen Admiraal & Almut Beringer & Tom Dedeurwaerdere & Wout, 2018. "What makes you a ‘hero’ for nature? Socio-psychological profiling of leaders committed to nature and biodiversity protection across seven EU countries," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 970-993, May.
    3. Scott Atran & Douglas Medin & Norbert Ross, 2005. "The Cultural Mind: Environmental Decision Making and Cultural Modeling Within and Across Populations," Post-Print ijn_00000563, HAL.
    4. Ricardo Ernesto Pérez Ibarra & César Octavio Tapia-Fonllem & Blanca Silvia Fraijo-Sing & Natalia Nieblas Soto & Lucia Poggio, 2020. "Psychosocial Predispositions Towards Sustainability and Their Relationship with Environmental Identity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-13, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David N. Matzig & Clemens Schmid & Felix Riede, 2023. "Mapping the field of cultural evolutionary theory and methods in archaeology using bibliometric methods," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Ryan S. Naylor & Carter A. Hunt, 2021. "Tourism and Livelihood Sovereignty: A Theoretical Introduction and Research Agenda for Arctic Contexts," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, August.
    3. Elizabeth Sheedy & Patrick Garcia & Denise Jepsen, 2021. "The Role of Risk Climate and Ethical Self-interest Climate in Predicting Unethical Pro-organisational Behaviour," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(2), pages 281-300, October.
    4. Bastos, Wilson, 2020. "“Speaking of Purchases”: How Conversational Potential Determines Consumers' Willingness to Exert Effort for Experiential Versus Material Purchases," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-16.
    5. Emi Moriuchi & Michael Basil, 2019. "The Sustainability of Ohanami Cherry Blossom Festivals as a Cultural Icon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    7. Tancredi Pascucci & Giuseppina Maria Cardella & Brizeida Hernàndez-Sànchez & Jose Carlos Sànchez-Garcìa, 2022. "Environmental Sensitivity to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Petr Houdek & Štěpán Bahník & Marek Hudík & Marek Vranka, 2021. "Selection effects on dishonest behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 238-266, March.
    9. Mobasseri, Sanaz & Stein, Daniel H. & Carney, Dana R., 2022. "The accurate judgment of social network characteristics in the lab and field using thin slices of the behavioral stream," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    10. Barone, Elisabetta & Ranamagar, Nathan & Solomon, Jill F., 2013. "A Habermasian model of stakeholder (non)engagement and corporate (ir)responsibility reporting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 163-181.
    11. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:238-266 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Joshua Keller & Jeffrey Loewenstein, 2011. "The Cultural Category of Cooperation: A Cultural Consensus Model Analysis for China and the United States," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 299-319, April.
    14. Arne Weigold & Ingrid K. Weigold & Migyeong Jang & Emily M. Thornton, 2022. "College students’ and Mechanical Turk workers’ environmental factors while completing online surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2589-2612, August.
    15. Stephen T. Homer, 2022. "Perceived corporate citizenship: a scale development and validation study adopting a bottom-up approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1435-1461, June.
    16. Robinson, Michael D. & Irvin, Roberta L. & Pringle, Todd A. & Klein, Robert J., 2023. "General cognitive ability, as assessed by self-reported ACT scores, is associated with reduced emotional responding: Evidence from a Dynamic Affect Reactivity Task," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Gregor Wolbring & Simerta Gill, 2023. "Potential Impact of Environmental Activism: A Survey and a Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-46, February.
    18. Shiva Taghavi & Michael Segalla, 2023. "Is Work an Act of Worship? The Impact of Implicit Religious Beliefs on Work Ethic in Secular vs. Religious Cultures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 509-531, December.
    19. Meyer, Stefan & Santos, Paulo, 2020. "Correcting for bias using multidimensional measures of Socially Desirable Response," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    20. Yuting Sun & Chaoyun Liang, 2022. "Urban–Rural Comparison of the Association between Unsupportive Relationships, Perceived Stress, Authentic Self-Presentation, and Loneliness among Young Adults in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-16, July.
    21. Lai Kuan Lee & Nor Azazi Zakaria & Keng Yuen Foo, 2021. "Psychological Restorative Potential of a Pilot on-Campus Ecological Wetland in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2387-:d:504185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.