IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v50y2016i2p823-847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern

Author

Listed:
  • Enzo Loner

Abstract

This study shows how Guttman errors analysis can be applied to social research. In this work, the method is used in the study of environmental concern. The new instrument usefully chart also ways in which less evident forms of engagements may be recognized. The study uses data from the 2000 World Values Survey and International Social Survey Programme. First, Mokken Scale Analysis is applied to build a cumulative scale of mobilization for the defense of the environment. Second, Guttman errors are analyzed to identify specific patterns of activism. The analysis of the indexes enable the isolation of an often elusive phenomenon not shown by other techniques: the presence of individuals with a pronounced degree of activism but who do not share the attitudes of the majority of environmentalists. These particular patterns might constitute specific ways to relate to the environment. Guttman errors analysis can be fruitfully applied in measurement of attitudes or behavior. In particular, it can shed light on the presence of individual that sociological research should consider, study and label separately. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:2:p:823-847
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0177-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-015-0177-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-015-0177-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    2. Lori M. Hunter & Alison Hatch & Aaron Johnson, 2004. "Cross‐National Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(3), pages 677-694, September.
    3. C. Dayton & George Macready, 1980. "A scaling model with response errors and intrinsically unscalable respondents," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 343-356, September.
    4. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    5. LAURA MORALES DIEZ de ULZURRUN, 2002. "Associational Membership and Social Capital in Comparative Perspective: a Note on the Problems of Measurement," Politics & Society, , vol. 30(3), pages 497-523, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. T. W. G. Meer & E. Ouattara, 2019. "Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: an IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2983-3002, November.

    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. Witkowski, Terrence H. & Reddy, Sabine, 2010. "Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 8-14.
    2. Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Alhusen, Harm, 2019. "On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 350, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics, revised 2019.
    3. Meyer, Andrew, 2016. "Is unemployment good for the environment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-30.
    4. Michael Luchs & Todd Mooradian, 2012. "Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 127-144, March.
    5. Junyi Shen & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2007. "The Socioeconomic Determinants of Individual Environmental Concern: Evidence from Shanghai Data," OSIPP Discussion Paper 07E003, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    6. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    7. Kalamas, Maria & Cleveland, Mark & Laroche, Michel, 2014. "Pro-environmental behaviors for thee but not for me: Green giants, green Gods, and external environmental locus of control," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 12-22.
    8. Angela Franz-Balsen, 2014. "Gender and (Un)Sustainability—Can Communication Solve a Conflict of Norms?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    12. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    13. Umaerus, Patrik & Högvall Nordin, Maria & Lidestav, Gun, 2019. "Do female forest owners think and act “greener”?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 52-58.
    14. Huan Wang, 2022. "Knowledge or Responsibility? The Role of Media Use on Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Environment Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    16. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    17. Simplice A. Asongu & Raufhon Salahodjaev, 2022. "Do female parliamentarians improve environmental quality? Cross-country evidence," Working Papers of The Association for Promoting Women in Research and Development in Africa (ASPROWORDA). 22/001, The Association for Promoting Women in Research and Development in Africa (ASPROWORDA).
    18. Yong Li & Bairong Wang & Orachorn Saechang, 2022. "Is Female a More Pro-Environmental Gender? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-11, June.
    19. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Kimberly Turner, 2023. "A win or a flop? Measuring mass protest successfulness in authoritarian settings," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(1), pages 107-123, January.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:2:p:823-847. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.