1999 - A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support For Social Movements

Research in Human Ecology
A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social

Movements: The Case of Environmentalism
Paul C. Stern
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 02418
USA
Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory A. Guagnano and Linda Kalof1

Department of Sociology & Anthropology
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
USA
Abstract for the environmental movement that is congruent with both

research on environmentalism and with the theoretical
We present a theory of the basis of support for a social approaches being used in the social movements literature.
movement. Three types of support (citizenship actions, poli- We identify three dimensions of support and examine the
cy support and acceptance, and personal-sphere behaviors determinants of each using data from a survey of the U.S.
that accord with movement principles) are empirically dis- public. Our analysis suggests that support for the environ-
tinct from each other and from committed activism. Drawing mental movement can be explained by a social psychological
on theoretical work on values and norm-activation processes, theory that is congruent with existing social movement theo-
we propose a value-belief-norm (VBN) theory of movement ry, while other contending theories of environmentalism have
support. Individuals who accept a movement’s basic values, less explanatory power.
believe that valued objects are threatened, and believe that
their actions can help restore those values experience an Movement Activism and Movement Support
obligation (personal norm) for pro-movement action that cre-
ates a predisposition to provide support; the particular type Social movements depend upon highly committed and
of support that results is dependent on the individual’s capa- engaged activists, but support by others is also important.
bilities and constraints. Data from a national survey of 420 Supporters are potential recruits, as several researchers have
respondents suggest that the VBN theory, when compared noted (e.g., Hunt et al. 1994; Klandermans and Oegema
with other prevalent theories, offers the best available 1987). Public support also provides movement organizations
account of support for the environmental movement. with a resource that can be mobilized in political struggle.
Friedman and McAdam (1992, 168) note that “in many cases
Keywords: values, beliefs, norms, environmentalism, it will suffice that those with power merely believe that there
social movements is a large constituency for a given course of action.” Indeed
our previous work shows that general public support may be
Public support is one of the most important resources one of the most important resources for the environmental
social movements mobilize in their efforts to overcome cul- movement, and one that is critical in struggles to define social
tural inertia and the interests of powerful actors. Indeed, as problems (Dietz et al. 1989). For some movements, public
the debate about the “new social movements” has empha- support in the form of widespread change in individual
sized, changes in attitudes and behavior on the part of the behavior among non-activists is also necessary to achieve
public can be a central goal of a movement. But while a num- movement goals (Johnston et al. 1994).
ber of social movement scholars have acknowledged the One goal of this article is to link the extensive literature
importance of public support, there has been little theory on the social psychology of environmentalism with scholar-
developed to explain public support, and less empirical ship on social movements. Because rather different language
research. In this paper, we offer a theory of public support has emerged in the two fields, it is helpful to begin by clari-
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 81

© Society for Human Ecology
Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof
fying the terms we use in referring to the environmental extensive involvement in social movement organizations
movement. (McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1988). Committed activism
The U.S. environmental movement includes several dis- is essential, of course, for movement organizations to func-
tinct discourses (Brulle 1995) and many different organization and for movements to move forward in the face of iner-
tions. Despite this variety, all environmental movement dis- tia and active resistance. But other, less intense, kinds of sup-
courses have common elements in their beliefs and values: port also are critical to a movement’s success. One is low-
human action has the potential for adversely affecting the commitment active citizenship — political activities that are
biophysical environment, changes in the biophysical environ- less public or present less risk than engaged activism. These
ment can harm things people care about, and steps should be include writing letters to political officials, joining and con-
taken to avoid at least some harmful actions. The discourses tributing funds to movement organizations, and reading
and the organizations that promote them differ in how they movement literature. A second is support and acceptance of
define harm, in their understandings of why humans act to public policies that may require material sacrifice in order to
harm the environment, and in the remedies they propose for achieve the movement’s goals. Movements often press for
the problem. But it is still meaningful to speak of them as social changes that require such sacrifices. For example,
part of a single movement. The term movement, in this environmental policies often require individuals to pay high-
usage, is rather like the term “social movement industry” as er prices or higher taxes or to submit to regulation of their
used by Zald (1992). behavior (e.g., mandatory recycling, bans on lawn watering
We define movement activists as those who are commit- during droughts). Movements’ struggles are made easier if
ted to public actions intended to influence the behavior of the many people, not only activists, voluntarily make such sacri-
policy system and of the broader population.2 Committed fices and support public policies that impose them on all. A
activists are the core of a movement and have been the sub- third important kind of support involves changes in behavior
ject of much recent work in the social movements literature. in the personal or private sphere. For the environmental
For them the movement becomes an important part of their movement’s goals, consumer behaviors such as reductions in
life and a central element in their identity. We define move- energy use and purchases of environmentally benign products
ment supporters as those who are sympathetic to the move- can make a considerable contribution if they are sufficiently
ment and who are willing to take some action and bear some widespread. They also serve as a signal to government and
costs in order to support the movement. Of course the bound- industry regarding citizen concerns and consumer prefer-
ary between supporters and activists is fuzzy, and as Snow et ences.
al. (1986) have noted, people often move back and forth, All three non-activist types of public support are impor-
being activists for a time then retreating to a less committed tant to many movements. For example, support for minority
but still supportive role. As noted above, it is from the sup- rights movements can be measured not only in terms of com-
porters that new activists are drawn (Hunt et al. 1994; mitted activism that puts bodies on the line, but also in terms
Klandermans and Oegema 1987). of the willingness of majority group members to accept poli-
Our conceptualization of the environmental movement, cies that may require them to make sacrifices (e.g., paying
and by analogy other movements, includes not only activists increased taxes or accepting affirmative action programs to
but supporters. Further, we emphasize that the movement is improve conditions for minorities), to change personal
embedded in a broader society. It is engaged in struggles in behavior (e.g., engaging in more positive interactions with
a policy system that includes not only elements of the state minority group members), and to take low-commitment polit-
but also opponents. Here our conceptualization of the move- ical actions in their citizen roles (e.g., voting, signing peti-
ment parallels that of McLaughlin and Khowaja (1999): the tions). Support for religious fundamentalists’ opposition to
movement and movement organizations are engaged in a sexually explicit material in the mass media can be measured
struggle with their opponents (and sometimes with other ele- not only by committed political actions, but also by willing-
ments of the movement) to shape the ideological landscape ness of individuals to sacrifice elements of personal choice
and societal practices. McLaughlin and Khowaja provide a by accepting restricted public access to objectionable books,
macro-historical account of this process, while we focus on films, and recorded music; by personal behaviors, such as
the social psychology of public support.3 keeping their children from exposure to these materials; and
by ordinary political participation.
What is Movement Support? In summary, all three types of non-activist public sup-
Although support can take many forms, researchers on port can be essential for movement success. However, we
social movements typically focus on committed public lack a theory of how individuals come to support movements
activism, such as participation in demonstrations, and active, short of committed activism — how they become part of what
82 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Klandermans and Oegema (1987) call the “moblization personal norms based on other kinds of values. For example,
potential” of a movement. Here we offer the first steps some conservative social movements, which see traditional
toward such a theory. values of duty, family loyalty, and the like as essential for
providing public goods such as social order, refer to these
Towards a Theory of Movement Support values in attempting to activate feelings of personal obliga-
Social movements seek to provide collective goods. In tion to support movement objectives.
some cases the good is distributed to a small and easily iden- In the case of committed activism, such processes of
tifiable group, which may minimize the problem of free rid- generating support have been extensively examined in the lit-
ers. But in the case of movements such as the environmental erature on framing (Snow et al. 1986; Friedman and McAdam
movement, the collective good is often provided at a region- 1992; Snow and Benford 1992). To understand the shaping
al, national or even global scale. This suggests that although of more general movement support, we apply a version of
some individuals may expect enough personal gain to justify Schwartz’s (1972, 1977) moral norm-activation theory (Stern
provision of the collective good on egoistic grounds, most are et al. 1993). We propose that norm-based actions flow from
also motivated by a broader, altruistic concern — a willing- three factors: acceptance of particular personal values, beliefs
ness to take action even in the face of the free rider problem. that things important to those values are under threat, and
We propose that the base for general movement support beliefs that actions initiated by the individual can help allevi-
lies in a conjunction of values, beliefs, and personal norms — ate the threat and restore the values. Each of these three
feelings of personal obligation that are linked to one’s self- terms involves a generalization of Schwartz’s theory. The
expectations (Schwartz 1977) — that impel individuals to act original theory presumes altruistic values; the generalization
in ways that support movement goals. Personal norms and posits that personal norms may have roots in other values as
altruistic values are important because social movements, well and that levels of altruism and other relevant values may
unlike pure interest groups, are organized around normative vary across individuals. The original theory emphasizes
claims on individuals and social organizations to act on the awareness of adverse consequences (AC) of events for other
movement’s principles for reasons other than self-interest. people (the main objects valued by altruists); the generalized
The labor movement, for example, is more than an interest theory emphasizes threats to whatever objects are the focus of
group to the extent that it appeals to normatively laden prin- the values that underlie the norm. In the case of environ-
ciples and altruistic values such as class solidarity and to mentalism, threats to the nonhuman species and the bios-
other principles that even nonworkers can support, such as phere may be important (Stern et al. 1993; Stern and Dietz
social justice, workplace democracy, or the right to bargain 1994). Finally, in Schwartz’s theory, norm activation
collectively. Such principles sometimes impel supporters to depends on ascription of responsibility (AR) to self for the
sacrifice personal benefits for the good of the movement. undesirable consequences to others, that is, the belief or
Personal norms rather than social norms are central because denial that one’s own actions have contributed to or could
to the extent that movements are forces for social change, alleviate those consequences. The generalized theory empha-
they cannot build support on existing social norms.4 Personal sizes beliefs about responsibility for causing or ability to alle-
norms that reflect a movement’s principles lead to support of viate threats to any valued objects.5
the movement’s goals through political participation in the In expanding the range of valued objects to be given the-
citizen role, with personal-sphere behaviors, and by accept- oretical consideration, we adopt the topology of values devel-
ing policies that may call for material sacrifices. Behavioral oped by S. H. Schwartz (1992, 1994), which maps all human
differences across these types of movement support are values onto a psychological space that can be divided into ten
likely to be due to capabilities and constraints specific to par- value types and four broader value clusters or orientations,
ticular actions and particular individuals. Capabilities and arrayed in particular relationships to each other. Many social
constraints determine the efficacy, real and perceived, of an movements build their normative claims on altruistic value
individual’s taking particular actions. types such as that labeled by Schwartz as universalism. The
We propose that movement success depends on move- environmental movement is an example (e.g., Stern and Dietz
ment activists and organizations building support by activat- 1994; Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano 1995), as are move-
ing or reshaping personal norms to create feelings of obliga- ments for civil rights, human rights, and social justice. Other
tion. Many social movements, including the environmental movements, however, are built on other values. Religious
movement, are aimed at producing public goods that are fundamentalist movements rest on conservative value types
advocated by reference to altruistic values. Such movements such as those labeled tradition, conformity, and security
work to activate personal norms tied to those values. It is also (Schwartz and Huismans 1995; Schwartz 1996). Libertarian
possible, however, for a social movement to try to activate and human-potential movements may be based on individual-

istic or openness-to-change value types such as stimulation, action (AR) and activation of a personal norm for action (PN)
hedonism, or achievement. Movements based on altruistic parallel the account of Hunt et al. (1994), which distinguish-
and conservative values tend to emphasize the importance of es diagnostic (AC), prognostic (AR) and motivational (PN)
collective goods, while movements based on egoistic and steps in the framing process in which movement activists
openness-to-change values tend to emphasize the importance construct their identities. In a similar vein, M. Schwartz and
of private benefits. Shuva (1992, 214-215) suggest that free rider problems can
It is possible to investigate any social movement’s ideol- be overcome when “1. There is an abiding sense of group
ogy to reveal the values and beliefs that underlie its policy fate. 2. There is a belief in the viability of group action as a
positions. We propose that each social movement seeking a strategy. 3. Individuals cannot distinguish themselves from
collective good develops its positions based on certain basic other group members in terms of their capacity to contribute.
human values and that each movement’s ideology contains 4. Personal ties among group members are sufficiently dense
specific beliefs about consequences and responsibilities that, to activate group obligations in the face of free-rider impuls-
in conjunction with its chosen values, activate personal es.” Their theory references individuals’ perceptions of the
norms that obligate individuals to support the movement’s group. Their first condition involves a perception of conse-
goals. quences (AC), their second implies a belief that action can
While our approach draws on the social psychological alleviate the consequences (AR), and their fourth mentions
theory of altruism, it is quite congruent with recent work on the activation of a norm about action.
social movements. The role of values in social movements We are not arguing that the theory we propose is identi-
has been emphasized by Johnston et al. (1994), Gamson cal to any of those offered in the literature on movement
(1992), and Pichado (1997). In their analysis of the environ- activists. Nor should it be. The step towards intense activism
mental movement, Cotgrove (1982) suggests that personal involves a substantial and transformational commitment,
values may be of paramount importance in determining who including a reframing of key elements of identity, as the lit-
is an environmentalist and who is not. Snow et al. (1986), in erature over the last decade has demonstrated. However, the
their discussion of value amplification, argue that an intense processes that lead someone to take small steps in support of
focus on values already held by prospective constituents is a movement should be logically congruent with the process
one of the key steps toward committed movement activism. that leads to activism, and it appears that our value-belief-
Further, our concepts of awareness of consequences of a norm theory has such congruence with key arguments in the
problem (AC), ascription of responsibility to oneself for existing literature on activism.
Altruistic Environmental
Values Activism
▲
▲
Egoistic Ascription of
Environmental
Values New Responsibility
Citizenship
▲ ▲
Ecological ▲
▲
Paradigm
Proenvironmental
Traditional
Personal Norm Policy
▲
Values
Awareness of Support
Consequences
▲
Openness
to Change Private-Sphere
Values Behaviors
Figure 1. Schematic model of variables in the Value-Belief-Norm theory as applied to environmentalism, showing direct causal relationships between
pairs of variables at adjacent causal levels.a
aEffects of egoistic and traditional values on other variables are negative. Variables in this model may also have direct effects (not shown) on variables more than one level
downstream. In addition, each of the variables in the model may be affected by variables not shown, which are not elements of the VBN theory. However, only personal

Explaining Support for Environmentalism sphere. These three bases for environmental concern are log-
ically distinct and are noted in environmental philosophy and
This paper examines the usefulness of a value-belief- the environmental movement literature (e.g., Merchant
norm (VBN) theory of movement support using the case of 1992), but the distinction between altruism towards humans
the environmental movement. There is a huge volume of lit- and altruism towards other species and the biosphere has not
erature on public support for the environmental movement yet been demonstrated empirically in samples of the U.S.
spanning 25 years. Unfortunately, the criticism offered by general public. The distinction may be important, however,
Heberlein (1981) nearly two decades ago still stands — most in more strongly environmentalist populations such as U.S.
work on public environmental attitudes and behavior does not students (Karp 1996; Stern, Dietz and Kalof 1993) or the gen-
build into a cumulative understanding because too little atten- eral public in some other countries.
tion has been given to systematic theory and the comparative In this study, we examine two value bases for environ-
testing of alternative theoretical models. There are at least mental concern — altruism and self-interest — that corre-
six theoretical accounts of environmentalism that have been spond with the Self-Transcendent and Self-Enhancement
subject to conceptual and empirical exploration — but not to value clusters defined by Schwartz. We also examine the
comparative tests. Our theory links three of these: norm- other two major value types Schwartz has identified —
activation theory, the theory of personal values, and the New Conservation (traditional) values and Openness to Change —
Ecological Paradigm hypothesis (see Figure 1). This study for evidence of effects on environmentalism such as have
tests the explanatory value of our theory against each of its been reported elsewhere (Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano
three elements alone and against three other theories. 1995).
New Ecological Paradigm. Dunlap and his colleagues
The Value-Belief-Norm Theory of have proposed that the rise of the environmental movement is
Environmentalism linked to growing acceptance of a new ecological paradigm
or worldview (NEP) — a view that human actions have sub-
Moral Norm Activation. S. H. Schwartz’s (1972, 1977) stantial adverse effects on a fragile biosphere. The NEP scale
norm-activation theory of altruism has been applied to proen- developed by this group (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, 1984;
vironmental behavior with some success. The theory holds Dunlap et al. 1992) is perhaps the most widely used social-
that proenvironmental actions occur in response to personal psychological measure in the literature on environmentalism.
moral norms about such actions and that these are activated The NEP scale primarily measures broad beliefs about the
in individuals who believe that environmental conditions biosphere and the effects of human action on it — a sort of
pose threats to other people, other species, or the biosphere “folk” ecological theory from which beliefs about the adverse
(awareness of consequences, or AC) and that actions they ini- consequences (AC) of ecological change can easily be
tiate could avert those consequences (ascription of responsi- deduced (Stern, Dietz and Guagnano 1995). In a sense, NEP
bility to self, or AR). Supportive evidence comes from stud- measures awareness of very general adverse consequences of
ies focused on a variety of proenvironmental actions (Black environmental conditions, whereas most studies using the
1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 1978; Black, Stern and Elworth Schwartz norm-activation model use measures of problem-
1985; Stern, Dietz and Black 1986; Stern, Dietz and Kalof specific consequences. The NEP is a worldview that predis-
1993; Guagnano, Dietz and Stern 1994; Guagnano 1995; poses an individual to accept more narrowly focused AC
Guagnano, Stern and Dietz 1995; Stern, Dietz, Kalof and beliefs.
Guagnano 1995; Widegren 1998). Our theory links these three accounts through a causal
Personal Values. Following the reasoning already chain of five variables: values (especially altruistic values),
described that links proenvironmental behavior to particular NEP, AC beliefs, AR beliefs (not measured in this study), and
basic types of values, researchers have drawn on the value personal norms for proenvironmental action. The rationale
measures developed in cross-national research by Schwartz and empirical support for this causal ordering are presented
and colleagues (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Schwartz 1992, in a series of previous works (Black, Stern and Elworth 1985;
1994), using them or modifications of them for environmen- Stern and Oskamp 1987; Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano
tal research (Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano 1995; Stern, 1995; Gardner and Stern 1996, Chapter 7). The causal chain
Dietz and Guagnano 1998; Karp 1996). In the initial formu- moves from relatively stable, central elements of personality
lation of this approach, Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) and belief structure to more focused beliefs about human-
posited three “value orientations” or types of values relevant environment relations, the threats they pose to valued objects,
to environmentalism: self-interest, altruism towards other and the responsibility for action, finally activating a sense of
humans, and altruism towards other species and the bio- moral obligation that creates a predisposition to act in sup-

port of movement goals. We postulate that each variable in Mertig 1997; Kidd and Lee 1997; Lee and Kidd 1997; Pierce
the chain directly affects the next; each may also directly 1997; Dietz, Stern and Guagnano 1998).6
affect variables farther down the chain. We hypothesize that We also examined the idea that a spiritual or religious
personal norms directly affect all three manifestations of sup- world view may have an important influence on environmen-
port for the environmental movement and that all the other talism (White 1967; Greeley 1993; Kempton, Boster and
variables in the theory may have indirect effects through Hartley 1995; Eckberg and Blocker 1996; Dietz, Stern and
norms, as well as in some cases direct effects net of norms. Guagnano 1998). We focused on the view that people who
Other variables from VBN theory and perhaps other social- hold nature sacred, whether because it was created by God or
psychological variables may directly affect particular types because it is sacred in itself, are more active in supporting
of movement support, but we do not expect any of these vari- environmental protection. Religious or spiritual beliefs may
ables to have direct effects on all types. We further expect be especially important because they offer an absolute stan-
that each type of movement support will be affected by indi- dard that supersedes appeals to efficiency, practicality and
viduals’ capabilities to take the actions required to provide expedience.
the particular type of support and by external, contextual con- This study examines the predictive value of VBN theory
ditions that facilitate or constrain those actions (Guagnano, and compares it with six models found in the published liter-
Stern and Dietz 1995; Gardner and Stern 1996). Thus, par- ature. Although there have been tests of the explanatory
ticular types of movement support flow from a dispositional power of each model separately and a few studies have used
element based in personal values and normative beliefs but two of them as predictors of behavior (e.g., Tarrant and
are further shaped by other influences — notably, capabilities Cordell 1997; Widegren 1998), there has been no effort until
and constraints — that transform the disposition into particu- now to compare all of them in any systematic way.
lar kinds of action. Our focus here is on three types of non-
activist movement support; other theories postulate specific Method
processes such as identity transformation that lead to com-
mitted activist participation. Data Collection and Analytic Strategy
In June 1994, we collected data from 420 respondents
Other Social-Psychological Theories of Environmentalism throughout the United States using computer-assisted tele-
We tested the VBN theory against three other theories in phone interviewing. Phone numbers were generated using a
the literature. One, derived from so-called cultural theory random digit procedure; random respondent selection within
(Douglas and Wildavsky 1982), posits that the bases of con- the household was accomplished using the “next birthday”
temporary environmentalism lie in deep-rooted orienting dis- method (Salmon and Nichols 1983). The overall response
positions or “cultural biases” that make some individuals rate was 87.7% based on the number of households where we
especially fearful of environmental threats to human health were able to contact a next birthday respondent. The sample
and safety. Dake (1991, 1992), following Douglas and was 56% female and had a mean age of 44.2 years, a mean
Wildavsky, has developed scales that measure four orienting educational level of 14.4 years, and a median family income
dispositions: egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism and of $36,700.
fatalism. The theory suggests that egalitarians will be most To develop scales, we followed Armor’s (1974) method
concerned with the environment and individualists least con- with some modifications. Candidate items were included in
cerned. There is some supporting evidence for this view a principal components analysis (PCA). The PCA was boot-
(Dake 1991; Peters and Slovic 1995). strapped with 500 replications to construct bias-corrected
The theory of post-materialist values (Inglehart 1977, confidence intervals for the eigenvalues (Hall 1988; Hamilton
1990, 1997) holds that a new set of “post-materialist” social 1992, 319-325). These confidence intervals were used to
and political values and attitudes is emerging in the industri- determine the number of factors. To identify items loading
al world as a result of increasing affluence and security. on a particular factor (i.e., the items tapping a latent variable)
These values emphasize quality of life and self-expression as we used an iterated principal factors analysis, constrained to
important desiderata in a society, in contrast to materialist the number of factors indicated by the bootstrapping, fol-
values that have emphasized economic well-being and per- lowed by a promax rotation. All items loading above 0.4 in
sonal and national security. Inglehart sees emerging environ- absolute value on a factor were considered as part of the fac-
mental concern as one result of increasing post-materialism tor and included in scales constructed from that factor.
(Inglehart 1995). A number of studies have examined this Scales were constructed by adding together all non-missing
hypothesis, with mixed results (Abramson 1997; Brechin and responses and dividing by the number of valid responses.
Kempton 1994; Brechin and Kempton 1997; Dunlap and This produces a scale with the same range as the original

variables (either 1-4 or 0-1) and allows creation of a scale four factors (see Appendix), consisting of all items loading at
even when some items comprising the scale are missing. (We least 0.40 on the factors for Self-Transcendent values (altru-
also constructed weighted scales using Armor’s theta proce- ism) (alpha = 0.86), Traditional values (alpha = 0.80), Self-
dure and used regression-based imputation methods for Enhancement (alpha = 0.69), and Openness to Change (alpha
replacing missing data. These produce results nearly identi- = 0.62). As in our previous analysis of data from a general-
cal to the simpler procedure described, so are not reported public sample in the USA (Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano
here.) 1995), this analysis does not reveal an empirical distinction
Models were estimated with ordinary least squares between altruism towards humans and altruism towards other
(OLS) regression. Several issues must be considered in inter- species. Items related to concern with the biophysical envi-
preting results. OLS assumes no measurement error in the ronment load on the same factor as items related to more
independent variables. We have also experimented with humanistic concerns.
errors-in-variables regression that takes account of the relia- New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). The NEP is measured
bility of the independent variables. However, because the using five items from Dunlap’s longer scale (Dunlap et al.
scales developed using the Dake cultural theory items have 1992). The unidimensionality of the scale was verified using
low reliability in our sample, we cannot include them in an Armor’s method. The additive scale has an alpha reliability
errors-in-variables estimation. We therefore have chosen to of 0.73. Items are listed in the Appendix.
report OLS results that include the Dake items. Estimates Cultural Theory. We included two items each from
using the errors-in-variables procedure of models not includ- Dake’s egalitarian, individualist, hierarchist and fatalist cul-
ing the Dake scales produce results very similar to those tural bias scales. A factor analysis of these eight items con-
reported here. Our estimates assume the causal ordering strained to four factors, as called for by the theory, produces
described above. If these assumptions are incorrect, then factors representing the hierarchy, egalitarianism and individ-
OLS will produce biased estimates of causal effect that are ualism dimensions. Although only one item from the fatal-
still valid measures of association. Finally, collinearity is not ism scale, “Co-operation with others rarely works,” loaded
a serious problem in the estimates we report. The largest above 0.4 on a factor, we used both items in creating the
variance inflation factor in any model is 2.5 for personal fatalism scale as Dake’s work suggests is appropriate. Scale
norms in the model including both VBN variables and those items are reported in the Appendix. The alpha reliabilities for
suggested by other theories. the scales are: hierarchy, 0.41; egalitarianism, 0.56; individu-
alism, 0.67; fatalism, 0.36. The use of this minimal subset of
The Measures Dake’s items has probably lowered reliability and may reduce
Variables from Moral Norm Activation Theory. We mea- the ability of our measures of cultural-theory variables to pre-
sured two variables from Schwartz’s norm-activation theory: dict environmentalism.
personal norms and awareness of consequences (AC). The Post-materialism. Post-materialism was measured using
survey included nine items on normative belief . . . three tap- two questions asking about priorities for the country. The
ping beliefs about personal moral obligations and, following first is: “The following is a list of four items that some peo-
a past extension of the theory (Stern, Dietz and Black 1986), ple consider important priorities for the United States. Please
three on the obligations of government and three on the oblig- tell me which of the four you consider the highest priority.
ations of business. Beliefs about the moral obligations of The four items are maintaining order in the nation, giving
such collective actors may be important determinants of per- people more say in government decisions, fighting rising
sonal choice to support social movements through which one prices or protecting freedom of speech.” The second question
may influence those actors. Factor analysis determined that asks about the second priority for the nation. The second and
the nine items loaded on a single factor that accounted for 52 fourth items in the list are considered post-materialist values,
percent of the variance. An additive scale of the 9 items (see the first and third materialist. The post-materialism variable
Appendix) has an alpha reliability of 0.88.7 Nine items was scored 0 if the respondent selected neither post-material-
designed to measure AC (see Appendix) formed a single fac- ist items as a priority, scored 1 if a materialist item was the
tor accounting for 60 percent of the variance; the additive first priority but a post-materialist item as the second, scored
scale has an alpha of 0.91. 2 if a post-materialist item was first priority but a materialist
Personal Values. We included twenty-six items from the the second priority and scored 3 if post-materialist items were
Schwartz value scales as we have modified them to tap envi- selected as both first and second priorities.
ronmental values (Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano 1995). Sacredness of Nature. The sacredness of nature measure
Our analysis of these items indicated a four-factor solution is a single item: “Which of the following is closest to your
was appropriate. We created an additive scale for each of the views? Nature is sacred because it is created by God. Nature

is spiritual or sacred in itself. Nature is important but not in listed in Appendix A. Although the three scales show mod-
a spiritual or sacred way.” We have created binary variables erate intercorrelations of between 0.33 and 0.39, the statisti-
for respondents who selected the first or the second response, cal separation of three highly coherent factors suggests that
leaving the third response as the left-out category. non-activist support for the environmental movement can
Indicators of Environmentalism. The survey included 17 indeed be considered as a three-dimensional construct.9
items reflecting self-reported behaviors and behavioral inten- The one item in our survey that taps a more committed
tions. The items were developed to tap environmentally rel- and higher risk form of activism, participation in demonstra-
evant private-sector behavior, environmental citizenship, and tions and protests, is rare in self-reports with only 7% of
policy support, the three types of non-activist movement sup- respondents reporting having done so in the last 12 months.
port described above. We subjected these items to factor It does not load on a factor with other items. Its correlation
analysis to develop reliable measures of environmentalism. with the willingness to sacrifice scale is 0.06, with consumer
These results are reported below. behavior is 0.12 and with environmental citizenship is 0.26.
Because participation in protests provides an interesting con-
Results trast with less committed more general movement support,
we include it as a separate dependent variable below.10
Dimensions of Environmentalism
Factor analysis of the 17 behavioral items suggested Explaining Environmentalism with the Value-Belief-
three factors, corresponding to the three components of envi- Norm Theory
ronmentalism we postulated. One consists of four self- We tested the VBN theory with a series of regression
reported consumer behaviors (alpha = 0.72), a subset of pri- models. First, we regressed the measures of the consumer
vate-sphere movement support.8 A second is composed of behavior, willingness to sacrifice, and environmental citizen-
three willingness-to-sacrifice items that indicate one form of ship, as well as the indicator of participation in demonstra-
policy support (alpha = 0.78). The third is composed of tions against the set of predictors in the theory (four values,
seven items asking about non-activist environmental citizen- NEP, AC, and personal norms). Then, we regressed each of
ship actions taken in the last twelve months and one item ask- the links in the postulated causal chain against the variables
ing directly about the strength of the respondent’s support for postulated to be causally prior to it. These results are pre-
the environmental movement (alpha = 0.77). The items are sented in Table 1.
Table 1. Unstandardized regression coefficients for models using predictor variables from value-belief-norm theory.
Consumer Willingness Environmental Demonstrate Personal Awareness of New
Behavior to Sacrifice Citizenship Norm Consequences Ecological
Independent Variable Paradigm
Personal norm 0.476 0.413 0.105 -0.022 —- —- —-
(4.15) (4.78) (2.60) (-0.50) —- —- —-
AC 0.058 0.125 0.109 -0.018 0.262 —- —-
(0.67) (1.90) (3.55) (-0.54) (7.50) —- —-
NEP 0.058 0.221 0.068 0.038 0.336 0.515 —-
(0.61) (3.09) (2.03) (.104) (9.11) (11.33) —-
Altruism 0.169 0.082 0.046 0.057 0.076 0.257 0.414
(2.62) (1.66) (2.02) (2.23) (2.74) (7.02) (12.13)
Self-enhancement -0.041 0.024 -0.059 -0.000 -0.004 0.022 -0.061
(-1.01) (0.81) (-4.17) (-0.02) (-0.22) (0.93) (-2.35)
Traditional -0.094 -0.119 -0.105 -0.087 0.009 -0.108 -0.230
(-1.19) (-2.00) (-3.78) (-2.81) (0.27) (-2.28) (-4.62)
Openness to Change 0.028 0.026 0.030 0.037 0.019 0.030 -0.040
(0.60) (0.74) (1.76) (1.97) (0.92) (1.04) (-1.28)
Intercept 0.398 0.217 -0.149 0.100 0.850 1.074 2.379
(1.05) (0.75) (-1.11) (0.67) (5.40) (4.98) (11.79)
R-square 0.194 0.346 0.302 0.042 0.560 0.477 0.264
N 417 409 419 418 419 419 419
Note: t-values in parentheses.

The results of the regression analyses are strongly con- rect except in the case of environmental citizenship, where
sistent with the theory. Personal norms had strong associa- there were also multiple direct effects. However, personal
tions with the behavioral indicators of each type of non- norms do not have a direct effect on participation in a demon-
activist environmentalism (the bivariate correlations of per- stration, though altruistic, traditional and openness to change
sonal norm with consumer behavior, willingness to sacrifice, values do. This finding is consistent with our expectation
and environmental citizenship are 0.41, 0.55, and 0.43, that the VBN theory as operationalized in a survey will not be
respectively). In addition, norms were by far the strongest a strong predictor of intense activism, such as demonstrating,
predictor of consumer behavior and willingness to sacrifice and is also consistent with the social movements literature
in the multiple regressions. Overall the set of predictors from that has argued for the importance of values as a driver of
VBN theory together accounted for between 19 and 35 per- committed activism. It seems likely that factors not mea-
cent of the variance of the behavioral indicators. Personal sured in this survey, such as adoption of an environmentalist
norm was the only variable from the VBN theory that had a identity, are strongly implicated in activism. It remains an
direct effect on all three types of movement support, with the open question whether values affect activism directly, or indi-
contributions of the other VBN variables being mainly indirectly through the process of identity transformation.
Table 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients for models using predictor variables from six theories of environmental support.
Personal norm 0.534 0.412 0.155 -0.038
(4.46) (4.56) (3.86) (-0.81)
AC 0.042 0.103 0.090 -0.017 0.232
(0.48) (1.56) (3.05) (-0.49) (6.65)
NEP 0.073 0.186 0.073 0.030 0.30 0.469
(0.76) (2.58) (2.27) (0.80) (8.07) (9.78)
Altruism 0.145 0.052 0.042 0.038 0.059 0.241 0.288
(2.15) (1.02) (1.88) 1.40 (2.10) (6.31) (7.74)
Self-enhancement -0.005 0.035 -0.034 0.003 -0.026 0.012 -0.057
(-0.11) (1.10) (-2.40) (1.94) (-1.48) (0.48) (-2.18)
Traditional -0.095 -0.084 -0.074 -0.066 -0.007 -0.134 -0.138
(-1.12) (-1.30) (-2.57) (-1.94) (-0.20) (-2.63) (-2.63)
Openness to Change 0.031 0.036 0.025 0.034 0.024 0.038 -0.038
(0.65) (0.99) (1.53) (1.74) (1.18) (1.30) (-1.28)
Post-materialism 0.012 -0.014 0.007 0.012 0.007 0.010 0.017
(0.34) (-0.56) (0.63) (0.92) (0.47) (0.50) (0.80)
Nature made by God 0.217 0.032 0.010 0.038 0.019 0.055 -0.003
(2.63) (0.52) (0.35) (1.18) (0.55) (1.12) (-0.06)
Nature sacred 0.210 0.090 0.093 0.107 0.043 0.049 0.067
(2.23) (1.28) (2.93) (2.88) (1.08) (0.86) (1.14)
Hierarchicalist -0.006 -0.003 -0.013 -0.003 0.049 0.096 -0.019
(-0.10) (-0.06) (-0.65) (-0.14) (1.94) (2.66) (-0.51)
Egalitarian -0.111 0.042 -0.075 0.008 0.130 0.074 0.222
(-1.80) (0.91) (-3.62) (0.35) (5.22) (2.08) (6.28)
Individualist -0.122 -0.189 -0.079 -0.000 0.077 -0.034 -0.059
(-1.70) (-3.56) (-3.32) (-0.02) (2.62) (-0.80) (-1.34)
Fatalist -0.050 0.031 -0.067 0.020 -0.032 -0.076 0.000
(-0.76) (0.63) (-3.10) (0.79) (-1.18) (-1.97) (-0.01)
Intercept 0.844 0.645 0.175 0.020 0.579 1.169 2.059
(1.96) (1.99) (1.21) (0.81) (3.27) (4.72) (8.69)
R-square 0.227 0.379 0.393 0.068 0.598 0.498 0.349
N 411 404 413 412 413 413 413
Note: t-values in parentheses

The regressions treating personal normative beliefs, AC, less likely to be movement supporters in any way while fatal-
and NEP as dependent variables show that as the theory pre- ists and, strangely, egalitarians, are less likely to engage in
dicts, the variable hypothesized to be immediately antecedent environmental citizenship behaviors. As Table 3 shows, the
had a very strong direct effect on each dependent variable. In full model, including explanatory variables from all six theo-
addition, each of these dependent variables was directly retical accounts of environmentalism, increases explanatory
affected by altruistic values, as should be expected with these power (R2) only 3 percent beyond that achieved by VBN
beliefs because they are characteristic of an altruistic social theory for consumer behavior and willingness to sacrifice,
movement. The other value types were less consistently and by 9 percent for environmental citizenship.
related to the dependent variables. Assumptions about causal The data contain some support for our hypothesis that
direction must be built into analysis of non-experimental data variability across dimensions of support reflects special char-
such as these, and so we cannot make strong claims about acteristics of the dimensions and the capabilities and con-
support for the causal ordering posited by our theory. straints affecting individuals. This is most clearly seen with
However, the results are at least consistent with the causal environmental citizenship. This type of movement support is
order we suggest and with previous findings. distinct from others in at least two ways: it implies accep-
tance of a definition of environmental problems as social,
Comparing VBN Theory with Other Theories of requiring collective action and change by government, indus-
Environmentalism try, and other social institutions; and it is a more promising
Table 2 presents regression models that have been course of action for individuals who have the status, access,
expanded to include variables suggested by other theories of and human capital resources to be effective influence agents
environmental concern, and Table 3 compares the variance in large organizations or the political system. The evidence
explained by alternative models. shows that environmental citizenship is in fact differentially
As VBN theory predicts, personal norm is the only vari- a function of variables that reflect a social definition of envi-
able in the data set that consistently predicts all dimensions ronmental problems and of individuals’ access to resources
of non-activist support for the environmental movement — for social influence.
although the individualism scale of cultural theory has a Individuals’ resources for social influence are affected
significant effect on willingness to sacrifice and environmen- by their socioeconomic and social-structural positions. Our
tal citizenship and is nearly significant in the model of con- data set included information on each respondent’s age, edu-
sumer behavior. In each case, individualists are less likely cational attainment, household income, gender, and race,
than others to support the environmental movement. which we analyzed to examine consistency and variation
Participating in a demonstration again emerges as a distinct across the types of environmental movement support.
form of movement support. Unlike the three dimensions of Holding the social-psychological variables constant, these
general support that are our focus, demonstrating is not well demographic variables had no effect on consumer behavior
explained by any prevalent theory of environmentalism. (p(F) = 0.19) or policy support (p(F) = 0.19).11 However, the
VBN theory appears to be the best predictor of each demographic variables did have an effect on environmental
form of public support. Post-materialism is not related to any citizenship (p(F)<0.001). Blacks were less likely to offer this
form of support. Sacredness of nature has significant effects type of movement support than whites (t = -2.22) but higher
on consumer behavior (p(F) = 0.023) and environmental citi- income was associated with increased environmental citizen-
zenship (p(F) = 0.004) but not on willingness to sacrifice ship (t = 3.11), consistent with our hypothesis about
(p(F) = 0.425). The variables representing Dake’s approach resources for social influence. And once again participating
to cultural theory show mixed results — individualists are in a demonstration emerges as a different mode of action —
Table 3. Comparison of variance explained by VBN theory, other theories and the full model
Norm activation theory 0.176 0.316 0.223 0.006
Other theories alone 0.094 0.199 0.187 0.048 0.304 0.223 0.250
VBN theory alone 0.194 0.346 0.302 0.042 0.560 0.477 0.264
Full Model 0.227 0.379 0.393 0.068 0.598 0.498 0.349
Full minus VBN 0.033 0.033 0.091 0.026 0.038 0.021 0.085
Full minus other theories 0.133 0.180 0.206 0.020 0.294 0.275 0.099

it is negatively related to household income (t = -2.53) and to citizenship types of movement support. People who believe
age (t = -2.93). nature is sacred, whether for theistic reasons or not, are more
likely to engage in proenvironmental consumer behavior;
Discussion environmental citizenship behaviors, however, depend only
on the belief that nature is sacred in itself. This finding sug-
Our findings can be summarized as follows: gests that different aspects of religious belief affect different
1. Non-activist support for the environmental movement types of environmentalism (similar results were reported by
can be usefully divided into three dimensions: consumer Dietz, Stern and Guagnano 1998, from the larger national
behavior, environmental citizenship, and policy support or sample of the 1993 General Social Survey).
acceptance. Seventeen behavioral measures collapsed into 5. The study provides evidence that factors in the social
three factors that closely corresponded to these dimensions. context affect the ways environmentalism finds behavioral
Each type of support is associated with a distinct cluster of expression. In particular, environmental citizenship behavior,
predictive variables, suggesting that support as a disposition- but not other forms of non-activist environmentalism, is
al variable is insufficient to explain particular kinds of sup- affected by broad beliefs about how society should be orga-
port. nized and by social-structural variables that reflect an indi-
2. Personal proenvironmental norms — the belief that vidual’s access to resources to act as a social change agent
the individual and other social actors have an obligation to (i.e., income and race). Further work is needed to understand
alleviate environmental problems—are the only social-psy- how specific opportunities and constraints act, and also how
chological element common to all three types of non-activist life histories embedded in gender, race/ethnicity, and com-
environmentalism. This finding is consistent with the inter- munity may shape values and beliefs (Kalof et al. 1999).
pretation that personal norms create a general predisposition 6. The kind of committed activism studied by most social
to support movement goals. movement researchers is distinct from the kinds of non-
3. A value-belief-norm theory that postulates causal activist support we examine. Our theory is consistent with
links among variables from three of the six theories in the the ideas of frame alignment and identity transformation in
published literature offers the best available theoretical the social movement literature, but those experiences may
account of all three types of non-activist environmentalism. depend on variables (e.g., identity) not measured in our sur-
The VBN theory builds on the strong associations of person- vey.
al norms with all these forms of environmentalism by adding The present data suggest that the VBN theory provides
an account of the social-psychological determination of the best available social-psychological account of non-
acceptance of those norms. The VBN theory accounts for 19 activist support for the goals of the environmental movement.
percent of the variance in consumer behavior, 35 percent of In addition to providing a very strong empirical accounting
the variance in willingness to sacrifice, 30 percent of the vari- for all three types of support, VBN theory is consistent with
ance in environmental citizenship, 56 percent of the variance much social-psychological theory and data about the struc-
in personal norms, 48 percent of the variance in AC, and 26 ture of values, beliefs, and attitudes.
percent of the variance in NEP. Adding variables from the An important conclusion from the present study is that
other social-psychological theories of environmentalism research has progressed beyond the point where it makes
increases the variance explained by relatively small amounts. sense to talk about the relationships of “environmental atti-
The VBN theory as operationalized in this study is not a tudes” and “proenvironmental behavior” in general terms.
strong predictor of self-reported participation in demonstra- Knowledge about environmentalism will accumulate more
tions, accounting for only 4 percent of the variance. easily if future research is explicit about which types of envi-
4. Other social-psychological theories may still provide ronmentalist behavior are being investigated and which
useful insights into specific types of non-activist environmen- social-psychological antecedents (sometimes loosely lumped
talism, particularly environmental citizenship. For instance, together as “attitudes”) are being put forward as explanatory
variables from cultural theory increase the ability to predict constructs. Research on support for other social movements
environmental citizenship by 7 percent. We presume that the may similarly benefit by distinguishing clearly among com-
added predictive value reflects the fact that cultural-theory mitted movement activism, non-activist citizenship behav-
variables reflect beliefs about how society should be ordered, iors, private-sphere behavior, and policy support. As with
and are thus more likely to affect public-sphere behavior than environmentalism, different social-psychological variables
behavior in the private sphere. In addition, beliefs in the may be associated with each type of support.
sacredness of nature add small but statistically significant VBN theory has heuristic value for future studies of
amounts of predictive value for the consumer behavior and environmentalism and other social movements. It offers a

classification of types of movement support and proposes on the issues being contested. The environmental policy system in
both a detailed theory of non-activist support for social move- the United States includes movement organizations, government
ments and a plausible and empirically supported conceptual agencies, Congress, law and consulting firms, corporations and trade
framework for analyzing the determinants of particular types associations, and scholars working at think tanks and universities.
Our approach applies to social movements that engage in struggles
of support, such as citizenship behavior.
over policy. It may be less applicable to movements that do not
The theory of non-activist movement support posits that attempt to achieve policy changes, such as spiritual or self-help
social movements are rooted in particular human values and movements, except as they might occasionally engage with the state.
implies that in mobilizing support, movement activists and We also do not consider revolutionary movements that opt out of par-
organizations will highlight those values, threats to them ticipation in the policy system in order to pull it down and substitute
(AC), and the ability of their targets to alleviate those threats an alternative system.
by appropriate action (AR). This sort of mobilization strate- 3. We differ with those who suggest that the environmental movement,
gy is apparent from cursory examination of fund-raising as a new social movement, is primarily about identity. The identity
mailings by movement organizations, but it has not to our processes so well described in the literature on new social move-
knowledge been subjected to systematic study. The mobi- ments are certainly important in the development of movement
lization strategies of different movements should be distin- activists. Indeed, some research indicates little mobility between
environmental groups and other parts of the policy system (Dietz and
guishable by the values they emphasize and the things they
Rycroft 1987), suggesting that environmental movement activists do
define as threatening those values. Individuals’ susceptibili- maintain an identity distinct from that of general environmental pro-
ty to mobilization will depend in part on their basic value pri- fessionals. But nearly every strain of the environmental movement
orities and their willingness to believe in the claimed threats. actively engages with the policy system and is not content to confine
The theory also posits that different kinds of support can be itself to the politics of identity. We also differ with those who have
elicited from movement supporters according to the beliefs characterized the environmental movement as a consensus movement
they hold and the capabilities and constraints affecting them. (McCarthy and Wolfson 1992; Schwartz and Shuba 1992). Although
The finding that social-structural position affects citizenship environmentalism enjoys broad public support, it also faces strong
behavior but not other forms of non-activist movement sup- and well-organized opposition. Even in communities affected by
port is worth examination in the context of other social move- toxic contamination, where the geographic spread of the problem is
ments. narrow and the effects perceived are severe, there are nearly always
powerful local opponents (Gould et al. 1996). And even a seeming-
The social-psychological theory presented here has the
ly innocuous policy such as mandatory recycling faces systematic
potential to link several research literatures. For instance, it opposition.
suggests ways of connecting concepts of social movement 4. Schwartz (1977, 231) distinguishes personal norms from social
mobilization with related literatures on the formation of pub- norms by noting “that the sanctions attached to personal norms are
lic opinion and on attitude-behavior relationships. It points tied to the self-concept. Anticipation of or actual conformity to a
to the social-psychological roots of movement support in self-expectation results in pride, enhanced self-esteem, security, or
norm-activation processes, at the same time positing that par- other favorable self-evaluations; violation or its anticipation produce
ticular types of movement support are affected by particular guilt, self-deprecation, loss of self-esteem, or other negative self-
kinds of contextual variables, which may include economic, evaluations.”
technological, and social-structural factors as direct influ- 5. Our focus on values and expectations about future events suggests
ences on behavior or that may influence behavior indirectly that we are proposing a value-expectancy theory of norms. However,
our theory diverges from the rational calculation model associated
by shaping the social psychology of movement support
with most value-expectancy theories. We do not presume that deci-
(Guagnano, Stern and Dietz, 1995; Gardner and Stern 1996). sions are typically taken on the basis of a full consideration of all rel-
evant values and outcomes. Rather, we believe that personal norms
Endnotes are activated by application of fairly simple rule: if I discern that one
of my values is threatened and if I believe my actions can alleviate
1. Since Kalof was one of the coauthors of this paper, the review the threat, I am obligated by my value structure to act (Dietz and
process from submission to decision was handled by the Managing Stern 1995). The fact that the calculations do not involve a full con-
Editor, Jonathan Taylor. Troy Abel is now at the Department of sideration of all one’s values makes it possible for social movement
Political Science and the Environmental Science Program, Southern organizations to influence decisions by directing individuals’ atten-
Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois 62026. This research was tion selectively, for example, by defining choices in terms of particu-
supported in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant lar values or labeling certain events as threats to those values. This
“The Social Psychology of Stated Preferences” and by National parallels the framing process used to understand committed activism.
Science Foundation grants SES 9211591 and 9224036. Of course, there are situations in which individuals carefully deliber-
2. The policy system (Dietz and Rycroft 1987) is all those people and ate about how all consequences of alternative courses of action may
organizations who are actively engaged in trying to influence policy affect all their values. Indeed, some recent suggestions in environ-

mental policy analysis call for collective deliberative processes as a Brulle, Robert J. 1995. Environmental discourse and environmental move-
way to prevent manipulation of public judgment (Dietz 1994; Dietz ment organizations: A historical and rhetorical perspective on the
and Stern 1998). development of U.S. environmental organizations. Sociological
6. Pichado (1997) has criticized the application of Inglehart’s theory to Inquiry 65, 58-83.
the new social movements. Cotgrove, Stephen. 1982. Catastrophe or Cornucopia? New York: John
7. A scale consisting of the three items concerning personal moral Wiley and Sons.
obligation has an alpha of 0.74 and yields highly similar results to the Dake, Karl. 1991. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An
9-item scale in regression analyses, except that it is a weaker predic- analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of
tor of environmental citizenship behaviors in this general public sam- Cross-Cultural Psychology 22, 61-82.
ple. Dake, Karl. 1992. Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of
8. The consumer behavior scale is focused on household purchase risk. Journal of Social Issues 48(4), 21-38.
behavior. Other environmentally significant private-sphere behavior, Dietz, Thomas. 1994. What should we do? Human ecology and collective
such as household waste disposal and maintenance of motor vehicles, decision making. Human Ecology Review 1, 301-309.
may be shaped by different patterns of social-psychological vari- Dietz, Thomas, A.S. Frisch, Linda Kalof, Paul C. Stern and Gregory A.
ables, capabilities, and constraints. Guagnano. 1995. Values and vegetarianism: An exploratory analysis.
9. In addition to bootstrapping we used a maximum likelihood factor Rural Sociology 60, 533-542.
analysis to examine the dimensions of public support for the envi- Dietz, Thomas and Paul C. Stern. 1995. Toward a theory of choice:
ronmental movement. A three factor solution produces chi-square = Socially embedded preference construction. Journal of Socio-
116.3, df = 88, p = 0.02. A four factor solution produces chi-square Economics 24, 261-279.
of 87.35, df = 74 and p = 0.14. The only substantive difference Dietz, Thomas and Paul C Stern. 1998. Science, values and biodiversity.
between the two solutions is that in the latter, an item asking if the BioScience 48, 441-444.
respondent had read any environmental group literature in the last 12 Dietz, Thomas, Paul C. Stern and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1998. Social
months loads alone on a factor. In the three factor solution, it loads structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern.
with other environmental citizenship items. Environment & Behavior 30, 450-471.
10. We report results of OLS regressions for a 0-1 dichotomous variable Dietz, Thomas, Paul C. Stern and Robert W. Rycroft. 1989. Definitions of
because they are easier to compare with the results for other measures conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental
of movement support. While a logit model is more appropriate for a risk. Sociological Forum 4, 47-70.
dependent variable representing a categorical choice, the OLS esti- Dietz, Thomas and Robert W. Rycroft. 1987. The Risk Professionals. New
mates are consistent and are not likely to mislead in a sample of this York: Russell Sage Foundation.
size. Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the
11. Gender approaches statistical significance in the model of consumer Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley,
behavior, with women more likely to engage in such behavior (t = CA: University of California Press.
1.94). Dunlap, Riley E and Angela Mertig. 1997. Global environmental concern:
An anomoly for postmaterialism. Social Science Quarterly 78(1),
References 24-29.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. The New Environmental
Abramson, P.R. 1997. Postmaterialism and environmentalism: A comment Paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results.
on an analysis and a reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly 78(1), Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10-19.
21-23. Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere. 1984. Commitment to the domi-
Armor, D. 1974. Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H. L. Costner (ed.), nant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social
Sociological Methodology, 17-50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Science Quarterly 65, 1013-1028
Black, J. Stanley. 1978. Attitudinal, normative, and economic factors in Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela Mertig, William R. Catton, Jr.
early response to an energy-use field experiment. Unpublished doc- and Robert E. Howell. 1992. Measuring endorsement of an ecologi-
toral dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Dissertation Abstracts cal worldview: A revised NEP scale. Paper presented at the 1992
International, 39, 436B. Meeting Rural Sociological Society, State College, PA.
Black, J. Stanley, Paul C. Stern and Julie T. Elworth. 1985. Personal and Eckberg, D.L. and J.T. Blocker. 1996. Christianity, environmentalism and
contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific
Applied Psychology 70, 3-21. Study of Religion 35, 343-355.
Brechin, S.R. and W. Kempton. 1994. Global environmentalism: A chal- Friedman, Debra and Doug McAdam. 1992. Collective identity and
lenge to the postmaterialism thesis? Social Science Quarterly 75, activism: Networks, choices and the life of a social movement. In A.
245-269. Morris and C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement
Brechin, S. R. and W. Kempton. 1997. Beyond postmaterialist values: Theory, 156-173. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
National versus individual explanations of global environmentalism. Gamson, William A. 1992. The social psychology of collective action. In
Social Science Quarterly 78(1), 16-20. A. D.Morris and C. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement
Theory, 53-76. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gardner, G.T. and Paul C. Stern. 1996. Environmental Problems and Lee, A-R. and Q. Kidd. 1997. More on postmaterialist values and the envi-
Human Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ronment. Social Science Quarterly 78(1), 36-43.
Greeley, A. 1993. Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald. 1988. Social
for the Scientific Study of Religion 32, 19-28. movements. In Neil J. Smelser (ed.), Handbook of Sociology, 695-
Gould, Kenneth A, Allan Schnaiberg and Adam S Weinberg. 1996. Local 738. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of McCarthy, John D. and Mark Wolfson. 1992. Consensus movements, con-
Production. New York: Cambridge University Press. flict movements and the cooptation of civic and state infrastructures.
Guagnano, Gregory A. 1995. Locus of control, altruism and agentic dispo- In A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social
sition. Population and Environment 17, 63-77. Movements, 273-297. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Guagnano, Gregory A., Thomas Dietz and Paul C. Stern. 1994. Willingness McLaughlin, Paul and Marwan Khawaja. 1999. The organization dynamics
to pay: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science 5, of the U.S. environmental movement. Rural Sociology, in press.
411-415. Merchant, Carolyn. 1992. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable
Guagnano, Gregory A., Paul C. Stern and Thomas Dietz. 1995. Influences World. New York: Routledge.
on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curb- Peters, E. and P. Slovic. 1995. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
side recycling. Environment Behavior 27, 699-718. ing dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power.
Hall, P. 1988. Theoretical comparisons of bootstrap confidence intervals. Decision Research Report 95-1. Eugene OR: Decision Research, Inc.
The Annals of Statistics 16, 927-953. Pichado, Nelson A. 1997. New social movements: A critical review.
Hamilton, L. C. 1992. Regression with Graphics: A Second Course in Annual Review of Sociology 23, 411-430.
Applied Statistics. Belmont, California: Duxbury Press Pierce, J. C. 1997. The hidden layer of political culture: A comment on
Heberlein, T.A. 1981. Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift für postmaterialist values and the environment: A critique and reap-
Umweltpolitik 2, 241-270. praisal. Social Science Quarterly 78(1), 30-35.
Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford and David A. Snow. 1994. Identify Salmon, C. T. and J. S. Nichols. 1983. The next birthday method of respon-
fields: Process and the social construction of movement identifies. In dent selection. Public Opinion Quarterly 47, 270-6.
E. Laurana, H. Johnston and J. R. Gusfield (eds.), New Social Schwartz, Michael and Paul Shuva. 1992. Resource mobilization versus the
Movements: From Ideology to Identity, 184-208. Philadelphia, mobilization of people. In A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller (eds.),
Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. Frontiers in Social Movements, 205-223. New Haven, CT: Yale
Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and University Press.
Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Schwartz, Shalom H. 1973. Normative explanations of helping behavior:
University Press. A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Social Psychology 9, 349-364.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1977. Normative Influences on Altruism. In L.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. Public support for environmental protection: Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Volume 10, 221-279. New York: Academic Press.
Science and Politics 15, 57-71. Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values:
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in
Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Experimental Social Psychology 25, 1-65.
Princeton University Press. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and
Johnston, Hank, Enrique Larana and Joseph R. Gusfield. 1994. Identities, contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50(4), 19-46.
grievances and new social movements. In E. Laurana, H. Johnston Schwartz, Shalom H. 1996. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a the-
and J. R. Gusfield (eds.), New Social Movements: From Ideology to ory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson and M.
Identity, 3-35. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. P. Zanna (eds.), The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium,
Kalof, Linda, Thomas Dietz, Paul C. Stern and Gregory A. Guagnano. Volume 8. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
1999. Race, Gender and Environmentalism: The atypical values and Schwartz, S.H. and W. Bilsky. 1987. Toward a psychological structure of
beliefs of white men. Unpublished manuscript, George Mason human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53,
University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fairfax, VA 550-562.
22030. Schwartz, Shalom H. and S. Huismans. 1995. Value priorities and religios-
Karp, David G. 1996. Values and their effects on pro-environmental behav- ity in four western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly 58, 88-
ior. Environment & Behavior 28, 111-133. 107.
Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster and Jennifer A, Hartley. 1995. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1992. Master Frames and Cycles
Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, of Protest. In A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in
Massachusetts: MIT Press. Social Movements, 133-155. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kidd, Q. and A-R. Lee. 1997. Postmaterialist values and the environment: Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Stephen K. Worden and Robert D.
A critique and reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly 78(1), 1-15. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and
Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. Potentials, networks, motiva- movement participation. American Sociological Review 51, 464-481.
tions and barriers: Steps toward participation in social movements. Stern, Paul. C. and Thomas Dietz. 1994. The value basis of environmental
American Sociological Review 52, 519-531. concern. Journal of Social Issues 50(3), 65-84.

Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz and J. S. Black. 1986. Support for environ- Respecting the earth, harmony with other species
mental protection: The role of moral norms. Population and Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Environment 8, 204-222.
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. The new Traditional:
environmental paradigm in social psychological perspective. True friendship, close supportive friends
Environment & Behavior 27, 723-745. Loyal, faithful to my friends
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1998. A brief Sense of belonging, feeling that others care about me
inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement Obedient, dutiful, meeting obligations
58, 984-1001. Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptations
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz and Linda Kalof. 1993. Value orientations, Family security, safety for loved ones
gender, and environmental concern. Environment & Behavior 25, Honoring parents and elders, showing respect
322-348. Honest, genuine, sincere
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, Linda Kalof and Gregory A. Guagnano. Forgiving, willing to pardon others
1995. Values, beliefs and proenvironmental action: Attitude forma-
tion toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Self-interest:
Psychology 25, 1611-1636. Social power, control over others, dominance
Stern, Paul C. and Stuart Oskamp. 1987. Managing Scarce Environmental Influential, having an impact on people and events
Resources. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds.), Handbook of Wealth, material possessions, money
Environmental Psychology, 1043-1088. NY: Wiley. Authority, the right to lead or command
Tarrant, M.A. and H. K. Cordell. 1997. The effect of respondent character-
istics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Openness to change:
Environment & Behavior 29, 618-637. Curious, interested in everything, exploring
Van Liere, Kent D. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. Moral norms and environ- A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty and change
mental behavior: An application of Schwartz’s norm activation model An exciting life, stimulating experiences
to yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 8, 174-188.
White, L., Jr. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science Cultural Biases
155, 1203-1207. Hierarchy:
Widegren, Örjan. 1998. The New Environmental Paradigm and personal One of the problems with people today is that they challenge
norms. Environment & Behavior 30, 75-100. authority too often.
Zald, Mayer. 1992. Looking backward to look forward: Reflections on the The best way to provide for future generations is to preserve our
past and future of the Resource Mobilization Research Program. In customs and heritage.
A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social
Movements, 326-348. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Egalitarianism:
What this world needs is a fairness revolution to make the distrib-
ution of goods more equal.
I support a tax shift so that the burden falls more heavily on cor-
Appendix 1: Scales porations and persons with large incomes.
Individualism:
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) If people have the vision and ability to acquire property, they
The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been should be allowed to enjoy it.
greatly exaggerated. (R) Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed and fail without
The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources. government interference.
If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience
a major ecological catastrophe. Fatalism:
The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts Co-operation with others rarely works.
of modern industrial nations. (R) It seems that no matter who you vote for in an election, things
Humans are severely abusing the environment. remain pretty much the same.
Values Awareness of Consequences (AC)

Altruistic:
Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak In general, do you think that climate change, which is sometimes
Preventing pollution, conserving natural resources called the greenhouse effect, will be a very serious problem for
Equality, equal opportunity for all you and your family, somewhat of a problem for you and your
Unity with nature, fitting into nature family or won’t really be a problem for you and your family?
A world of peace, free of war and conflict

Do you think that climate change will be a very serious problem Companies that import products from the tropics have a responsi-
for the country as a whole, somewhat of a problem or won’t really bility to prevent destruction of the forests in those countries.
be a problem for the country as a whole?
People like me should do whatever we can to prevent the loss of
Do you think that climate change will be a very serious problem tropical forests.
for other species of plants and animals, somewhat of a problem or
won’t really be a problem for other species of plants and animals? The chemical industry should clean up the toxic waste products it
has emitted into the environment.
Next, I’d like you to consider the problem of loss of tropical
forests. Do you think this will be a very serious problem for you Consumer Behavior*
and your family, somewhat of a problem or won’t really be a
problem for you and your family? How often do you make a special effort to buy fruits and vegeta-
bles grown without pesticides or chemicals; also known as organic
Do you think that loss of tropical forests will be a very serious fruits and vegetables?
problem for the country as a whole, somewhat of a problem or
won’t really be a problem for the country as a whole? How often do you make a special effort to buy paper and plastic
products that are made from recycled materials?
Do you think that loss of tropical forests will be a very serious
problem for other species of plants and animals, somewhat of a How often do you avoid buying products from a company that you
problem or won’t really be a problem for other species of plants know may be harming the environment?
and animals?
How often do you make a special effort to buy household chemi-
Next, I’d like you to consider the problem of toxic substances in cals such as detergent and cleaning solutions that are environmen-
air, water and the soil. Do you think this will be a very serious tally friendly?
problem for you and your family, somewhat of a problem or won’t
really be a problem for you and your family?
Willingness to Sacrifice
Do you think that toxic substances in air, water and the soil will
be a very serious problem for the country as a whole, somewhat of I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect
a problem or won’t really be a problem for the country as a the environment
whole? I would be willing to accept cuts in my standard of living to pro-
tect the environment.
Do you think that toxic substances in air, water and the soil will I would be willing to pay much higher prices in order to protect
be a very serious problem for other species of plants and animals, the environment.
somewhat of a problem or won’t really be a problem for other
species of plants and animals? Environmental Citizenship+
Personal Normative Beliefs Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or
protect the environment?
The government should take stronger action to clean up toxic sub-
stances in the environment. In the last twelve months, have you read any newsletters, maga-
zines or other publications written by environmental groups?
I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to prevent climate
change. Signed a petition in support of protecting the environment?
I feel a sense of personal obligation to take action to stop the dis- Given money to an environmental group?
posal of toxic substances in the air, water, and soil.
Written a letter or called your member of Congress or another
Business and industry should reduce their emissions to help pre- government official to support strong environmental protection?
vent climate change.
Boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company because
The government should exert pressure internationally to preserve you felt that company was harming the environment?
the tropical forests.
Voted for a candidate in an election at least in part because he or
The government should take strong action to reduce emissions and she was in favor of strong environmental protection?
prevent global climate change.

Some people feel the environmental movement does a great deal Notes: All scales scored so that high scores indicate strong
of good and strongly support it, others feel the environmental endorsement of the concept.
movement does more harm than good and strongly oppose it. (R) indicates an attitude item that was reversed in creating scales.
Where do you stand? Do you strongly support, somewhat sup- Unless otherwise noted, response categories were: Strongly agree,
port, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the environmental Somewhat agree, Somewhat disagree, Strongly disagree
movement.** *—Response categories were: Always, Often, Sometimes, Never
+—Response categories were: Yes, No
**—Scores were rescaled to 0, 0.33, 0.67 and 1 to match the 0-1
scoring of other items in the scale.

1999 - A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support For Social Movements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1999 - A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support For Social Movements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1999 - A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support For Social Movements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research in Human Ecology

A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social

Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory A. Guagnano and Linda Kalof1

Abstract for the environmental movement that is congruent with both

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 81

82 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 83

84 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 85

86 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 87

88 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 89

90 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 91

92 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 93

94 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Values Awareness of Consequences (AC)

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 95

96 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 97

You might also like