Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30
years: A meta-analysisq
Lucy J. Hawcroft a, Taciano L. Milfont b, *
a
University of Auckland, New Zealand
b
Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6410, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports a meta-analysis of studies using the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale over
Available online 15 October 2009 the last 30 years. A review of 69 studies from 36 countries (including 58,279 participants from 139
samples) shows that there is considerable variation in the way the NEP Scale is used, particularly with
Keywords: regards to the number of items used and the number of points on the Likert scale employed. Results from
New ecological paradigm scale weighted regression analyses reveals that variations in sample type and scale length have a significant
NEP Scale
effect on NEP scores. In particular, environmentalist and white-collar samples scored significantly higher
Environmental attitudes
Meta-analysis
on the NEP Scale than nationally or regionally representative samples, while blue-collar samples scored
significantly lower; and participants scored higher on 6-item versions of the scale than on the revised 15-
item version, and lower on versions of the scale containing 5, 7, 8 or 10 items. Implications of this
research for the comparability of previous studies using the NEP Scale are discussed and guidelines for
future research are presented.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental attitudes in a valid and reliable fashion. Environ-

More than 50 years ago commentators and natural scientists
began to systematically investigate ways in which human behavior
were damaging the natural environment (e.g., Carson, 1962; Osborn,
1948). Their work was soon followed by social scientists who hoped
to understand more about how humans relate to the environment,
and thus uncover techniques that could be used to encourage
people to live in a more sustainable manner (for a review, see
Gardner & Stern, 2002). However, although social scientists have
made many significant discoveries, it is still clear that humanity is
not living in balance with our natural limits. In fact, recent research
shows that humans are consuming the Earth’s resources at
increasingly unsustainable rates (Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
ment, 2005). As a consequence of this maladaptive behavior we are
also facing ever more serious environmental issues, such as climate
change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).
Given this situation, it is crucial that social scientists gain a better
understanding of why people treat the environment as they do. An
important step towards achieving this goal is to measure peoples’
q Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of
Australasian Social Psychologists, Wellington, New Zealand, March 2008.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 4 463 6398; fax: þ64 4 463 5402.
E-mail address: taciano.milfont@vuw.ac.nz (T.L. Milfont).
URL: http://www.milfont.com
mental attitudes (EA) are a psychological tendency expressed by
evaluating the natural environment with some degree of favour or
disfavour, and are a crucial construct in the field of environmental
psychology, discussed in more than half of all publications in this
area (Milfont, 2007a). However, it has frequently been noted that
much of the previous research on EA has been conducted in an
unsystematic way (Heberlein, 1981; Stern, 1992), with researchers
generating new measures of EA for almost every study they con-
ducted. As a result, in their 2002 review Dunlap and Jones estimated
that at least several hundred measures of EA have been developed
since the 1960s. Analysts agree that this ‘‘anarchy of measurement’’
(Stern, 1992, p. 279) has been a key factor contributing to the
noncumulative and atheoretical nature of much research on EA
(Milfont & Duckitt, 2004b). The proliferation of measures has also
made it difficult for researchers who are not familiar with the field to
choose an appropriate standard measure of EA to use when
designing a new study, thus compounding the problem.
However, although many researchers have noted the detrimental
effect on research in this field of using numerous measures of EA, less
attention has been paid to the question of whether researchers are
using standardized measures of EA consistently. It is also not known
whether an inconsistent use of standardized EA measures may
constitute a problem for the field. Research into psychometrics
suggests that an inconsistent use of scales may well be problematic.
For example, it is known that even a small change in the wording of

0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
144 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
one item can have a substantial effect on how people respond to
a scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). Changes in the
response format (e.g., variation in the number of points on a Likert
scale offered to participants) are also known to effect responses
(Aiken, 1987; Krosnick, 1999). Finally, the context in which items are
presented (i.e., the items or text that come before or after them) can
also have a considerable effect on the way people respond to scales
(Schwarz, 1999). Therefore, it seems likely that if there is variation
across studies in the way that standardized measures of EA are used
this might decrease the comparability of the studies’ results, leading
to the same problem of noncumulative research noted above.
When trying to measure the effect of such variation in scale use it
is important to control for other factors that might also affect
results. For example, recent research has found that sampling
fluctuation (e.g., sample size, sample composition) has a significant
influence on the internal structure of the values domain (Fischer,
Milfont, & Gouveia, in press; Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, &
Schwartz, 2008). It is thus important to determine whether changes
in results across studies are caused by variations in scale use rather
than by variations in sample composition or other factors that
might affect responding. A meta-analysis provides an ideal method
to examine this possibility as it summarizes many aspects of several
studies in a quantitative form (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). This
article therefore takes a meta-analytic approach to investigate how
the use of the most widely-used EA measure, the New Environ-
mental Paradigm (NEP) Scale, may have affected the results
obtained by researchers using the scale. By investigating the use of
one scale in detail, this article will highlight some of the more
problematic aspects of how EA is currently measured. Some
recommendations to researchers as to how the NEP Scale can be
best used to avoid such problems in the future are also provided.
2. The NEP Scale
Despite the large number of EA measures available, reviewers
agree that only three have been widely used (Dunlap & Jones, 2003;
Fransson & Gärling, 1999). These are the Ecology Scale (Maloney &
Ward, 1973; Maloney, Ward, & Braucht, 1975), the Environmental
Concern Scale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978), and the NEP Scale (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). These
three scales examine multiple phenomena or expressions of
concern, such as beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior. These
scales also examine concerns about various environmental topics,
such as pollution and natural resources. Because they focus on
multiple environmental issues and multiple expressions of concern,
these measures are all multiple–topic/multiple-expression assess-
ment techniques (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). Although widely used,
both the Ecology Scale and the Environmental Concern Scale include
items referring to specific environmental topics that have become
dated as new issues emerge (Dunlap & Jones, 2002, 2003). The NEP
Scale avoids this issue by measuring general beliefs about the rela-
tionship of human beings to the environment.
The universal nature of the beliefs measured by the NEP Scale
may explain why it has become the most widely used measure of
EA since its publication in 1978 (Dunlap & Jones, 2002, 2003;
Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995).1 The theoretical background for
1
The authors argue that this scale measures ‘‘a paradigm or worldview that
influences attitudes and beliefs toward more specific environmental issues’’
(Dunlap et al., 2000, p. 428). This view indicates that the NEP Scale is not a direct,
specific measure of EA. However, as the authors recognise the NEP Scale has been
treated ‘‘variously as measuring environmental attitudes, beliefs, values, and
worldview’’ (Dunlap et al., 2000, p. 428). Moreover, the NEP Scale is commonly
used and described as an EA measure in the environmental psychology literature
(see, e.g., Schultz & Zelezny, 1999), so we follow this trend.
the development of the NEP Scale was the authors’ recognition
that it was possible to identify an emerging ecocentric system of
beliefs (i.e., humans are seen as being part of natural systems and
constrained by that fact) that challenged the dominant anthro-
pocentric system of beliefs current in Western societies (i.e.,
humans are seen as being independent from, and superior to,
other organisms in nature) (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984; Pirages &
Ehrlich, 1974). These two systems were respectively named the
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) and the Dominant Social
Paradigm (DSP).
It is worth noting that the NEP and DSP are theoretically related
to Schwartz’s (1999) harmony–mastery cultural value dimension.
Following the seminal work of Florence Kluckhohn (1953), Schwartz
argues that this value dimension is a result of one of the basic issues
that societies must confront: the relation of humans to the natural
and social environment. This issue leaves societies with two solu-
tions in order to regulate human activity: either to fit harmoniously
into the world, trying to preserve it (harmony values, or the NEP
worldview), or to exploit and change the world (mastery values, or
the DSP worldview). Empirical results have supported this rela-
tionship by showing that national–level NEP scores correlate posi-
tively with harmony values across 27 countries (Milfont, Hawcroft,
& Fischer, 2008). It therefore seems likely that the NEP Scale taps an
important aspect of human beliefs. There are several different
extant versions of the NEP Scale, which are described below.
2.1. The original NEP Scale
The original NEP Scale was published in 1978 by Dunlap and Van
Liere, and consists of 12 items (8 pro–trait and 4 con–trait)
responded to on a 4–point Likert scale (anchored by strongly agree
to strongly disagree). The items were developed based on both the
literature on the emergence of the NEP worldview and consultation
with environmental experts. The items are intended to tap three
main facets of EA: a belief in (1) humans’ ability to upset the
balance of nature, (2) the existence of limits to growth, and (3)
humans’ right to rule over the rest of nature. Table 1 displays the
items. The NEP Scale measures the overall relationship between
humans and the environment, and is normally used as a unidi-
mensional measure of EA. Higher NEP scores indicate an ecocentric
orientation reflecting commitment to the preservation of natural
resources, and lower NEP scores indicate an anthropocentric
orientation reflecting commitment to exploitation of natural
resources.
To validate the NEP Scale, Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) surveyed
two samples in their 1976 Washington State survey: one general
population sample (n ¼ 806, Sample 1), and another sample from
members of an environmental organization (n ¼ 407, Sample 2).
Five main findings are reported demonstrating the reliability and
validity of the NEP Scale. First, results indicated that the environ-
mentalist sample scored significantly higher (M ¼ 43.8, p < .001)
than the general population sample (M ¼ 36.3), providing known–
group, predictive validity.
Second, high corrected item-total correlations (averaging .46
and .39 for Sample 1 and 2, respectively) and high Cronbach’s
alphas (.81 and .76 for Sample 1 and 2, respectively) were found,
suporting the internal consistency of the scale. Third, the first
unrotated principal factor accounted for high percentages of the
variance (69.2% and 63.3% for Sample 1 and 2, respectively),
providing support for the unidimensionality of the scale. Fourth,
the NEP Scale was positively correlated with measures of support
for funding environmental programs (r ¼ .47), support for envi-
ronmental regulations (r ¼ .58), and personal pro-environmental
behavior (r ¼ .24) among the general population sample. Finally,
construct validity was demonstrated in Sample 1 by showing that
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
Table 1
The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale.
Original NEP items (1978)
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can
support.
2. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
3. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their
needs.
4. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
5. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous
consequences.
6. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
7. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘‘steady–state’’
economy where industrial growth is controlled.
8. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.
9. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources
10. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can
remake it to suit their needs.
11. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot
expand.
12. Mankind is severely abusing the environment.
Note. Original NEP Scale: Agreement with items 3, 4, 6, and 10 indicate anti–NEP responses. Hypothesized facets: balance of nature (items 2, 5, 8, 12), limits to growth (items 1,
7, 9, 11), and human dominance over nature (items 3, 4, 6, 10, all anti–NEP items). Revised NEP Scale: Agreement with the eight odd–numbered items and disagreement with
the seven even–numbered items indicate pro–NEP responses. Hypothesized facets: the reality of limits to growth (items 1, 6, 11), antianthropocentrism (items 2, 7, 12), the
fragility of nature’s balance (items 3, 8, 13), rejection of exemptionalism (items 4, 9, 14), and the possibility of an eco-crisis (items 5, 10, 15).
the NEP Scale was negatively related to age and positively related to
education and liberalism. This provides support for the validity of
the NEP Scale as many prior and subsequent studies have also
found that younger, better educated individuals with more liberal
ideological orientations tend to have higher EA than their coun-
terparts (for reviews, see Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998; Fransson
& Gärling, 1999).
2.1.1. The shortened 6-item NEP Scale
In the late 1970s Dunlap developed an abbreviated 6-item
version of the original NEP Scale for use in a study by the Conti-
nental Group (Dunlap et al., 2000). Although an article was never
published describing the psychometrics of this shorter scale (R. E.
Dunlap, personal communication, June 21, 2008), the items were
used in a series of studies by John Pierce and colleagues (for
a review, see Pierce, Steger, Steel, & Lovrich, 1992). The items were:
(1) The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human
activities, (2) The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room
and resources, (3) Plants and animals do not exist primarily for
human use, (4), Modifying the environment for human use seldom
causes serious problems, (5) There are no limits to growth for
nations like the United States and Canada, and (6) Mankind was
created to rule over the rest of nature.
These 6 items provided a balanced measure of each of the
three facets identified in the original NEP Scale: balance of nature
(items 1 and 4), limits to growth (items 2 and 5), and human’s
right to rule (items 3 and 6). As can be seen from Table 1, items 1,
2, and 6 of this 6-item NEP Scale are virtually identical to items 2,
9, and 4 from the original NEP Scale. Items 3 and 5 of the 6-item
NEP are also very similar to items 6 and 5 from the original scale,
although their direction is reversed to balance the shortened
scale. The biggest difference in wording is probably that used in
item 4 of the shortened scale. In the original NEP Scale the
145
Revised NEP items (2000)
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can
support.
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their
needs.
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous
consequences.
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop
them.
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations.
9. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
10. The so–called ‘‘ecological crisis’’ facing humankind has been greatly
exaggerated.
11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able
to control it.
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.
concept of the fragile balance of nature is more dramatically
expressed in item 5: ‘‘When humans interfere with nature it often
produces disastrous consequences’’. Although not much is known
about the validity and reliability of the 6-item NEP Scale, it has
been used by many other researchers since its publication (e.g.,
Knight, 2008).
2.2. The revised NEP Scale
In 2000, Dunlap and colleagues reviewed several empirical
studies published since they first developed the NEP Scale that
provided support for the content, construct, predictive, and
known–group validity of the scale. Despite this review they
decided to revise the scale because the original NEP Scale was
unbalanced (as two of the three facets contained only pro–trait
and one facet contained only con–trait items), and some of its
items were worded in a sexist fashion (e.g., mankind was used
instead of humans). The NEP was therefore revised in an effort to
make it more psychometrically sound and avoid outdated, sexist
terminology.
While revising the original scale, Dunlap et al. (2000) also
decided to broaden the content of the measure by expanding the
hypothesized facets of an ecological worldview from three to five
facets. These five facets are: (1) the reality of limits to growth, (2)
antianthropocentrism, (3) the fragility of nature’s balance, (4)
rejection of exemptionalism, and (5) the possibility of an eco-crisis.
The revised NEP Scale consists of 15 items (8 pro–trait and 7 con–
trait) with three items tapping each of these five hypothesized
facets (see Table 1). These items include 6 from the original NEP
Scale, 4 of which were slightly modified.
To validate the revised scale, Dunlap et al. (2000) surveyed
a representative sample of 676 Washington State residents. They
obtained results very similar to those of the original study. First,
146 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

results again indicated skewed responses (toward pro–NEP) across
all 15 items. Second, supporting the internal consistency of the
scale corrected item-total correlations ranged from .33 (item 9) to
.62 (item 10) averaging .46, and Cronbach’s alpha was .83. Third,
providing support for the unidimensionality of the scale the first
unrotated principal factor accounted for 31.3% of the variance, and
all items loaded heavily (from .40 to .73) on this factor. Fourth, the
predictive and construct validity of the revised NEP Scale was
examined by its correlation with several variables. The NEP Scale
correlated positively with measures of perceived seriousness of
world ecological problems (r ¼ .61), support for proenvironment
policies (r ¼ .57), perceived seriousness of state and community air
and water pollution (r ¼ .31), and personal pro-environmental
behavior (r ¼ .31). Moreover, the NEP Scale was also correlated in
the expected direction, albeit modestly, with several socio-
demographic variables, such as age (r ¼ .11), income (r ¼ .10),
education (r ¼ .10), and liberalism (r ¼ .32).
2.3. The original and revised NEP Scales: points to consider
form their own scaledversions of the scale containing 5, 7, 8 or 10
items can be found, as noted below. Researchers normally do this
by first performing a factor analysis of the items and then selecting
the ones that load onto one factor. Moreover, many researchers
have often used items from the NEP Scale but altered the item
wording substantially to fit their own interests (e.g., Yencken, Fein,
& Sykes, 2000). This variation in the use of the NEP Scale raises the
interesting question of whether the results of such studies can be
meaningfully compared or used to support a theoretical position
(cf. Milfont, 2007a).
The last point refers to the title of the scale. In their revision of
the scale in 2000, Dunlap et al. changed the scale title from the
‘‘New Environmental Paradigm’’ to the ‘‘New Ecological Paradigm
Scale’’. This new title has been adopted by some researchers (e.g.,
Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003), but many others still use the
original title (e.g., Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004;
Verplanken, Walker, Davis, & Jurasek, 2008). Because the scale is
still most commonly known as the New Environmental Paradigm
Scale, this original title is used here to avoid confusion.

The reliability and validity of both the original and revised NEP
3. The present study
Scales as a general measure of EA are well–established. The scales
have been shown to discriminate between environmentalists and
It has now been 30 years since the NEP Scale was first pub-
non–environmentalists in many cultures (e.g., Johnson, Bowker, &
lished, and the scale has been widely used ever since. As an
Cordell, 2004; Olli, Grendstad, & Wollebaek, 2001; Pierce, Lovrich,
indication, a search on the ISI Web of Science database in 2008
Tsurutani, & Abe, 1987). The scales also correlate highly with other
showed that the 1978 paper had been cited 379 times, and the
measures of general EA (Dunlap et al., 2000), and have been shown
2000 paper had already been cited 135 times. However, no
to predict pro-environmental behavior in many studies (e.g., Kor-
previous study has attempted to provide a systematic review of
tenkamp & Moore, 2006; Olli et al., 2001). However, before moving
studies using the NEP Scale. Dunlap et al. (2000) provided a review
on to discuss the current meta-analysis, there are three points
of selected findings supporting the validity of the NEP Scale, but
relating to how the NEP Scales are currently used that are worth
because their article focused on the development of a new scale
noting.
this review was not extensive nor quantitative. The drawback of
The first point refers to the dimensionality of the scale. As
research reviews when presented and described only qualitatively
discussed above, the items of the original NEP Scale tap three
is that the discussion of the conflicting findings is often confusing
facets while the items of the revised scale tap five facets. Despite
and inconclusive. For this reason, a meta-analysis is often seen as
presenting these facets, both Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and
a better alternative because it is a methodology that systematically
Dunlap et al. (2000) actually summed all NEP items to give a single
summarizes a body of quantitative research (Rosenthal & DiMat-
score instead of using these facets as sub-scales. Not surprisingly,
teo, 2001).
therefore, the dimensionality of both the original and revised NEP
The goal of the present study was to use a meta-analysis to
Scales has occasioned disagreement. Many studies have examined
provide an extensive quantitative review of studies that have used
the dimensionality of the original NEP Scale (e.g., Bechtel, Corral-
the NEP Scale. The main objective was to investigate the extent to
Verdugo, Asai, & Riesle, 2006; Bechtel, Corral-Verdugo, & Pinheiro,
which variation in the way that the NEP Scale was used would
1999; Bostrom, Barke, Turaga, & O’Connor, 2006; Corral-Verdugo &
affect the overall NEP score obtained across studies. To represent
Armendáriz, 2000; Geller & Lasley, 1985; Ji, 2004; Noe & Snow,
the diversity of research that has been conducted using the NEP, an
1990; Nooney, Woodrum, Hoban, & Clifford, 2003; Rideout,
effort was made to include studies that have used the scale in
Hushen, McGinty, Perkins, & Tate, 2005), and a few studies have
a wide range of cultural settings. This meant that it was more
also examined the dimensionality of the revised NEP Scale (Dunlap
important to include studies from a wide range of countries than to
et al., 2000; Floyd & Noe, 1996; Hunter & Rinner, 2004; Milfont &
include every single study from a particular country. Of particular
Duckitt, 2004a; Thapa, 2001). These studies rely on factor analytic
importance was to test whether variations in use of the NEP Scale
results to derive factors underlying the NEP items. Sometimes
are widespread, and, if so, whether these variations have a signifi-
distinct factors emerge and relevant items are combined to form
cant effect on samples’ scores on the NEP. Finding significant rela-
sub-scales of the NEP Scale (e.g., Thapa, 2001). However, a large
tionships between mean scores and variations in scale use (after
number of recent studies, especially those using the revised NEP
controlling for other study characteristics) would suggest that the
Scale, typically sum all items into a single measure of EA. They
variations in scale use have a negative effect on the comparability of
treat the items as measuring one construct even if unidimen-
results of studies using the NEP Scale.
sionality is not found (e.g., Dunlap et al., 2000), and often report
the alpha without examining dimensionality (e.g., Schultz, 2001).
The second point refers to other forms of the scale. A NEP Scale 4. Method
for Children, which is a 10-item modified version of the revised NEP
Scale, has also been developed and validated for use with children 4.1. Procedure
aged 10–12 years (Manoli, Johnson, & Dunlap, 2007). This scale has
not yet been widely used and so it will not be described further. The procedure consisted of three steps: (1) a search for studies
Apart from the four main alternative forms of the NEP Scale (i.e., using any version of the NEP Scale, (2) selection of studies that met
original, shortened, revised, and children versions), many criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, and (3) coding of relevant
researchers have also selected certain items and combined them to study features.
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
4.1.1. Search procedure
The aim of the search was to locate studies that had used the
NEP Scale from as wide a range of countries as possible. A search
was carried out for relevant articles in PsycINFO, Current
Contents and Scopus covering the period 1978 to July, 2007.
Keywords used were New Environmental Paradigm, New Ecological
Paradigm and NEP. A secondary search was performed using the
ISI Web of Science to locate any article that had cited either the
original (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) or revised NEP Scale (Dunlap
et al., 2000). Reference lists from previous articles on EA were
also consulted, particularly articles including developing coun-
tries (e.g., Schultz et al., 2005; Watson & Halse, 2005). In areas
where there was a lack of published studies on the topic (e.g., the
Middle East and Africa), researchers living in those areas were
asked if they knew of any other relevant studies. Finally, the
reference lists of all studies located during the search were
reviewed.
4.1.2. Study selection
The search located more than 300 articles. The abstract or
method section of each article was then examined to determine
whether it met the following criteria for inclusion in the analysis:
(1) the study had used at least five items from either the original,
shortened or revised NEP, (2) the sample was based on an adult
population (a mean age of at least 16 years), and (3) the mean
score of the study sample on the NEP Scale was either included in
the article or was available on request. The first criterion was
used to guarantee that a realistic number of similar items were
used across studies, providing a reasonably reliable measure of
the NEP. Given that the original and revised NEP Scales were
designed for use with adults, the second criterion was used to
guarantee that studies inappropriately using the scales with
children were avoided. Where different studies had used the
same data set (e.g., Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Schultz, Zelezny, &
Dalrymple, 2000), scores were only included in the analyses once.
In total 69 studies including a total of 139 samples met these
criteria and were included in the analyses. Summary statistics for
all studies included in the analysis are provided in Appendix A,
and references for all studies included in the meta-analysis are
provided in Appendix B.
4.1.3. Coding of study features
For each sample the following information was recorded: (a)
general study characteristics (year the study was published,
authors, sample size); (b) culture of sample (defined as either the
ethnic group or country of residence); (c) sample composition
(mean age, percentage of males, sample type); (d) methodology of
study, including length of the scale used (i.e., number of items),
response format used (i.e., number of points on the Likert scale),
and internal reliability of the NEP Scale; and (e) descriptive statis-
tics (mean and standard deviation of NEP scores).
4.2. Data analyses
Data analyses consisted of two parts. Analyses were performed
to (1) standardise NEP scores across studies, and (2) to test the
effect of study characteristics on NEP scores.
4.2.1. Standardizing NEP scores
The studies included in the meta-analysis varied greatly with
regard to the response format offered to participants and also the
sample size. To meaningfully compare such studies it was necessary
to standardise the NEP scores. To achieve this, means and standard
deviations of each samples’ scores on the NEP were first recalcu-
lated to compensate for differences in response format using the
147
formulas recommended by Aiken (1987). The recalculated, stan-
dardized scores ranged between 0 and 1 and have the advantage of
allowing direct comparisons of scores across alternative response
formats. Following standard meta-analytic procedures, an inverse
variance weight was then calculated for each of these standardized
scores. Weights were calculated for each sample using the formula:
w ¼ n/sd2, where w ¼ the inverse variance weight, n ¼ sample size,
and sd ¼ standard deviation (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 72).
Weighting the scores by the inverse variance accounts for the
different sample sizes on which the scores were based. This
procedure thus controls for possible biases in the NEP scores as
a result of sample size.
4.2.2. Measuring the effect of study characteristics on NEP scores
Weighted least squares regressions were performed to measure
the effect of study characteristics on NEP scores. Specifically, the
data was analysed with inverse variance weighted regressions
using a random-effects approach (via maximum likelihood esti-
mate). Inverse variance weighted regressions are recommended in
meta-analyses; the use of a random-effects model is further rec-
ommended when cases are highly heterogeneous and allows
findings to be generalised beyond the cases included in the meta-
analyses (Hedges & Vevea, 1998; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Random-
effects models take into account random variability in effect sizes
derived from both subject–level sampling error (i.e., subjects in
each NEP study sampled from a population of subjects) and study–
level sampling error (i.e., NEP studies sampled from a population of
studies). This means that the relationships between NEP scores and
methodological features reported in this meta-analysis can be
generalised to other studies.
Study characteristics were entered as independent variables and
standardized NEP scores as the dependent variable. The study
characteristics included were internal reliability, mean age of
samples, gender (percentage of males in the sample), year of
publication, response format, sample type and scale length. Sample
type and scale length were dummy coded as a set of dichotomous
variables using the nationally or regionally representative samples
and 15-item NEP Scale version as baseline. For example, a dummy
variable was labelled ‘students’ which comprised a comparison of
the NEP scores between representative and student samples
(0 ¼ representative sample, 1 ¼ student sample). Another variable
was labelled ‘12-item NEP’ which comprised a comparison of the
NEP scores between the revised and original versions of the NEP
Scale (0 ¼ 15-item NEP Scale, 1 ¼12-item NEP Scale).
5. Results
5.1. Variations observed in the studies
5.1.1. Study characteristics
The analysis includes 139 samples and a total of 58,279 partic-
ipants (for two samples information on sample size was not
provided). Although a few samples in this analysis were collected
and/or published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the vast
majority of samples (86.3%) were published in the last 12 years,
since 1997.
5.1.2. Sample composition
The samples in the analysis vary greatly in terms of size, age,
gender composition, and sample type. Descriptive statistics relating
to sample composition are provided in Table 2.
5.1.3. Study methodology
As shown in Table 2, there is substantial variation in the meth-
odology of studies in the analysis: 7 different lengths of scale were
148 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

Table 2 Table 3
Descriptive statistics of samples. Number of samples and subjects by country and region of the world.

Variable % Min Max M SD N Countries and world regions Samples Subjects % of total
Sample size (n) 27 3686 425.39 589.86 137 Asia 12 6143 10.54
China 4a 2335
Age (mean) 18 60.41 –a – 80
Hong Kong 2 769
Gender (% male) 12.90 97.00 46.27 16.74 86 India 2 357
Indonesia 1 225
Sample type 139 Japan 3 1708
Representative 28.78 Maldives 1 199
Student 31.66 South Korea 1 550
Other 18.70
Environmentalists 9.35 North America 62 26,546 45.55
White-collar 8.63 Canada 10 4851
Blue-collar 2.88 USA 52 21,695

Length of scale 139 Latin America 16 2662 4.57

15 items 41.73 Argentina 1 54
6 items 25.18 Brazil 4 680
12 items 16.55 Colombia 1 149
5, 7, 8 or 10 items 16.54 Costa Rica 1 213
Dominican Republic 2 388
Response format 139 Ecuador 1 201
5-point scale 83.45 El Salvador 1 194
4-point scale 7.91 Mexico 1 65
7-point scale 6.48 Panama 1 100
9- or 10-point scale 2.16 Paraguay 1 200
Internal reliability (a) .35 .87 .68 .11 78 Peru 1 224
Venezuela 1 194
a
It was not possible to calculate the overall mean and standard deviation because
many studies did not report the necessary information. Middle East 2 531 .91
Turkey 2 531

Western Europe 24 12,769 21.91

used and 5 different response formats employed. With regards to Germany 2 588
scale length there is no standard version of the scale or number of Netherlands 3 417
items that the majority of researchers used. Although the revised Norway 4 6466
Portugal 1 396
15-item NEP Scale is the most commonly used in this analysis (for
Spain 4 454
41.73% of the samples), a substantial percentage of studies also used Sweden 5 2906
the original 12-item NEP Scale (16.55%) or the 6-item shortened United Kingdom 5 1542
version (25.18%). Studies that used 5, 6, 7, 8, or 10 items from the
Eastern Europe 7 2327 3.99
NEP Scale (representing 16.54% of the total) did not always use the Bulgaria 3 1287
same itemsde.g., although Gooch (1995), Rauwald and Moore Czech Republic 1 113
(2002), and Pierce et al. (1987) all used 6 items, the specific NEP Estonia 1 400
Latvia 1 407
items used vary in each study. This variation was increased by the
Russia 1 120
fact that when choosing the items, some researchers drew on the
original 12-item NEP Scale and others from the 6-item or the 15- Oceania 14 7301 12.53
New Zealand 6 5221
item NEP Scale. For example, although both Blake, Guppy, and
Australia 8 2080
Urmetzer (1997) and Hall and Moran (2006) used 10 items from the
a
Data on number of subjects was not available for two of the samples from China.
scale, the items were quite different in the two studies because they
were drawn from the original 12-item and the revised 15-item
versions of the NEP Scale, respectively.
With regards to response format, the methodology of the
studies in the analysis is much more consistent. All studies used 5.2. Effect of variation in study characteristic on NEP scores
a Likert scale and, although five different numbers of points on the
Likert scale were used, the vast majority of studies (83.45%) used As a first step in the present analysis, correlations between
a 5–point response format. However, there is a wide variability in mean NEP scores and sample characteristics were performed.
the internal reliabilities reported. While the average internal reli- Bivariate correlations might be of interest to some readers and
ability is acceptable for research purposes (average Cronbach’s are reported in Table 4. However, correlation coefficients do not
alpha ¼ .68), 39 of the 78 studies that report internal reliability account for indirect effects between the variables examined and
have a lower alpha level (i.e., .69) than is considered acceptable are therefore less reliable. Take the relationship between NEP
(Nunnally, 1978). scores and year of publication for example. The negative corre-
lation between NEP scores and the year in which a study was
5.1.4. Subjects and samples from each country published suggests that scores from earlier studies are higher
Twelve of the 139 samples in the analysis are made up of ethnic than those from more recent ones. However, previous studies
groups within a country (e.g., Asian Americans). For simplicity of have indicated that pro–EA have increased over the last 20 years
analysis these minorities were coded to the country in which they (e.g., Dunlap et al., 2000; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). It thus seems
lived rather than their country of origin. Using this system the study unlikely that this relationship is actually due to a decrease in EA
includes samples from 36 countries. The number of samples and over time. Multivariate analyses using weighted regression
subjects from each country is presented in Table 3. The majority of analyses were then performed as a more robust way to examine
subjects and samples in the analysis come from North America and the relationship between mean NEP scores and study
Western Europe. characteristics.
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158 149

Table 4
Correlation coefficients of mean NEP scores and study characteristics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. NEP (M) (139)
2. Internal reliability .05 (78)
3. Age .07 .23 (80)
4. Gender .02 .14 .64*** (86)
5. Year .21* .23* .25* .05 (139)
6. Response format .03 .24* .24* .22* .09 (139)
7. Students .02 .00 .80*** .47*** .11 .27** (139)
8. Blue-collar .44*** .09 .08 .19 .04 .03 .12 (139)
9. White-collar .19* .06 .42*** .51*** .06 .05 .21* .05 (139)
10. Environmentalists .32*** .02 .25* .20 .16 .08 .22* .06 .10 (139)
11. Other samples .11 .07 .24* .09 .22** .06 .33** .08 .15 .15 (139)
12. 12-item NEP .22* .07 .04 .04 .06 .12 .10 .39*** .07 .14 .18* (139)
13. 6-item NEP .45*** .32** .20 .01 .45*** .12 .27** .10 .13 .17* .09 .25** (139)
14. Other length .18* .00 .50*** .34** .19* .01 .24** .08 .12 .17* .18* .21* .26** (139)

Note. Number of samples for each variable is indicated in brackets in the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Weighted, random-effects regression analyses using SPSS
macros (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, Appendix D) were performed. In
a first model, all variables were included as predictors (see Table
5). However, due to the small number of cases available for some
variables, this first model (Model 1) includes only forty samples,
which make the findings unstable and less generalizable. To
increase the number of samples included in the analyses and thus
increase statistical power, a second regression model (Model 2)
was performed excluding internal reliability, mean age and gender
from the model. As expected, with fewer variables there is
a reduction in the variance explained by Model 2 (R2 ¼ .48)
compared to Model 1 (R2 ¼ .64). More importantly, however, the
number of samples increased to 137 and the residual for Model 2
is nonsignificant (Qresidual ¼ 137.63, p ¼ .23)dwhile reaching
significance for Model 1 (Qresidual ¼ 46.54, p ¼ .06)dwhich indi-
cates that the unexplained variability in the NEP score in Model 2
is no greater than would be expected from sampling error. This
model thus has higher statistical power and the predictors explain
more of the variability in the NEP scores, providing more robust
findings.
Results from Model 2 are reported in Table 5. As expected, some
of the variables that had significant correlations with NEP scores
are no longer significant when other factors are taken into account.
Nevertheless, variation in study characteristics explains 48% of the
variance in NEP scores. This suggests that, as hypothesized, varia-
tion in methodology may affect the accuracy of NEP scores. Most of
the variables related to sample type and scale length emerge as
significant predictors, indicating that variation in these variables do
affect NEP scores.
Environmentalist and white-collar samples score significantly
higher on the NEP Scale than do representative samples, while
blue-collar samples score significantly lower. Nevertheless, it is
important to note that the vast majority (79.14%) of samples in the
selected studies consist of representative, students or other sample
types, and for these studies the sample type has no significant effect
on NEP scores. Therefore, variation in sample type probably does
not have much of an effect on the comparability of NEP scores for
most studies.
In comparison, variations in scale length have a greater effect on
the comparability of the scores. NEP scores are significantly higher
for samples responding to the 6-item NEP (completed by 25.18% of
samples) than for the baseline 15-item NEP (completed by 41.73% of
samples). On the other hand, NEP scores are significantly lower for
the other (5, 7, 8, and 10 item) scale lengths (completed by 16.54% of
samples). Therefore, variations in scale length do have a prevalent
effect on the comparability of the NEP scores for most studies.
However, given that some studies using shorter versions of the
scale did not use the same items, it is important to note that the

Table 5
Summary of inverse variance weighted regression model predicting the effects of study characteristics on mean NEP score (random effects).

Predictor variable N Model 1 (R2 ¼ .64***, Qmodel ¼ 81.42***, k ¼ 47) Model 2 (R2 ¼ .48***, Qmodel ¼ 127.60***, k ¼ 137)

B SE b Z B SE b Z
Internal reliability 78 .02 .05 .06 .46 – – – –
Age 80 .00 .00 .21 .90 – – – –
Gender (being male) 86 .00 .00 .21 1.56 – – – –
Year 139 .00 .00 .28 2.30* .000 .00 .01 .13
Response format 139 .01 .01 .20 1.88 .00 .00 .03 .45
Students (versus representative) 139 .02 .03 .18 .50 .02 .01 .13 1.37
Blue-collar (versus representative) 139 .21 .04 .61 5.63*** .15 .03 .39 5.52***
White-collar (versus representative) 139 .07 .04 .23 1.77 .04 .01 .20 2.87**
Environmentalists (versus representative) 139 .03 .03 .19 1.05 .07 .01 .31 4.61***
Other samples (versus representative) 139 .00 .02 .02 .08 .01 .01 .04 .44
12-item NEP (versus 15 item NEP) 139 .02 .02 .18 1.23 .01 .01 .05 .68
6-item NEP (versus 15 item NEP) 139 .09 .03 .39 3.43*** .05 .01 .34 3.83***
Other length (versus 15 item NEP) 139 .06 .03 .36 1.71 .03 .01 .18 2.19*

Note. Model 1. All variables included as predictors. Model 2. Excluding internal reliability, age and gender from the model. N ¼ number of samples for each variable;
R2 ¼ proportion of variance accounted for; Qmodel ¼ test of whether the regression model explains a significant amount of variability across effect sizes. k ¼ number of samples
included in the analysis; B ¼ raw regression coefficient; SE ¼ standard error for the regression coefficient; b ¼ standardized regression coefficient; Z ¼ z test for the regression
coefficient.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
150 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
apparent effect of scale length on NEP scores may also be due to the
specific items chosen as opposed to length per se.
5.3. Variations in content of the 6-item scales
Examination of the data used in this analysis suggested that
current usage of the 6-item version of the NEP Scale might (a)
vary considerably across studies and (b) have a significant effect
on samples’ NEP scores. However, due to the limited number of
samples (n ¼ 33) that had used 6 items, it was not possible to
carry out a statistical analysis of what effect this variation in item
content might have had on NEP scores. A content analysis of the
item variation was performed instead. The content analysis
showed that of the 33 studies, 13 (39.40%) used the same 6 items
originally developed by Dunlap for the Continental Group in
1982, and 10 (30.3%) used slightly modified items to remove
sexist wording. Of the remaining 10 studies, 5 studies selected 6
items, seemingly at random, from the original 12-item NEP Scale.
The remaining 5 studies use 6 items that are very similar to the
items developed for the Continental Group, except that the
direction of one item has been changed. The effect of this
(seemingly minor change) is that the three sub-scales within the
6-item NEP Scale are no longer balanced. Overall, however, this
content analysis suggests that the majority of studies were
consistent in using the original items of the shortened 6-item NEP
Scale.
6. Discussion
This article used a meta-analytical approach to provide a quan-
titative review of 30 years of research using the New Environmental
Paradigm (NEP) Scale, including 69 studies, 139 samples, and
58,279 participants. Because the NEP Scale is currently the most
widely used measure to assess people’s environmental attitudes
(EA), it seemed useful to investigate whether variations in the
characteristics of studies using the scale would affect samples’
average scores. Our quantitative review indicates problematic ways
in which the NEP Scale is being used. It also provides evidence that
variation in sample type and scale length do affect NEP scores. The
implications of each of these findings will be discussed briefly and
then some recommendations for future research using the NEP
Scale will be made.
6.1. Problems associated with the use of the NEP Scale
6.1.1. Lack of necessary information
The results show that there is a marked tendency for researchers
to provide less information, both about the NEP Scale and also
about the characteristics of their sample, than is recommended by
the American Psychological Association. For example, only 74 of the
139 samples included in the analyses reported the internal
consistency of their samples’ responses to the NEP Scale. This was
particularly worrisome since many samples in the meta-analysis
had lower internal reliability than is generally considered accept-
able. Researchers also often did not report the standard deviation of
their NEP scores: only 80 of the 139 samples included this crucial
piece of information. Finally, about one third of studies failed to
give basic information about their samples’ composition, such as
the average age or gender composition. While the limited space
available in journals may make it difficult for researchers to include
such details, it is important they do so. In particular, it is essential to
provide the standard deviation and internal reliability of scores on
a scale so that results can be properly interpreted by other
researchers.
6.1.2. Sample type
The results with regard to the effect of sample type on NEP
scores are unsurprising. As found in several primary studies (e.g.,
Dunlap et al., 2000; Widegren, 1998), our meta-analysis reveals
that environmentalists score higher on the NEP Scale than
representative samples, which provides known–group, predictive
validity for the scale. The finding that blue-collar samples score
lower and white-collar samples score higher is also similar to the
results of several primary studies indicating that education
positively correlates with NEP scores (e.g., Dunlap et al., 2000;
Gooch, 1995).
Nevertheless, these results suggest that future researchers
should be aware of the fact that samples from different socio–
economic backgrounds may respond differently to the NEP Scale.
It may even be necessary to develop measures of EA that more
adequately tap the concerns of blue-collar samples from low
income areas (Mohai & Bryant, 1998). However, given that no
difference was observed between the NEP scores of the repre-
sentative, student and other samples, it seems that this may only
be necessary when working with samples drawn from very low or
high socio–economic groups. It may also be necessary to develop
a more appropriate measure of EA for environmentalists given
their tendency to strongly agree with virtually every NEP item,
creating a kind of ‘ceiling effect’ (cf. Widegren, 1998). It would be
interesting to see if scales developed specifically for use with
environmentalists show higher correlation with pro-environ-
mental behavior than does the NEP Scale. Given the benefits of
having results that can be easily compared across studies, it is
recommended that while researchers may want to develop new
scales for use with white/blue-collar/environmentalist groups,
they should also administer the NEP Scale or another standard EA
measure to such samples.
6.1.3. Variation in scale length and item content
Samples tend to score higher on the 6-item version of the NEP
Scale and lower on versions using other numbers of items than on
the revised 15-item NEP Scale. This suggests that variations in the
way the NEP Scale is used may affect both the accuracy and
comparability of research using this scale to measure EA. It is of
course possible that despite the difference in mean scores observed
responses to the 12–, 6–, and 15-item versions of the NEP Scale
might still be highly correlated. In this case, although their mean
scores might not be directly numerically comparable, studies using
different versions of the NEP Scale could be assumed to be
measuring the same construct, and also to correlate similarly to
other variables such as pro-environmental behavior.
However, given the variation observed in item content among
studies using different versions of the scale, this assumption of
equivalence of the versions of the NEP Scale cannot be supported.
For example, our content analysis of studies that used 6 items from
the NEP Scale indicates that such studies usually did not include
items referring to the possibility of an ‘‘ecological catastrophe’’ or
‘‘crisis’’ (phrases that occur in the original 12-item and revised 15-
item versions). This may well explain why samples tend to score
higher on the 6-item NEP Scale than the other versions. Dunlap and
colleagues (2000, Table 1) break–down of responses suggests that
samples often agree less with ‘‘catastrophe’’ items than many other
items in the NEP Scale. It seems intuitively logical that more people
are concerned about humans’ treatment of the environment than
concerned that humans’ treatment of the environment will lead to
an eco-crisis. It is also conceivable that including such items in
a scale might create a context effect (Schwarz, 1999) that would
cause participants who reject the possibility of an eco-crisis to
respond in a less pro-environmentally fashion to all items in the
scale.
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158 151

6.2. Recommendations for future studies using the NEP Scale could be created by selecting one pro– and one anti–NEP item
from each of the five hypothesized facets.2 However, selecting
Based on these results some recommendations for how the items from the NEP Scale like this should be avoided as the
NEP Scale can be used more effectively in future research present results do indicate that the number of items selected
are provided. The first recommendation refers to the information impacts the overall NEP score. Researchers should be aware that
provided in published articles. Researchers should be careful there is a trade–off between having brief but less accurate
to provide all the information needed for their research to be measures, or having long but accurate ones. It is therefore strongly
correctly interpreted: explicitly indicating which items they used recommended that researchers use all 15 items of the revised NEP
from the NEP Scale, and the mean, standard deviation, and Scale whenever possible.
internal reliability. Researchers should also provide enough
information on their samples’ characteristics (e.g., sample type,
6.3. Concluding remarks
percentage of female/male, age range and mean, etc.) to allow
their results to be viewed in context.
One possible limitation of this meta-analysis is that it includes
Reporting more information could also increase our under-
studies from a very wide range of countries. These studies may not
standing of the correlation between EA and other variables. For
be representative of the bulk of NEP research as the vast majority of
example, if all researchers were to provide information on the
studies using the NEP Scale have probably been conducted in North
correlation between NEP scores and the gender, age, educational
America. However, the decision to include studies from different
level, or income of respondents this would provide a robust body of
countries can also be seen as a strength as it means that the analysis
information that could be used to test whether associations
represents the true diversity of research using the NEP Scale that is
between these characteristics and EA truly exist. Currently, it is
occurring worldwide. It is also worth noting that 62 of the 139
usually only possible to locate a handful of studies that have
samples included in this analysis do come from North America,
consistently used the same measure of EA and reported the rela-
thus, hopefully, making these results generalizable to most NEP
tionship between scores on the EA measure and some other char-
research.
acteristics of participants. For example, Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich
Despite the fact that the NEP Scale has attracted widespread
(2000) could locate only six studies between 1988 and 1998 that
use and despite the fact that EA is a crucial construct in the field,
examined gender and EA using the NEP Scale.
there is a lack of empirical and theoretical integration in studies
The second recommendation refers to the response format
employing this scale as a measure of EA. As suggested, this
used. Theoretical and empirical advances in the field of attitude
problem is compounded by the varying ways in which the NEP
measurement have led to guidelines for the optimal development
Scale has been used. More consistent use of the 15–item version of
of direct self–report attitude measures using the Likert technique.
the NEP Scale could help improve this situation.
A recent research review by Krosnick, Judd, and Wittenbrink
Some recent studies have tried to systematize the study of EA
(2005) suggests that data quality improves when 7–point scales
by building on previous studies and provide a better con-
are used. Although the NEP Scale uses a 5–point scale format, our
ceptualisation of the content and structure of EA (e.g., Blaikie,
results did not indicate any effect of the response format on the
1992; Bogner & Wiseman, 1999; Milfont, 2007b; Milfont &
NEP score. For the sake of consistency, it is thus recommended that
Duckitt, 2004b, 2006). Moreover, empirical studies have been
researchers continue using the 5–point scale format of the original
attempting to develop EA measures based on recent theoretical
scale, as the majority (83.45% in this analysis) of researchers are
advances in the field (e.g., Bogner & Wiseman, 2006, 2007). For
already doing.
example, Milfont and Duckitt (in press) developed the Environ-
The third recommendation refers to the use of specific items
mental Attitudes Inventory (EAI) as a psychometrically sound,
from the NEP Scale. Our findings show that studies using either
multi–dimensional inventory to assess EA cross–culturally. The
the 12– or the 15-item versions of the scales are comparable.
EAI comprises a comprehensive list of twelve scales that captures
However, when researchers have used a smaller number of items
both the vertical and horizontal structure of EA, and has shown
from the NEP Scale, this seems to have a negative effect on the
acceptable reliability and validity in samples from Brazil, New
comparability and, possibly, the validity of their scores. To para-
Zealand, and South Africa (Milfont, Duckitt, & Wagner, in press-a,
phrase the title of the well–known article by Van Liere and Dunlap
in press-b).
(1981), it does make a difference how the NEP is measured. There
These theoretical and methodological advances in the area
are situations and settings where time needed for completion is
should bring integration to the field. However, until a gold–stan-
a major constraint in the use of the NEP Scale, and researchers
dard EA measure has been widely accepted, it is probably advisable
therefore select a sample of items. In this case, it is recommended
for researchers to continue using the NEP Scale as a standardized
that they use a balanced set of pro– and anti–NEP items. For
measure of EA. This study quantitatively reviewed the use (and
example, a 10-item short form version of the revised NEP Scale
abuse) of this scale over the last 30 years. As environmental issues
grow increasingly serious, we must ensure that our measures
provide reliable and accurate scores of EA. It is hoped that the
2
As an illustration, this proposed short version was tested with a published results of this research will be helpful to future researchers using
sample (see Milfont & Duckitt, 2004b) of 455 undergraduate students (319 females;
the NEP Scale.
136 males), with ages ranging from 17 to 48 years (M ¼ 20; S.D. ¼ 4.31). Two
balanced items with higher corrected mean-item total correlations reported by
Dunlap and colleagues (2000, Table 1) were selected for each facet (i.e., items 4, 6, 7,
Acknowledgements
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15). The corrected item-total correlations for the full NEP
scale (M ¼ 4.71; S.D. ¼ .67), ranged from .154 (item 6) to .435 (item 1) and averaged
.373, with Cronbach’s alpha of .768. The corrected item-total correlations for the This research was made possible by a Faculty of Arts Honours
proposed 10-item version of the NEP scale (M ¼ 4.71; S.D. ¼ .68), ranged from .125 scholarship from the University of Auckland to Lucy J. Hawcroft,
(item 6) to .502 (item 15) and averaged .339, with Cronbach’s alpha of .675. This and by scholarship BEX 2246/02–3 from the Ministry of Educa-
reduction in Cronbach’s alpha is expected because this coefficient on the number of
items. Overall, however, this short version provides reasonable internal consistency,
tion of Brazil (CAPES Foundation) to Taciano L. Milfont. The
and correlates (r ¼ .29, p < .001) as strongly as the full version (r ¼ .31, p < .001) with authors would like to express their appreciation to Ronald
a 8-item measure of ecological behavior. Fischer for his valuable help on meta-analysis literature and to
Appendix A

152
Summary statistics for all NEP studies and samples included in the meta-analysis.

Study Culture of sample Sample occupation Sample size Gender (% male) Age (m) Scale length Mean NEPa SD NEP a NEP
Amérigo and Gonzalez (2001) Spain Students 165 31 21 15 3.58 .42 .69
Andersson, Shivarajan, and Blau (2005) Indian White-collar 147 – – 5 3.98 .42 .71
Arcury and Christianson (1990) 1. USA Representativeb 441 48 – 5 2.85 .74 .63
2. USA Representative 653 51 – 5 2.95 .74 .62
Barr and Gilg (2006) United Kingdom Representative 1214 – – 6 3.98 .59 –
Berenguer, Corraliza, and Martin (2005) 1. Spain Other 90 – – 15 3.40 – –
2. Spain Other 95 – – 15 3.63 – –
Bjerke, Østdahl, Thrane, and Strumse (2006) Norway Representative 720 49 50 5 3.80 .71 .78
Blaikie (1992) 1. Australia Students 390 53 21 6 3.96 – –
2. Australia Representative 402 51 42 6 3.88 – –
Blake et al., (1997) Canada Representative 1954 – – 10 3.93 – –
Bostrom et al. (2006) 1. Bulgaria Representative 787 45 – 6 3.52 – .45
2. Bulgaria Other 250 50 38 6 4.03 – .45

L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

3. Bulgaria Other 250 50 37 6 3.93 – .54
Casey and Scott (2006) Australia Other 292 34 36 15 3.69 .51 .84
Castro and Lima (2001) Portugal Other 396 40 30 15 3.72 .42 –
Chung and Poon (2001) 1. China Representative – – – 12 3.54 – –
2. China Other – – – 12 3.58 – –
3. China Other 204 – – 12 3.75 – –
Chung and Poon (2000) 1. China Other 2131 – – 12 3.60 – –
2. Hong Kong Other 540 – – 12 3.66 – –
Clark et al. (2003) 1. USA Representative 619 70 51 10 3.39 .69 .80c
2. USA Environmentalists 281 58 52 10 3.78 .73 .80c
Cooper, Poe, and Bateman (2004) United Kingdom Students 200 – – 15 3.88 – .72
Cottrell (2003) USA White-collar 226 97 50 12 3.90 – .82
Davey and Vertrees (1999) 1. Canada White-collar 40 85 57 12 4.00 – –
2. USA White-collar 27 85 52 12 3.50 – –
Deng, Walker, and Swinnerton (2006) 1. Anglo–Canadian Representative 160 55 – 15 3.81 .52 –
2. Chinese–Canadian Representative 178 57 – 15 3.67 .53 –
Dunlap et al. (2000) USA Representative 676 – – 15 3.75 – .83
Environment Waikato (2007) 1. New Zealand Representative 1873 – – 6 3.88 – –
2. New Zealand Representative 528 – – 6 3.56 – –
Eriksson, Garvill, and Nordlund (2006) Sweden Representative 922 48 49 15 3.67 .48 .77
Furman and Erdur (1995) 1. Turkey Representative 387 53 – 12 3.84 .44 .58
2. Turkey Students 144 49 – 12 3.83 .45 .62
Gooch (1995) 1. Estonia Representative 400 51 – 6 3.70 – .52
2. Latvia Representative 407 49 – 6 3.69 – .35
3. Sweden Representative 287 53 – 6 4.22 – .58
Hall and Moran (2006) United Kingdom Environmentalists 38 42 – 10 4.13 – –
Hodgkinson and Innes (2000) Australia Students 391 40 21 12 4.05 .63 .80
Holt (2005) USA Other 900 81 – 12 3.69 .73 –
Hunter and Rinner (2004) USA Representative 398 – – 15 3.81 .73 .87
Jager (2006) 1. Netherlands Environmentalists 197 76 47 7 3.70 – .58
2. Netherlands Other 108 – – 7 3.05 – .60
Johnson et al. (2004) 1. African–American Representative 248 – – 10 3.61 .96 .70c
2. Anglo–American Representative 2995 – – 10 3.68 .69 .70c
3. Asian–American Representative 57 – – 10 3.74 .94 .70c
4. Latinos born in USA Representative 169 – – 10 3.67 .86 .70c
5. Latinos born outside USA Representative 44 – – 10 3.31 1.00 .70c
Kaiser, Hubner, and Bogner (2005) Germany Students 468 17 23 15 4.08 .45 .78
Kim, Borges, and Chon (2006) Brazil Other 412 52 – 15 3.59 – –
Kortenkamp and Moore (2006) USA Students 112 29 19 15 3.57 .58 .83
Kotchen and Moore (2007) 1. USA Environmentalists 624 70 51 5 3.44 – .68
2. USA Environmentalists 677 53 60 5 3.46 – .71
Kotchen and Reiling (2000) 1. USA Representative 206 – – 15 3.65 – .83
2. USA Representative 200 – – 15 3.61 – .83
Appendix A (continued )

Study Culture of sample Sample occupation Sample size Gender (% male) Age (m) Scale length Mean NEPa SD NEP a NEP
Kurz, Donaghue, and Walker (2005) Australia Other 93 – – 15 3.62 .44 –
Lai, Brennan, Chan, and Tao (2003) Hong Kong Other 229 52 35 15 3.46 .37 .56
Leung and Rice (2002) 1. Anglo–Australian Other 203 37 35 12 3.81 .57 .71
2. Chinese–Australian Other 98 61 33 12 3.57 .41 .59
Liu and Sibley (2004) 1. New Zealand Students 1924 51 – 8 3.88 .74 .75
2. New Zealand Students 224 – – 6 3.80 .66 .75
Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, USA White-collar 201 42 – 6 3.86 .79 .70
and Oskamp (1997)
Marshall, Picou, and Bevc (2005) 1. USA Representative 118 48 40 8 3.86 – –
2. USA Representative 73 44 42 8 3.55 – –
Mayer and Frantz (2004) USA Other 60 52 31 15 3.94 .50 .75
McFarlane, Stumpf–Allen, Watson (2006) 1. Canada Other 484 – 51 15 3.71 .64 .83c
2. Canada Other 435 – 46 15 3.87 .60 .83c
3. Canada Representative 457 – 45 15 3.67 .60 .83c

L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

Milfont, Duckitt, and Cameron (2006) New Zealand Students 455 30 20 15 3.51 .48 .77
Olli et al., (2001) 1. Norway Environmentalists 2000 – – 15 4.09 – .71
2. Norway Representative 3686 – – 15 3.69 – .71
Pahl, Harris, Todd, and Rutter (2005) 1. United Kingdom Students 45 – 21 15 3.31 – .86c
2. United Kingdom Environmentalists 45 – 21 15 4.22 – .86c
Palmgren, Morgan, De Bruin, and Keith (2004) USA Other 120 36 52 15 3.36 – .84
Pierce et al. (1987) 1. Japanese Representative 684 – – 6 4.05 – .69
2. Japanese White-collar 436 – – 6 4.25 – .62
3. Japanese Environmentalists 588 – – 6 4.08 – .67
4. USA Representative 524 – – 6 3.78 – .62
5. USA White-collar 139 – – 6 3.97 – .68
6. USA Environmentalists 235 – – 6 3.98 – .71
Rahelizatovo and Gillespie (2004) USA Other 124 – 51 15 3.22 .61 –
Rauwald and Moore (2002) 1. Dominican Republic Students 267 43 19 6 3.49 .52 –
2. USA Students 257 26 28 6 3.99 .54 –
Rideout et al. (2005) 1. USA Other 305 45 – 15 3.42 .58 .83
2. USA Other 659 35 – 15 3.60 .56 .82
Schultz et al. (2005) 1. Brazil Students 208 27 27 15 3.55 .36 .56
2. Czech Republic Students 113 34 24 15 3.80 .42 .74
3. Germany Students 120 25 26 15 4.02 .34 .64
4. India Students 210 34 20 15 3.50 .40 .60
5. New Zealand Students 217 33 25 15 3.74 .44 .72
6. Russia Students 120 84 18 15 3.64 .40 .68
Schultz, Unipan, and Gamba (2000) 1. Latino low acculturation, USA Blue-collar 63 32 28 12 3.58 – .74c
2. Latino medium acculturation, Blue-collar 62 32 28 12 2.87 – .74c
USA
3. Latino high acculturation, Blue-collar 28 32 28 12 2.57 – .74c
USA
4. USA Blue-collar 39 31 38 12 2.75 – .77
Schultz et al. (2004) USA Students 160 – – 15 3.57 .46 .78
(continued on next page)

153
 Appendix A (continued )

154
Study Culture of sample Sample occupation Sample size Gender (% male) Age (m) Scale length Mean NEPa SD NEP a NEP
Schultz and Zelezny (1999), Schultz et al. 1. Argentina Students 54 41 24 15 3.83 .45 .65
(2000), and Zelezny et al. (2000) 2. Canada Students 96 28 23 15 4.11 .40 .74
3. Columbia Students 149 20 24 15 4.01 .40 .60
4. Costa Rica Students 213 36 26 15 4.08 .45 .67
5. Dominican Republic Students 121 44 21 15 3.75 .37 .47
6. El Salvador Students 194 36 26 15 3.69 .45 .55
7. Ecuador Students 201 47 28 15 3.93 .43 .69
8. Mexico Students 65 63 37 15 3.88 .40 .51
9. Panama Students 100 32 24 15 3.94 .36 .54
10. Peru Students 224 30 24 15 3.89 .41 .56
11. Paraguay Students 200 40 25 15 3.75 .38 .62
12. Spain Students 104 36 23 15 3.83 .45 .70
13. USA Students 245 29 21 15 3.67 .53 .81
14. Venezuela Students 194 41 25 15 3.91 .39 .63

L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

Shafer (2006) USA Students 302 57 34 15 3.47 .77 .82
Shin (2001) South Korea Other 550 56 29 12 3.77 .10 .69
Slimak and Dietz (2006) 1. USA Representative 291 59 51 5 3.57 – –
2. USA White-collar 113 77 50 5 3.80 – –
3. USA White-collar 148 70 48 5 4.03 – –
4. USA White-collar 62 66 51 5 3.72 – –
Steel, List, Lach, and Shindler (2004) 1. USA White-collar 155 – 48 6 4.30 .49 .81c
2. USA White-collar 167 – 48 6 3.97 .64 .81c
3. USA Other 118 – 49 6 4.40 .63 .81c
4. USA Other 192 – 56 6 3.99 .95 .81c
Steel, Lovrich, Lach, and Formenko (2005) USA Representative 3204 – 51 6 3.77 .77 .79
Steel, Smith, Opsommer, Curiel, and USA Representative 1176 – 51 6 3.89 .75 .79
Warner-Steel (2005)
Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005) Netherlands Other 112 46 40 15 3.50 .40 .73
Steger, Pierce, Steel, and Lovrich (1989) 1. Canada Representative 600 – – 6 4.04 – –
2. Canada Environmentalists 447 – – 6 4.44 – –
3. USA Representative 476 – – 6 3.88 – –
4. USA Environmentalists 566 – – 6 4.29 – –
Tarrant and Cordell (1997) USA Representative 1220 39 43 12 3.69 50 .75
Thapa (1999) USA Students 540 55 – 15 3.48 – –
Vikan, Camino, Biaggio, and 1. Brazil Students 60 50 23 15 3.73 .42 .66
Nordvik (2007) 2. Brazil Students 60 50 23 15 3.76 .37 .53
3. Norway Students 120 50 24 15 3.60 .42 .72
Watson and Halse (2005) 1. Australia Students 211 13 22 12 3.99 .47 –
2. Indonesia Students 225 14 21 12 3.71 .40 –
3. Maldives Students 199 20 21 12 3.44 .40 –
Widegren (1998) 1. Sweden Representative 1008 – – 6 4.04 – –
2. Sweden Environmentalists 446 – – 6 4.47 – –
3. Sweden Environmentalists 243 – – 6 4.70 – –

Notes: – ¼ no data available. a mean NEP scores are standardized to a 5–point scale. b representative ¼ representative sample of nation or region. c Represents the average internal reliability of several samples from the same
study.
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
thank Riley E. Dunlap for his helpful comments on an earlier draft
of this article.
Appendix B
References to studies included in the meta-analysis
1. Amérigo, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2001). Los valores y las creencias
medioambientales en relación con las decisiones sobre dilemas
ecológicos. [The relationship of values and environmental
beliefs to decisions about ecological dilemmas]. Estudios de
Psicologı́a, 22, 65–73.
2. Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting
ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted
Value–Belief–Norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59,
295–305.
3. Arcury, T. A., & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental
worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky
1984 and 1988 compared. Environment and Behavior, 22,
387–407.
4. Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing envi-
ronmental action in and around the home. Geoforum, 37,
906–92.
5. Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martin, R. (2005). Rural–urban
differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 128–138.
6. Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vege-
tation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness
for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 35–44.
7. Blaikie, N. W. H. (1992). The nature and origins of ecological
world views: An Australian study. Social Science Quarterly, 73,
144–165.
8. Blake, D. E., Guppy, N., & Urmetzer, P. (1997). Canadian public
opinion and environmental action: Evidence from British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 30, 451–472.
9. Bostrom, A., Barke, R., Turaga, R. M., & O’Connor, R. E. (2006).
Environmental concerns and the new environmental paradigm
in Bulgaria. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 25–40.
10. Casey, P. J., & Scott, K. (2006). Environmental concern and
behaviour in an Australian sample within an ecocentric–
anthropocentric framework. Australian Journal of Psychology,
58, 57–67.
11. Castro, P., & Lima, M. L. (2001). Old and new ideas about the
environment and science: An exploratory study. Environment
and Behavior, 33, 400–423.
12. Chung, S. S., & Poon, C. S. (2000). A comparison of waste
reduction practices and the new environmental paradigm in
four southern Chinese areas. Environmental Management, 26,
195–206.
13. Chung, S. S., & Poon, C. S. (2001). A comparison of waste-
reduction practices and new environmental paradigm of rural
and urban Chinese citizens. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 62, 3–19.
14. Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and
external influences on pro–environmental behavior: Partici-
pation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23, 237–246.
15. Cooper, P., Poe, G. L., & Bateman, I. J. (2004). The structure of
motivation for contingent values: A case study of lake water
quality improvement. Ecological Economics, 50, 69–82.
16. Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and
environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental
behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and
Behavior, 35, 347–375.
17. Davey, A. L., & Vertrees, R. L. (1999). Comparative analysis of
stakeholders’ attitudes toward the human–environment
155
relationship in two Great Lakes areas of concern. The Toledo
Journal of Great Lakes’ Law, Science, & Policy, 13, 13–32.
18. Deng, J., Walker, G. J., & Swinnerton, G. (2006). A comparison of
environmental values and attitudes between Chinese in Canada
and Anglo–Canadians. Environment and Behavior, 38, 22–47.
19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000).
Measuring endorsement of the new environmental paradigm:
A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
20. Environment Waikato. (n.d.). EW people’s environmental atti-
tudes. Retrieved June, 10, 2007, from: http://www.ew.govt.
nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2c/report.
htm
21. Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2006). Acceptability
of travel demand management measures: The importance of
problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 15–26.
22. Furman, A., & Erdur, O. (1995). Environmental attitudes among
Bogazici university students: Testing the ‘‘environmentalist’’
hypothesis. Review of Social, Economic and Administrative
Studies, 9, 109–122.
23. Gooch, G. D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in
Sweden and the Baltic states. Environment and Behavior, 27,
513–539.
24. Hall, C., & Moran, D. (2006). Investigating GM risk perceptions:
A survey of anti–GM and environmental campaign group
members. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 29–37.
25. Hodgkinson, S. P., & Innes, J. (2000). The prediction of ecological
and environmental belief systems: The differential contribu-
tions of social conservatism and beliefs about money. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 20, 285–294.
26. Holt, D. T., & Lofgren, S. T. (2005). Examination of the new
environmental paradigm scale in a military sample. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 100, 791–794.
27. Hunter, L. M., & Rinner, L. (2004). The association between
environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with
species diversity. Society & Natural Resources, 17, 517–532.
28. Jager, W. (2006). Stimulating the diffusion of photovoltaic
systems: A behavioural perspective. Energy Policy, 34,1935–1943.
29. Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic varia-
tion in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of
the New Ecological Paradigm in a social psychological context.
Environment and Behavior, 36, 157–186.
30. Kaiser, F. G., Hubner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the
theory of planned behavior with the value–belief–norm model
in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35, 2150–217.
31. Kim, H., Borges, M. C., & Chon, J. (2006). Impacts of environ-
mental values on tourism motivation: The case of FICA, Brazil.
Tourism Management, 27, 957–967.
32. Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and
individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource
dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
603–615.
33. Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2007). Private provision of
environmental public goods: Household participation in green-
electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 53, 1–16.
34. Kotchen, M. J., & Reiling, S. D. (2000). Environmental attitudes,
motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case
study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32,
93–107.
35. Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., & Walker, I. (2005). Utilizing a social–
ecological framework to promote water and energy conserva-
tion: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,
1281–130.
156 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
36. Lai, C. L. J., Brennan, A., Chan, H. M., & Tao, J. (2003). Disposition
toward environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese: Vali-
dation of a Chinese version of the environmental appraisal
inventory (EAI–C). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
369–384.
37. Leung, C., & Rice, J. (2002). Comparison of Chinese–Australian
and Anglo–Australian environmental attitudes and behavior.
Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 251–262.
38. Liu, J. H., & Sibley, C. G. (2004). Attitudes and behavior in social
space: Public good interventions based on shared representa-
tions and environmental influences. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 373–384.
39. Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S.
(1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern
on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137,
189–204.
40. Marshall, B. K., Picou, J. S., & Bevc, C. A. (2005). Ecological
disaster as contextual transformation: Environmental values in
a renewable resource community. Environment and Behavior,
37, 706–728.
41. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature
scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with
nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
42. McFarlane, B. L., Stumpf–Allen, R. C. G., & Watson, D. O. (2006).
Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national
parks: The case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus
ponderosae Hopkins). Biological Conservation, 130, 340–348.
43. Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. (2006). Time perspective and
values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental
attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 72–82.
44. Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of
environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 33, 181–208.
45. Pahl, S., Harris, P., Todd, H. A., & Rutter, D. (2005). Comparative
optimism for environmental risks. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 25, 1–11.
46. Palmgren, C. R., Morgan, M. G., De Bruin, W. B., & Keith, D. W.
(2004). Initial public perceptions of deep geological and
oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science &
Technology, 38, 6441–645.
47. Pierce, J. C., Lovrich, N. P., Tsurutani, T., & Abe, T. (1987). Culture,
politics and mass publics: Traditional and modern supporters
of the new environmental paradigm in Japan and the United
States. The Journal of Politics, 49, 54–79.
48. Rahelizatovo, N. C., & Gillespie, J. M. (2004). Factors influ-
encing the implementation of best management practices in
the dairy industry. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 59,
166–175.
49. Rauwald, K. S., & Moore, C. F. (2002). Environmental attitudes
as predictors of policy support across three countries. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 34, 709–739.
50. Rideout, B. E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins, S., & Tate, J.
(2005). Endorsement of the new environmental paradigm in
systematic and e–mail samples of college students. Journal of
Environmental Education, 36(2), 15–23.
51. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G.,
Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship
to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of
Cross–Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.
52. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004).
Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 31–42.
53. Schultz, P. W., Unipan, J. B., & Gamba, R. J. (2000). Acculturation
and ecological worldview among Latino Americans. Journal of
Environmental Education, 31(2), 22–27.
54. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of
environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14
countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255–265.
55. Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L. C., & Dalrymple, N. J. (2000). A
multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo–
Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior, 32, 576–591.
56. Shafer, W. E. (2006). Social paradigms and attitudes toward
environmental accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65,
121–147.
57. Shin, W. S. (2001). Reliability and factor structure of a Korean
version of the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 16, 9–18.
58. Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and
ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 26, 1689–1705.
59. Steel, B. S., List, P., Lach, D., & Shindler, B. (2004). The role of
scientists in the environmental policy process: A case study
from the American west. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 1–13.
60. Steel, B. S., Lovrich, N. P., Lach, D., & Fomenko, V. (2005).
Correlates and consequences of public knowledge concerning
ocean fisheries management. Coastal Management, 33, 37–51.
61. Steel, B. S., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel, S., & Warner-Steel, R.
(2005). Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 48, 97–114.
62. Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influ-
encing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN
theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415–425.
63. Steger, M. A., Pierce, J. C., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1989).
Political culture, postmaterial values, and the new environ-
mental paradigm: A comparative analysis of Canada and the
United States. Political Behavior, 11, 233–254.
64. Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (1997). The effect of respondent
characteristics on general environmental attitude–behavior
correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29, 618–637.
65. Thapa, B. (1999). Environmentalism: The relation of environ-
mental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviors
among undergraduate students. Bulletin of Science, Technology,
& Society, 19, 426–438.
66. Vikan, A., Camino, C., Biaggio, A., & Nordvik, H. (2007).
Endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: A compar-
ison of two Brazilian samples and one Norwegian sample.
Environment and Behavior, 39, 217–228.
67. Watson, K., & Halse, C. M. (2005). Environmental attitudes of
pre–service teachers: A conceptual and methodological
dilemma in cross–cultural data collection. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 6, 59–71.
68. Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and
personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 30, 75–10.
69. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on
gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues,
56, 443–457.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1987). Formulas for equating ratings on different scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 47, 51–54.
Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (1999). Environmental belief
systems: United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
30, 122–128.
Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Asai, M., & Riesle, A. G. (2006). A cross-cultural
study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru.
International Journal of Psychology, 41, 145–151.
Blaikie, W. H. (1992). The nature and origins of ecological world views: an
Australian study. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 144–165.
Blake, D. E., Guppy, N., & Urmetzer, P. (1997). Canadian public opinion and envi-
ronmental action: evidence from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Political
Science, 30, 451–472.
 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158
Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (1999). Toward measuring adolescent environmental
perception. European Psychologist, 4, 139–151.
Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2006). Adolescent’s attitudes towards nature and
environment: quantifying the 2-MEV model. Environmentalist, 26, 231–237.
Bostrom, A., Barke, R., Turaga, R. M. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2006). Environmental
concerns and the new environmental paradigm in Bulgaria. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education, 37, 25–40.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on
pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246.
Corral-Verdugo, V., & Armendáriz, L. I. (2000). The ‘‘new environmental paradigm’’
in a Mexican community. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 25–31.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30,
450–471.
Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: conceptual and
measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental sociology (pp. 482–524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2003). Environmental attitudes and values. In
R. Fernández-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment, Vol. 1
(pp. 364–369). London: Sage.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of
Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm
and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013–1028.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
Fischer, R., Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. Does social context affect value structures?
Testing the within-country stability of value structures with a functional theory
of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, in press.
Floyd, M. F., & Noe, F. P. (1996, May). An assessment of the revised new ecological
paradigm scale among visitors at two National Park settings. Paper presented at
the Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equiv-
alence of the values domain across cultures: distinguishing sampling fluctuations
from meaningful variations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.
Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: conceptual definitions,
measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 369–382.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior
(2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Geller, J., & Lasley, P. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: a reexami-
nation. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 9–12.
Gooch, G. D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic
states. Environment and Behavior, 27, 513–539.
Hall, C., & Moran, D. (2006). Investigating GM risk perceptions: a survey of anti-GM and
environmental campaign group members. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 29–37.
Heberlein, T. A. (1981). Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 4,
241–270.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-
analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
Hunter, L. M., & Rinner, L. (2004). The association between environmental
perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society and
Natural Resources, 17, 517–532.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the
persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
Ji, C.-H. C. (2004). Factor structure of the new environmental paradigm scale:
evidence from an urban sample in Southern California. Psychological Reports, 94,
125–130.
Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental
belief and behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social
psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157–186.
Kluckhohn, F. R. (1953). Dominant and variant value orientations. In C. Kluckhohn,
H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society and culture
(2nd ed.). (pp. 342–366) New York: Knopf.
Knight, A. J. (2008). ‘‘Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!’’ How aesthetic and nega-
tivistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 94–103.
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and individual differ-
ences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 603–615.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes.
In D. Albarracı́n, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes
(pp. 21–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. W. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: let’s hear it from the people. An
objective scale for measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 28, 583–586.
157
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psychology in action: a revised
scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American
Psychologist, 30, 787–790.
Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children’s environmental
worldviews: modifying and validating the new ecological paradigm scale for
use with children. Journal of Environmental Education, 38, 3–13.
Milfont, T. L. (2007a). An integrative framework for the study of the dimensionality
of environmental attitudes. Unpublished manuscript.
Milfont, T. L. (2007b). Psychology of environmental attitudes: A cross-cultural study of
their content and structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland, New
Zealand: University of Auckland.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004a). Investigating the dimensionality of the
revised new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 56, 82.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004b). The structure of environmental attitudes: a first-
and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 289–303.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2006). Preservation and utilization: understanding the
structure of environmental attitudes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento
Humano, 7, 29–50.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and
reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, in press.
Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Wagner, C. A cross-cultural test of the value-attitude-
behaviour hierarchy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, in press-a.
Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Wagner, C. The higher order structure of environmental atti-
tudes: A cross-cultural examination. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, in press-b.
Milfont, T. L., Hawcroft, L. J., & Fischer, R. (2008). A meta-analysis of societal variables
associated with environmental attitudes. Unpublished manuscript. New Zealand:
Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystem and well-being: Synthesis
report. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1998). Is there a ‘‘race’’ effect on concern for environmental
quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 475–505.
Noe, F. P., & Snow, R. (1990). The new environmental paradigm and further scale
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 20–26.
Nooney, J. G., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (2003). Environmental
worldview and behavior: consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North
Carolinians. Environment and Behavior, 35, 763–783.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behav-
iors: bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181–208.
Osborn, F. (1948). Our plundered planet. Boston: Little, Brown.
Pierce, J. C., Lovrich, N. P., Tsurutani, T., & Abe, T. (1987). Culture, politics and mass
publics: traditional and modern supporters of the new environmental para-
digm in Japan and the United States. Journal of Politics, 49, 54–79.
Pierce, J. C., Steger, M. E., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1992). Citizens, political
communication, and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and
the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Pirages, D. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Ark II: Social responses to environmental
imperatives. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
Rauwald, K. S., & Moore, C. F. (2002). Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy
support across three countries. Environment and Behavior, 34, 709–739.
Rideout, B. E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins, S., & Tate, J. (2005). Endorsement of
the new ecological paradigm in systematic and e-mail samples of college
students. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 15–23.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: recent developments in quan-
titative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self,
other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21,
327–339.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental atti-
tudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 255–265.
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M.
(2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conserva-
tion behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connec-
tions with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.
Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L. C., & Dalrymple, N. J. (2000). A multinational perspective
on the relation between Judeo–Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 32, 576–591.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in
social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723–743.
Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: a comparative analysis between students
in recreation and park management and other departments. Environmental
Education Research, 7, 39–53.
158 L.J. Hawcroft, T.L. Milfont / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 143–158

Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: does it
make a difference how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651–676.
Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., & Jurasek, M. (2008). Context change and travel
mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 121–127.
Watson, K., & Halse, C. M. (2005). Environmental attitudes of pre-service teachers:
a conceptual and methodological dilemma in cross-cultural data collection. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 6, 59–71.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: the development of
a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3–15.
Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms.
Environment and Behavior, 30, 75–100.
Yencken, D., Fein, J., & Sykes, H. (2000). Environment, education, and society in the
Asia–Pacific. London: Routledge.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457.