Journal of Environmental Psychology (1994) 14, 149--157 0272-4944/94/020149+09508.

00/0
© 1994 Academic Press Limited

PSYCHOLOGY
ECOCENTRIC AND ANTHROPOCENTRIC ATTITUDES
TOWARD THE E N V I R O N M E N T

SUZANNE C. GAGNONTHOMPSONAND MICHELLEA. BARTON

Pomona College, 550 Harvard Avenue, Claremont, CA, U.S.A.

Abstract

The relationship between two motives underlying environmental attitudes was examined: ecocentrism--
valuing nature for its own sake, and anthropocentrism--valuing nature because of material or physical
benefits it can provide for humans. Scales to measure ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes and general
apathy toward environmental issues were developed. In Study 1, the ecocentric and anthropocentric scales
were found to predict independently conserving behaviors, apathy toward environmental issues, and member-
ship in environmental organizations. In Study 2, these results were partially replicated and extended to
include the relationship between ecocentric attitudes and an observed measure of environmentally-relevant
behavior. In addition, it was demonstrated that the ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction explains behavior
independently of environmental attitudes measured with a traditional attitude scale. Implications of the
ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction for further research on environmental attitudes and behaviors are
discussed.

The good news from the environmental front is t h a t difficult to act on their tendency to conserve when
concern for environmental issues is widespread faced with higher prices or the need to forego con-
among the American public. In one national sample venience and comfort to do so. Recognizing t h a t the
as m a n y as 80% of respondents identified them- difficulty of conserving plays a role in people not
selves as 'environmentalists' (Gutfeld, 1991) and acting on their attitudes, the present study explored
72% in an other study agreed t h a t 'environmental another reason for the lack of a strong link between
problems are urgent' (Milbrath, 1985). In addition, attitudes and action. We suggest there are at least
there is strong verbal endorsement of making two motives or values (ecocentric and anthropocen-
lifestyle changes to protect the environment, even if tric) t h a t underlie support for environmental issues.
those changes require personal economic costs or Both ecocentric and anthropocentric individuals
inconvenience (Gutfeld, 1991). express positive attitudes toward environmental
Unfortunately, this seemingly strong commit- issues--the difference in these two orientations is in
ment to the environment and conservation does not the reasons given for supporting conservation.
always seem to be effectively translated into action Ecocentric individuals value n a t u r e for its own
to conserve resources. Despite very positive views of sake and, therefore, judge t h a t it deserves protec-
the environment, m a n y individuals do not practice tion because of its intrinsic value. In contrast,
the conservation behaviors t h a t would help lessen anthropocentrics feel t h a t the environment should
damage to the environment. In fact, a number of be protected because of its value in maintaining or
studies have found a low correlation between general enhancing the quality of life for humans.
attitudes toward the environment and behaviors Both ecocentrics and anthropocentrics express
that help reserve resources (Lipsey, 1977; Tracy & environmental concern and an interest in pre-
Oskamp, 1983-84; Oskamp et al., unpublished serving n a t u r a l resources, but their motives for
data.) this interest are distinguishable. Anthropocentrics
One explanation for this lack of translation of at- support conservation because h u m a n comfort, quality
titudes into action is the sacrifice and inconvenience of life, and health can be dependent on the preser-
involved in reducing consumption and in attending vation of n a t u r a l resources and a healthy ecosys-
to the consequences of purchases. People may find it tem. As examples, air pollution can lead to difficulty
149
 150 S.C. Gagnon Thompson and M. A. Barton
in breathing and health problems; destruction of
the rain forests may foreclose the possibility of
developing new medicines t h a t could save h u m a n
lives; and the depletion of fossil fuels may result in
a decreased standard of living.
Ecocentrics, on the other hand, support environ-
mental issues because they see nature as worth
preserving regardless of the economic or lifestyle
implications of conservation. To ecocentrics, n a t u r e
has a spiritual dimension and intrinsic value t h a t is
reflected in their experiences in nature and feelings
about n a t u r a l settings. In contrast to anthropo-
centrics, this group stresses a connectedness between
h u m a n s and other aspects of nature (i.e. ecological
settings and animals) t h a t transcends the ability of
natural resources to satisfy h u m a n material or
physical wants. Ecocentrics will probably agree
with anthropocentrics t h a t ecological issues should
be addressed so t h a t health and quality of life can
be preserved--the difference is t h a t ecocentrics feel
t h a t even if these were not issues, nature is worth
preserving because o f the transcendental dimen-
sion.
This distinction between ecocentrism and anthro-
pocentrism is not new. These two attitudes are
analogous to two of the philosophical views of
people-environmental relations discussed by
Stokols (1990). Instrumentalists, similar to anthro-
pocentrics, see the physical environment as a means
to be used to accomplish goals and not as having
i t s own value. Spiritualists, like ecocentrics, judge
the environment to be a context for enriching the
h u m a n spirit t h a t has worth independent of its con-
tributions to h u m a n materialistic goals. Similarly,
Seligman's (1989) analysis of environmental ethics
makes a distinction between a utilitarian approach
to the environment and approaches based on giving
moral consideration to non-human elements in the
universe. Anthropocentrics are u t i l i t a r i a n - - n a t u r e
has value because of w h a t it can contribute to the
satisfaction of h u m a n wants. Ecocentric individuals
judge t h a t nature has independent value and
should receive moral consideration in its own right.
Stern et al. (1993) proposed a theoretical approach
to understanding environmental concern that is based
on a distinction between egoistic, social-altruistic,
and biospheric values. Egoistic and social-altruistic
values are similar to anthropocentric attitudes
because they focus on outcomes for humans. Bio-
spheric values are most similar to what we are
defining here as ecocentric motives. Stern e t al.
(1993) found in a study of college students t h a t
beliefs about the implications of various actions
for these values are related to willingness to take
political action in support of environmental issues.
However, as the authors point out, the scales they
used to measure these orientations consider only
three items each and need further work.
The purpose of the present studies is to develop
the distinction between ecocentrism and anthro-
pocentrism by constructing multiple item scales to
measure these constructs. The basic idea is that
both ecocentrics and anthropocentrics will express
support for the environment but with different
underlying motives. 1 We expect this distinction to
be helpful in understanding the strength of commit-
ment to environmental issues and in predicting
when environmental attitudes will be translated
into behaviors to support conservation. Because
the values underlying anthropocentrics' support of
the environment are human-centered and basically
utilitarian, they will be less likely to act to protect
the environment if other human-centered values
such as material quality of life or the accumulation
of wealth interfere. Ecocentric individuals, however,
will act to support the environment even if these
actions involve discomfort, inconvenience, and
expense t h a t may reduce their material quality of
life. The net result of this should be more conserv-
ing behaviors and support for the environment
among those who are ecocentric.
These ideas were tested in two studies. In the first
study, scales were developed to measure anthro-
pocentric and ecocentric attitudes. The relation-
ships between these scales and a measure of
general apathy toward environmental issues and
self-reported conserving behaviors were examined.
Study 1
Participants
Individuals (n = 129) in waiting areas at Logan
International Airport in Boston were approached
and asked to participate in a study of their attitudes
toward various current issues. Of these, 115 agreed
to fill out the questionnaire, comprising 58 females,
51 males, and six individuals who did not answer
the item regarding gender. The average age of the
sample was 43, with a range of 19 to 82 years (ex-
cluding seven who did not answer the age question).
The response rate was 90%.
Procedure
The interviewer approached individuals and small
groups of people who were waiting for planes or
 Ecocentric-Anthropocentric Attitudes
arriving passengers and introduced herself as a
college student working on a class project. Respon-
dents were asked if they would be willing to fill out
a short questionnaire concerning their attitudes
toward various current issues. Those who were sit-
ring with others were asked to answer the questions
individually. The interviewer then left and returned
approximately 5 min later to collect the question-
naires and answer any questions. The survey took
about 5-10 min to complete.
Measures
Attitudes. Items to measure ecocentrism, anthro-
pocentrism, and general apathy about the environ-
mental issues were developed and tested in a
pre-study. The seven items on the ecocentric scale
expressed appreciating nature for its own sake,
positive affect and stress reduction associated with
being out in nature, and seeing a connectedness
between h u m a n s and animals. The nine anthro-
pocentrism items reflected a concern with environ-
mental issues primarily because of their effects on
human quality of life and survival. General apathy
about the environment was measured with nine
items reflecting a lack of interest in environmental
issues, and a general belief t h a t problems in this
area have been exaggerated. The response scale was
(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree. See Table
1 for the items.
The internal reliabilities of these three scales in
the present study were assessed with Cronbach's
alpha: 0.63 for ecocentrism, 0.58 for anthropocen-
trism, and 0.83 for general environmental apathy.
Behaviors. Respondents were asked how frequently
((1) never, (2) sometimes, (3) often, (4) always)
they performed 18 conserving behaviors such as
recycling cans, reusing plastic bags, using public
transportation instead of a car, and avoiding
using aerosol sprays. These self-reports of behavior
were added to produce a conserving behavior scale
with an internal reliability of 0.81 (Cronbach's
alpha).
A second measure of behavior t h a t reflected
environmental interest was membership in ecologi-
cally-oriented organizations such as the Sierra
Club, the Nature Conservancy, or the National
Wildlife Federation. Respondents were asked about
their membership in 10 such organizations, and
an open-ended question asked t h e m to list other
environmental organizations t h e y h a d joined..The
number of organizations checked and/or listed was
counted.
151
Reasons for environmental concern. An open-
ended question asked respondents to list their two
most important reasons for being concerned about
the environment. These were coded into a category
t h a t m a i n l y reflected an ecocentric approach (e.g.
enjoyment of nature, concern for wildlife, and moral
responsibility to care for nature), a category of
anthropocentric concerns (e.g. health, quality of life,
and preserving resources), and an 'other' category.
The number of ecocentric and anthropocentric
reasons given by each individual was counted.
Results
The majority (66%) of the respondents reported t h a t
they belonged to no environmental organizations;
15% belonged to one, 10% to two, and 9% to three or
more.
Correlations
The zero-order correlations of interest are given
in Table 2. As shown there, individuals who were
more ecocentric expressed less apathy about en-
vironmental issues, were more likely to engage in
conservation, belonged to more environmental
organizations and gave more open-ended ecocentric
reasons for their concern about the environment.
More anthropocentric individuals expressed more
general environmental apathy and were less likely
to conserve. They did not, however, belong to fewer
environmental organizations or give more anthro-
pocentric reasons for their interest in the environ-
ment.
Multiple regressions
To examine the effects of ecocentric and anthro-
pocentric attitudes simultaneously, three multiple
regressions were done, using a p a t h y about the en-
vironment, frequency of conserving behaviors, and
number of memberships in environmental organiza-
tions as dependent variables. In each regression,
both ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes were
allowed to enter the equation in a stepwise fashion.
The results are given in Table 3.
In all three regressions, both ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism entered the analysis and were
significant in the final equation. Thus it appears
t h a t ecocentrism and anthropocentrism make
independent contributions toward explaining apathy
toward the environment, conserving behaviors, and
membership in environmental organizations.
152 S.C. Gag-non Thompson and M. A. Barton

TABLE 1
Means and standard deviations for items on the ecocentric (ECO), anthropocentric (ANTHR), and environmental
apathy (APATH) scales

Item Scale 1st Study 2nd S t u d y

M e a n S.D. M e a n S.D.
(n = 115) (n = 71)

1 One of the worst things about overpopulation is t h a t m a n y n a t u r a l ECO 3.8 1.1 4-0 1.0
areas are getting destroyed for development
2 I can enjoy spending time i n n a t u r a l settings j u s t for the sake of ECO 4.5 0-8 4.6 0.7
being out in n a t u r e
3 E n v i r o n m e n t a l t h r e a t s such as deforestation and ozone depletion APATH 2.3 1.2 1.8 0.8
have been exaggerated
4 The worst t h i n g about the loss of the r a i n forest is t h a t it will ANTHR 2.8 1.1 2-5 1.1
restrict the development of new medicines
5 Sometimes it makes me sad to see forests cleared for agriculture ECO 3.7 0.9 3-9 1.1
6 It seems to me t h a t most conservationists are pessimistic and APATH 2.7 1-2 2.4 1.0
somewhat paranoid.
7 I prefer wildlife reserves to zoos ECO 3.8 1.1 4.2 0.9
8 The best t h i n g about c a m p i n g is t h a t it is a cheap vacation* ANTHR 2.3 1.1 2.1 0.9
9 I do not t h i n k the problem of depletion of n a t u r a l resources is APATH 2.2 1.1 1.7 0.9
as bad as m a n y people make it out to be
10 I find it h a r d to get too concerned about e n v i r o n m e n t a l issues APATH 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.0
11 It bothers me that h u m a n s are r u n n i n g out of their supply of oil ANTHR 3.2 1.1 3.2 1-2
12 I need time in n a t u r e to be happy ECO 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.0
13 Science a n d technology will eventually solve our problems with ANTHR 2.7 1.2 2-3 1.1
pollution, overpopulation, a n d d i m i n i s h i n g resources*
14 The t h i n g t h a t concerns me most about deforestation is t h a t there ANTHR 2.7 1.2 2.3 1.1
will not be enough l u m b e r for future generations
15 I do not feel t h a t h u m a n s are dependent on n a t u r e to survive APATH 1.8 1.0 1-5 0.9
16 Sometimes when I a m u n h a p p y I find comfort in n a t u r e ECO 4.0 1.1 4.3 0-8
17 Most e n v i r o n m e n t a l problems willsolve themselves given enough time APATH 1.9 1-0 1.4 0.8
18 I don't care about e n v i r o n m e n t a l problems APATH 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.8
19 One of the most i m p o r t a n t reasons to keep lakes and rivers clean ANTHR 2.3 1.2 2-1 0.9
is so t h a t people have a place to enjoy water sports*
20 I'm opposed to programs to preserve wilderness, reduce pollution APATH 1.7 1-1 1.2 0.5
a n d conserve resources
21 It makes me sad to see n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t s destroyed ECO 4.3 1.0 4.5 0.9
22 The most i m p o r t a n t reason for conservation is h u m a n survival ANTHR 3.5 1.3 3.0 1.1
23 One of the best things about recycling is t h a t it saves money ANTHR 2-5 1.1 2.0 0-8
24 N a t u r e is i m p o r t a n t because of what it can contribute to the ANTHR 3.5 1-2 3.3 1.1
pleasure and welfare of h u m a n s
25 Too much emphasis has been placed on conservation APATH 1.8 0.9 1.7 0.6
26 N a t u r e is valuable for its own sake ECO -- -- 4-5 0.7
27 We need to preserve resources to m a i n t a i n a high quality of life ANTHR -- -- 3.8 0.9
28 Being out i n n a t u r e is a great stress reducer for me ECO -- -- 4.3 0.8
29 One of the most i m p o r t a n t reasons to conserve is to e n s u r e a ANTHR -- -- 2.9 1-0
continued high s t a n d a r d of living
30 One of the most i m p o r t a n t reasons to conserve is to preserve wild areas ECO -- -- 4-1 0.7
31 Continued l a n d development is a good idea as long as a high ANTHR -- -- 2.1 0.8
quality of life can be preserved
32 Sometimes a n i m a l s seem almost h u m a n to me ECO -- -- 3.5 1.1
33 H u m a n are as much a p a r t of the ecosystem as other a n i m a l s ECO -- -- 4.3 0-8
Ecocentric S c a l e - - a v e r a g e item 4-0 0.6 4.2 0-5
Anthropocentric S c a l e - - a v e r a g e item 2.8 0.6 2.8 0.5
E n v i r o n m e n t a l Apathy S c a l e - - a v e r a g e item 1.9 0-7 1.7 0.5

* Items not included in the final calculation of the Anthropocentric Scale in Study 2 to improve the i n t e r n a l reliability
of the scale.
Note. The first 25 items were used in Study 1, all items were a d m i n i s t e r e d in Study 2.
 Ecocentric-Anthropocentric Attitudes 153

TABLE2
Zero-order correlations between variables in Study I (n = 115)

Anthropo- Environmental Conserving Environmental Ecocentric Anthropocentric

centrism apathy behaviors organizations reasons reasons

Ecocentrism 0.09 - 0-48*** 0-21" 0.35*** 0.27** 0.14

Anthropocentrism 0.23** -0.20* -0.15 -0.06 0.16
Environmental apathy -0.12 -0.35*** -0.25** -0.17
Conserving behaviors 0.32*** 0.09 0.00
Environmental organizations 0.22* -0.04
Ecocentric reasons 0.09

*p < 0.05, **p < 0-01, ***p _<0.001.

Discussion behaviors in the first study was self-report. Geller

The results from St udy 1 support the idea t h a t the
motives underlying support for the environment are
important to consider. Those who saw n a t u r e as
valuable in its own right expressed less overall
environmental apathy, were more likely to conserve,
and joined more environmental organizations. In
contrast, a belief in preserving n a t u r e for human-
kind was associated with more a p a t h y about the
environment, less conserving behavior, and mem-
bership in fewer ecology-oriented organizations
(although this last relationship was true only when
ecocentrism was controlled for in a multiple regres-
sion analysis). Ecocentric attitudes and anthro-
pocentric attitudes made independent contributions
to these effects, indicating t hat both m a y be impor-
tant to consider when assessing attitudes and
action toward the environment.
These results are promising, but Study 1 also
raised several questions and f u r t h e r issues t hat
were addressed in a second study. The first goal was
to replicate the mai n results found in Study i with a
different sample. Second, the internal reliabilities
for the eeocentric and anthropocentric scales could
be higher. In the second study, new items were
added to these two scales to a t t e m p t to improve the
reliabilities. Third, the measure of conserving
(1981) found t h a t self-reports of conserving behav-
iors did not match well with observed conservation
activities. It would be desirable to obtain a measure
of willingness to get involved in caring for the
envi ronm ent t h a t was not subject to the problems of
biased report or social desirability associated with
self-report. In the following study, behavior (signing
up to be involved in the local association for the
environment) was observed in a context t h a t was
not linked to the m e a s u r e m e n t of attitudes. Fourth,
it would be useful to compare the results found
with ecocentric-anthropocentric scales with those
obtained from a st andard measure of environmental
attitudes to see if making the eco-anthro distinc-
tion helps improve the prediction of environmental
a p a t h y and conserving behaviors.
Study 2
Participants
The participants were 71 college students enrolled
in an introductory psychology course who fulfilled a
research r e q u i r e m e n t by participating. Of these, 42
were women and 29 were men, average age was 19
years (range 17-21 years).

TABLE3
Multiple regression results for Study I (n = 115)

Predictor variables Dependent variable

Environmental Conserving Environmental

apathy behaviors organizations
Beta Final R Beta Final R Beta Final R

Ecocentrism -0.51"** 0.55*** 0.23* 0.30** 0-36*** 0.39***

Anthropocentrism 0.27"** -0.22" -0.18"

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

154 S.C. G a g n o n T h o m p s o n a n d M. A. B a r t o n
Procedure
Participants were scheduled in groups of 15 to 25 to
fill out a questionnaire containing the attitude
scale, environmental apathy, and self-reported
behaviors. Several weeks after this, a different
researcher who was presumably not connected with
the earlier study of attitudes contacted the intro-
ductory psychology classes, explained the student
environmental organization, and passed around the
sign-up sheet for those who were interested in being
contacted.
Measures
Attitudes. The same scales as described in Study 1
were used to measure a p a t h y toward the environ-
ment, ecocentrism, and anthropocentrism, except
t h a t new items were added to the ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism scales to improve internal relia-
bility. See Table i for the additional items. Further-
more, to improve the reliability of the anthropo-
centric scale, three items were dropped from the
scale (Items 8, 13, and 19 on Table 1). The internal
reliabilities (Cronbach's Alpha) for this study were:
0.78 for ecocentrism, 0.67 for anthropocentrism, and
0.82 for environmental apathy. Thus we were able
to improve the reliability of the ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism scales.
A widely used scale to measure attitudes toward
environmental issues, the Environmental Concern
Scale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978) was used as a tradi-
tional measure of environmental attitudes.
Behaviors. Self-reported behavior and observed
behavior measures were taken. The self-report scale
was similar to t h a t used in Study 1 except that
behaviors relevant to college students were used.
Respondents were asked how frequently ((1) never,
(2) sometimes, (3) often, (4) always) they performed
14 conserving behaviors such as recycling cans,
Zero-order correlations between variables in Study 2 (n = 71)
Anthropo- Environmental
centrism apathy
Ecocentrism -0.19 - 0-61"**
Anthropocentrism
Environmental apathy
Conserving behaviors
Signup
*p _<0-05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
choosing reusable r a t h e r t h a n disposable utensils in
the dining hall, turning off lights in public rooms,
and avoiding using aerosol sprays. These self-reports
of behavior were summed to produce a conserving
behavior scale with an internal reliability of 0.83
(Cronbach's Alpha).
For the observed behavior measure, participants
were asked to sign their names and phone numbers
on a sheet of paper circulated in class if they wished
to be involved with the campus environmental
action organization. A d u m m y coded variables of
0 = did not sign up and 1 = did sign up was used in
the following analyses.
Results
Of the 71 participants, 21 (30%) signed their names
to express interest in the student environmental
organization.
Correlations
The zero-order correlations of the variables used in
this study are given in Table 4. Ecocentrism was
significantly correlated with environmental apathy,
self-reported conservation behaviors, and signing
up for the environmental organization. However, in
contrast to the Study 1 results, anthropocentrism
was not related to any of these variables.
The Weigel and Weigel scale was correlated with
environmental apathy and conserving behaviors,
but not with the likelihood t h a t participants signed
up to be contacted by an environmental organiza-
tion.
Multiple regression
Multiple regression analyses examined the effects
of ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, and the Weigel
and Weigel scale on self-reported and observed
TABLE 4
Conserving Signup Weigel & Weigel
behaviors Scale
0.49*** 0.27* 0.69***
0.18 -0.09 :0.19 -0.10
-0.55*** -0.17 -0.78***
0.31"* 0.47***
0.13
 Ecocentric-Anthropocentric Attitudes
behavior and environmental apathy. All three
predictor variables were forced to enter the same
equation so the effects of each variable could be
examined when the others were controlled. The
results are given in Table 5. Ecocentrism was
significantly related to self-reported and observed
environmental behavior even when the traditional
Weigel and Weigel scale was controlled for. The
Weigel and Weigel scale did not predict either
measure of behavior when the eco-anthropocentric
scales were in the analysis. However, only the
Weigel and Weigel scale predicted apathy toward
the environment when the other two variables were
accounted for.
Re-examining anthropocentrism
In contrast to Study 1, in Study 2 anthropocentrism
was not related to conserving behavior and apathy
toward environmental issues. One distinction between
Study 1 and Study 2 that might explain this differ-
ence was the sample of participants. Because the
recruitment was done at an airport, Study 1 pre-
sumably caught a broad range of individuals, with
an average age over 20 years older than the college
students in Study 2. Although the college student
sample did not appear to be any more or less
anthropocentric than the airport sample (see Table 1),
it is possible that anthropocentrism is less mean-
ingful for younger adults in a way that translates
into less correspondence between attitudes and
behavior.
To examine the possibility that anthropocentrism
is a less relevant variable for younger adults, a
subsample of participants in Study 1 who were age
30 or younger (n = 28) was examined separately.
For this subset, anthropocentrism correlated - 0 . 3 4
(p < 0.07) with self-reported behaviors, 0.34 (p < 0.07)
with apathy, and -0-05 (N.S.) with membership in
TABLE 5
Results of multiple regressions predicting self-reported behavior, observed behavior, and environmental apathy in
Study 2 (n = 71)
Predictor variables
Conserving
behaviors
Beta Final R
Ecocentrism 0,32* 0.52***
Anthropocentrism 0-00
Weigel & Weigel Scale 0.25
*P -<0.05, **p ,< 0.01~ ***p _<0.001.
155
environmental organizations. Although only mar-
ginally significant, the anthropocentric correlations
for the younger subset with behavior and apathy
were stronger than those reported for the whole
sample in Study 1 (see Table 2). Thus, it does not
appear that age of respondents can account for the
different results found in Studies 1 and 2.
General Discussion
Four issues were addressed in Study 2 - - a replica-
tion of the Study 1 results, the reliability of two atti-
tude scales, the relationships between the attitude
scales and self-reported vs observed behavior, and
a comparison of the attitude scales developed in
this research with a traditional scale for measuring
environmental attitudes.
Replication
The replication was only partially successful. As in
Study 1, ecocentrism was significantly related to
conserving behaviors and to environmental apathy
(although not when the Weigel & Weigel scale was
controlled for). In addition, those higher in ecocen-
trism were more likely to sign up to get involved
with an environmental organization. However, the
results for anthropocentrism were not r e p l i c a t e d P
those high in anthropocentrism were not less likely
to conserve or more likely to be apathetic about
environmental issues. A difference in age between
the two samples was considered as a possible inter-
pretation of the different results in the two studies,
but ruled out by further analyses.
It is possible that a difference between the two
samples other than age is responsible for the differ-
ing results with anthropocentrism. College students
at a small private liberal arts college might differ
Dependent variable
Signup for Environmental
environmental apathy
organisation
Beta Final R Beta Final R
0,32* 0.31" -0-12 0.79***
-0.14 -0.08
-0,10 -0.69***
 156 S . C . G a g n o n Thompson and M. A. Barton
in socio-economic status, values, knowledge about
environmental issues, and in other ways t hat might
contribute to the absence of relationships between
anthropocentric attitudes, behavior, and apathy.
Reliability
The reliability of the two attitude scales was
improved by adding new items and, in the case of
anthropocentrism, dropping three of the previous
items. The revised scales now have adequate inter-
nal reliability.
Observed behavior
The ecocentrism scale was related both to self-
reported behavior and to an observed behavior t h a t
the participants were not aware was part of the
research project. Thus the connection between eco-
centrism and environmentally-related behavior is
independent of the problems associated with self-
report measures of behavior, such as social desir-
ability, one's self-image as a conserving person, and
the desire to appear consistent with one's expressed
attitudes.
Ecocentrism--anthropocentrism vs Weigel and Weigel
Ecocentric attitudes were significant predictors of
self-reported and observed behaviors even when a
traditional meas u r e of environmental attitudes was
controlled for. Ecocentrism appeared to tap a dis-
position toward environmental issues t hat was not
captured in traditional measures of environmental
attitudes with no ecocentric-anthropocentric dis-
tinction. W h at the constructs of ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism add is the idea t h a t the motives
and values t h a t underlie environmental attitudes
are pertinent. Support for the environment based
on valuing n a t u r e for its own sake and on a per-
sonal relationship with n a t u r e t h a t ha s affective
connotations (e.g. stress reduction and sadness at
its loss) is a different type of support with different
implications for behavior t han is environmental
concern based on h u m a n comfort and survival as
p ri m a r y goals.
Implications
The ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction m ay be
i m p or tan t to consider in other arenas such as the
design of messages to encourage conserving behav-
iors. Individuals who support environmental issues
for ecocentric reasons m ay respond to different
appeals t h a n those who hold more anthropocentric
reasons. For example, an appeal to conserve for
self-interested reasons (e.g. to save money) m a y be
ineffective for those with ecocentric interests in the
environment, but work well with anthropocentrics.
F u r t h e r research on the interaction between eco-
anthro-attitudes and reactions to appeals to conserve
should explore this possibility.
A second implication is t h a t programs designed to
increase environmental concern in children or adults
should focus on increasing ecocentric i nt erest in the
e n v i r o n m e n t r a t h e r t h a n anthropocentric interest.
Those who are more ecocentric are more likely to act
on t hei r pro-environment attitudes and engage in
conserving behaviors. In contrast, anthropocentric
i nt erest is associated with more a p a t h y toward the
envi ronm ent and less conserving behavior. Thus,
programs t h a t a t t e m p t to foster interest in support-
ing environmental action for utilitarian, h u m a n
comfort, and survival reasons m ay be counter-
productive. The present results suggest t h a t a
bet t er approach might be to emphasize the intrinsic
rewards of being in n a t u r a l settings t hrough experi-
ence in n a t u r e and the appreciation of wildlife.
The general implication of this work on the eco-
anthro distinction is t h a t it is i m p o r t a n t to under-
stand not only attitudes toward the environment,
but also the motives and values t h a t form the basis
for those attitudes. Examining both attitudes and
associated motives can lead to a bet t er understand-
ing of environmentally related behaviors and new
ideas about ways to encourage conservation.
Note
(1) It should be noted that there is undoubtedly a third
group that does not have positive attitudes toward the
environment--those who are genuinely apathetic about
or antagonistic toward environmental issues. The present
study focused only on the degree to which positive
attitudes~ toward the environment are ecocentric vs
anthropocentric.
References
Geller, E. S. (1981). Evaluating energy conservation programs:
is verbal report enough? Journal of Consumer Research, 8,
331-334.
Gutfeld, R. (1991). Eight of 10 Americans are environmentalists
at least so they say. Wall Street Journal, 218(24) A1-A4.
Milbrath, L. W. (1985). Environmental beliefs and values. In
M. G. Hermann, Ed., Political Psychology. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 97-138.
 Ecocentric-Anthropocentric Attitudes
Lipsey, M. W. (1977). The personal antecedents and conse-
quences of ecologically responsible behavior: a review. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 7, 70-71.
Scligman, C. (1989). Environmental ethics. Journal of Social
Issues, 45, 169-84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations,
gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior,
25, 322-348.
Stokols, D. (1990). I n s t r u m e n t a l and spiritual views of people-
157
environment relations. American Psychologist, 45, 641-
646.
Tracy, A. P. & Oskamp, S. (1983-84). Relationships among
ecologically responsible behaviors. Journal of Environmental
Systems, 13, 115-126.
Weigel, R. & Weigel, J. (1978). E n v i r o n m e n t a l concern. The
development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10,
3-15.
Manuscript received 25 October 1993