University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

720
empirically tested in a number of psychological studies (Schultz & Zelezny 1999;
Bjerke & Kaltenborn 1999; Thompson & Barton 1994). Bjerke and Kaltenborn
(1999) found that ecocentric/anthropocentric distinction is linked to more specific
environmental attitudes. Also, Schultz and Zelezny (1999) found that general values,
measured by Schwartz (1992) value types, were related to ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism, supporting the assumption that general values influence
environmental orientation. Consequently, the existing empirical results combined
support the idea of a relationship between general values and specific environmental
attitudes, where the environmental orientation (ecocentric/anthropocentric) may take
a role as a mediator. However, Schultz and Zelezny (1999) point out that the scale
does not differ between different anthropocentric motives (concern for self or for
others) and that the empirical testing has been so far limited. Despite these
limitations, Thompson and Barton (1994) scale represents an effort to operationalize
the concept of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism and further testing and elaborating
of the scale is needed.
With regard to applicability into organizational and management studies, the
ecocentrism/anthropocentrism scale by Thompson and Barton (1994) can be
critiziced with the same arguments than NEP scale: the scale has not been tested in
an organizational environment and its items are fairly general. In its current form the
scale can be used to measure general environmental orientation, but for managerial
use, more concrete items addressing organizational reality should be added.
Consequences for self, others and biosphere scale
Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) study on general value orientations, gender and
environmental concern has been influential within the field and their scale has been
used in several subsequent studies (e.g. Gärling et al. 2003; Snelgar 2006). Stern et al.
(1993) scale builds on the idea of three different value orientations towards the
environment, namely egoistic, humanistic, and biospheric. Conceptually, biospheric
orientation is close to ecocentrism, while egoistic and humanistic orientations are
two different aspects of anthropocentrism. Stern et al. (1993) found in their study that
all three orientations have some influence on willingness to take political action,
expressed as specific pro-environmental activities an individual may take.
The scale developed by Stern et al. (1993) was used also in a study by Gärling et al.
(2003), examining car drivers’ environmental intentions and awareness. It builds on a
model where knowledge (awareness) is seen to affect personal norms (values), which
in turn affect the behavior intentions. The results indicate that it is hard to distinguish
between the three different types of environmental awareness (consequences for self,
others, biosphere). This is in line with findings by Stern, Dietz and Guagnano (1995),
where a factor analysis put both altruistic (consequences for others) and biospheric
values into same factor, showing that it is not quite clear whether the scale by Stern
et al. (1993) really can distinguish between different motives for environmental
action. Snelgar (2006) used a somewhat modified version of Stern et al. (1993) scale,
and in a factor analysis, a factor structure with egoistic, altruistic and biospheric
emerged. However, a SEM model consisting of human and non-human structure fit
the data better than self/others structure. This finding indicates that ecocentric (nonhuman)
and anthropocentric (human) distinction is an adequate way to distinguish