A longitudinal study of upper secondary school students’ values and beliefs regarding policy responses to climate change

Figures & data

Figure 1. A schematic representation of the VBN model. (Adapted from Stern 2000, 412).

Table 1. Factors extracted on value orientations.

Item	Allocation of item by De Groot and Steg (2007, 2008)	Biospheric	Egoistic	Altruistic
Cronbach alpha		.80	.64	.70
1. Equality (equal opportunity for all)	Altruistic	.46
2. Respecting the earth (harmony with other species)	Biospheric	.82
3. Social power (control over others, dominance)	Egoistic		.80
4. Unity with nature (fitting into nature)	Biospheric	.58
5. A world at peace (free of war and conflict)	Altruistic			.55
6. Wealth (material possessions, money)	Egoistic			.61
7. Authority (the right to lead or command)	Egoistic		.69
8. Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)	Altruistic			.58
9. Protecting the environment (preserving nature)	Biospheric	.84
10. Influential (having an impact on people and events)	Egoistic			.50
11. Helpful (working for the welfare of others)	Altruistic			.52
12. Preventing pollution (protection of natural resources)	Biospheric	.78
13. Ambitious (hard working, aspiring)	Egoistic			.51

N = 212

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization

Table 2. Factors extracted on beliefs.

	Market prices	Education and information	Tax and legislation
Cronbach alpha	.75	.74	.73
1. Organisations like WWF inform on climate change		.89
2. Consumers get education in greenhouse gases		.71
3. Consumers buy less beef burgers	.73
4. The amount of beef burgers in the market reduces	.97
5. Producers get subsidies to become more environmental friendly
6. Prices for beef burgers increases	.49
7. Media highlight impact generated by greenhouse gases		.40
8. Increased tax on greenhouse gases emissions			.62
9. Laws are initiated for allowed greenhouse gas emissions			.87

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood with Direct Oblimin rotation and Kaiser Normalization. N = 212.

Table 3. Factors extracted on personal norms.

	N1 Change consumption	N2 Pay higher price	N3 Support taxes	N4 Government and business responsibility
Cronbach alpha	.77	.83	.84	.72
1. I am willing to pay a cost for negative environmental impact goods I buy generate and thereby pay a higher price.		.45
2. I am willing to support political proposals on increased CO2 tax for car petrol.			.87
3. I am willing to support political proposals on increased CO2 tax for flight gas.			.67
4. I am willing to pay (details removed for review) extra for a beef burger to compensate for the GHG emissions.		.46
5. I am willing to give up holiday flights to reduce GHG emissions.	.97
6. I am willing to give up holiday by car to reduce GHG emissions.	.51
7. Food prices should be higher if the products generate GHG emissions.		.82
8. Prices on clothes should be higher if they generate GHG emissions.		1.00
9. Prices on travel tickets should be higher if they generate GHG emission.		.60
10. The governments should solve environmental issues.				.78
11. The private companies should solve environmental issues.				.76

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood with Direct Oblimin rotation and Kaiser Normalization. N = 212.

Table 4. Sample characteristics.

				(4)
	(1)Sample T1	(2)Sample T1 and T2	(3)Attrition (Students in T1 but not T2)	Difference between (2) and (3) statistically significant at 5%?
Total (n)	212	142	70
% female	53	55	49	No
One or both my parents studied at university.	65%	62%	70%	No
One or both my parents run a business.	40%	37%	48%	Yes
Studying option: This programme was my first choice of education (because of)	83%	85%	80%	No
Friends influences Parents’ influences	3% 4%	4% 4%	2% 2%	No No
I am studying this subject because interested in economics	56%	57%	54%	No
Preparing for university studies	17%	20%	10%	Yes
I get all study allowance	76%	70%	89%	Yes
I have an extra job	56%	54%	59%	No

Table 5. Individuals’ change in value orientation between T1 and T2.

	Complete Case Analysis			Imputed data
Allocation of items	De Groot	This study	n	Steg	This study	n
Biospheric orientation	+.05^† .04^‡ (.67)	+.48 .39 (.001)	132	+.05 .04 (.30)	+.45 .36 (<.001)	142
Egoistic orientation	+.43 .43 (<.001)	+.43 .28 (.013)	131	+.39 .33 (<.001)	+.42 .26 (<.001)	142
Altruistic orientation	+.39 .33 (.011)	+.34 .32 (.004)	129	+.47 .40 (<.001)	+.33 .30 (<.001)	142

^† Top figure shows the mean difference between T1 and T2 (positive indicates increase from T1 to T2). ^‡The middle figure shows the effect size calculated by Cohen’s d. The figure in parenthesis is p value in paired sample t-test.

Figure 2. Distribution of value orientations at T1.

Table 6. Change in beliefs about the efficacy of actions between T1 and T2.

	Mean at T1^†	Mean difference	Effect size^‡	p	n
Market prices	2.44	−.16	−.21	.05	127
Education/information	2.78	−.05	−.07	.47	132
Tax and legislation	3.02	−.03	−.04	.67	137

^† Mean for factor divided by number of items to allow comparison between factors.

Table 7. Change in norms.

	Mean at T1	Mean difference	Effect size^‡	p	n
Change consumption	1.94	.06	.07	.48	135
Pay higher price	2.26	.08	.11	.22	126
Support higher taxes	2.44	.00	.00	.96	127
Government and business responsibility	2.97	−.03	.04	.66	131

Table 8. Factors associated at T1 with norms^† (dispositions towards personal and policy action on climate change).

	Reduce consumption	Price rise	Tax rise	Government and business responsibility
Sex (Female =1)	−.01 (p=.94)	1.36 (p=.01)	.06 (p=.73)	−.05 (p=.73)
Completed Business course	−.46 (p=.15)	−.65 (p=.01)	−.41 (p=.20)	.50 (p=.03)
Orientation towards
Biospheric values	.21 (p=.02)	.21 (p=.01)	.08 (p=.34)	−.02 (p=.73)
Egoistic values	.33 (p=.13)	.33 (p=.05)	.16 (p=.43)	−.34 (p=.03)
Altruistic values	−.41 (p=.19)	.23 (p=.36)	−.28 (p=.35)	−.52 (p=.03)
Belief in efficacy of
Price	.11 (p=.35)	.03 (p=.74)	.20 (p=.07)	.16 (p=.06)
Education/info	−.26 (p=.61	.51 (p=.20)	−.28 (p=.56)	−1.02 (p=.01)
Tax	−.06 (p=.64)	.05 (p=.59)	.32 (p=.01)	.012 (p=.89)
Interactions
egoistic * education/ info	−.05 (p=.07)	−.04 (p=.04)	−.02 (p=.35)	.04 (p=.02)
altruistic * education/ info	.04 (p=.28)	−.03 (p=.35)	.04 (p=.29)	.06 (p=.02)
Constant	2.6 (p=.06)	.21 (p=.85)	1.70 (p=.20)	2.057 (p<.001)
R^2	.12	.29	.24	.17
n	117	115	115	118

^† Norm values calculated at ‘per item level’ to help comparison.

Table 9. Factors associated with a change in norms (dispositions towards personal and policy action on climate change).

Change in orientation towards	Change in consumption	Change in price	Change in tax	Government and business responsibility
Biospheric values	.04 (p=.58)	.01 (p=.88)	.15 (p=.09)	−.002 (p=.97)
Egoistic values	−.05 (p=.26)	−.03 (p=.38)	−.05 (p=.32)	.02 (p=.66)
Altruistic values	−.11 (p=.16)	.08 (p=.26)	−.09 (p=.30)	10 (p=.16)
Change in belief in efficacy of
Price	−.03 (p=.75)	−.05 (p = 46)	−.05 (p=.65)	.07 (p=.40)
Education/info	.16 (p=.16)	.07 (p=.49)	.18 (p=.16)	−.02 (p=.82)
Tax	.07 (p=.44)	.17 (p=.04)	.41 (p<.001)	.05 (p=.55)
Interactions
Biospheric and education/info	−.22 (p=.01)	−.11 (p=.18)	.03 (p=.77)	−.02 (p=.77)
Egoistic and education/info	.11 (p=.03)	−.01 (p=.83)	.08 (p=.15)	−.09 (p=.05)
Egoistic and tax	−.12 (p=.00)	−.10 (p=.01)	−.06 (p=.19)	.04 (p=.29)
Constant	.19 (p=.03)	.14 (p=.05)	.02 (p=.85)	.02 (p=.80)
R^2	.23	.18	.30	.15
n	106	106	108	109

Table

1. Equality (equal opportunity for all)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
2. Respecting the earth (harmony with other species)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
3. Social power (control over others, dominance)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
4. Unity with nature (fitting into nature)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
5. A world at peace (free of war and conflict)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
6. Wealth (material possessions, money)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
7. Authority (the right to lead or command)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8. Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
9. Protecting the environment (preserving nature)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
10. Influential (having an impact on people and events)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
11. Helpful (working for the welfare of others)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
12. Preventing pollution (protection of natural resources)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
13. Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)	−1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Stern, P.C. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407–24.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Groot, J. I. M. and L. Steg. 2007. “Values Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38 (3): 318–32. doi:10.1177/0022022107300278

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Groot, J. I. M. and L. Steg. 2008. “Value Orientations to Explain Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations.” Environment and Behavior 40 (3): 330–54.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar