19
wider cultural heritage is no easy task. How researchers have conceptualised the problem will no doubt have influenced results, being one of the reasons why some studies have resulted in different conclusions. For instance, two competing themes that emerge that have legitimate theological roots are mastery over nature and stewardship concepts. Both can have direct implications for environmental concern and whereas earlier studies test the former as espoused by White (Hand and Van Liere, 1984; Woodrum and Hoban, 1994), many later studies focus on the growing area of stewardship beliefs (Tarakeshwar et al. 2001; Holland and Carter, 2005).
2:4:1 HOW HAS RELIGIOSITY BEEN OPERATIONALISED?
The 37 empirical studies have attempted to ‘operationalise religiosity’, or in other words to test how religious someone is and differentiate between various types and levels of religious beliefs, in a number of ways. However, there has been no accepted standardized format of how to exactly delineate different types of Christian expression. This is in part a result of the mixed ways in which measures have been either gleaned from various national surveys such as Greeley (1993), Michelle Wolkomir et al. (1997b) and Thomas Dietz, Paul Stern and Gregory Guagnano (1998); from more localised surveys conducted for other research projects such as Hand and Van Liere (1984), Douglas Eckberg and T. Jean Blocker (1989) and Wolkomir et al. (1997a); or some of the empirical studies designing their own questions for survey such as Truelove and Joireman (2009), Paul Djupe and Patrick Hunt (2009) and Pepper, Jackson and Uzzel (2011). A number of measures (most frequently two or three) are commonly used in combination with each other (Figure 6, p.21). An analysis of the 37 empirical studies has revealed that the following eight religious identification measures have most frequently been adopted: self-identification in broad groups, self-identification or affiliation with particular denominations or churches, biblical literalism, frequency of church attendance, religious salience, religious orthodoxy, religious practice or experience, and image of God (Figure 5, p.20).
20 FIGURE 5: HOW RELIGIOSITY IS OPERATIONALISED
Source: Calculated from the 37 quantitative empirical studies included in Appendix 1.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measurements of Religiosity Number
of
Studies
21
FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF RELIGIOSITY MEASURES USED FROM THE CATEGORIES IN FIGURE 5
Source: Calculated from the 37 quantitative empirical studies included in Appendix 1.
Self-identification in broad groupings is when respondents will simply identify themselves in one of a number of broad groups such as all or some of the following: Non-religious, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Liberal Protestant, Moderate Protestant or Conservative Protestant. This technique has been used by eleven of the studies, such as Shaiko (1987, p.248) and Dietz, Stern and Guagnano (1998, p.457). Self-identification or affiliation in denominations or churches is when respondents can identify themselves from a long list, often of around ten or more different denominations. These have included groups such as Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Church of the Nazarene, or Assemblies of God. The researchers will then group together churches into broader categories for the purpose of analysis, such as with the previous grouping in broad categories: Non-religious, Roman Catholic, Liberal Protestant, (sometimes Moderate Protestant) and at the farthest right end of the spectrum what has been identified as Conservative or Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestants. This method has been utilized by fourteen of the studies, such as Wolkomir et al. (1997a, p.330) and Hayes and Marangudakis (2000, p.161). With this method great power is vested in the researcher who places everyone from a specific church or denomination into one group, and is therefore unable to account for variety
12%
31%
31%
11%
9% 6% 1
2 3 4 5 6
Percentage of Studies
Number of Measures
22
within a denomination. For instance, some studies will put the whole of the Southern Baptist movement into a ‘Conservative or Fundamentalist’ category, such as Guth et al. (1995, pp.369-70), even though it is improbable the whole movement would describe themselves in that way. In addition, not all studies group every denomination in the same way: Methodists have been placed in
‘Liberal Protestant’ by some (Hayes and Marangudakis, 2000, p.161) and ‘Moderate Protestant’ by others (Wolkomir et al. 1997a, p.343). The Church of the Nazarene, although being a Wesleyan Holiness church and therefore having its roots in the Methodist tradition and early U.S.
Pentecostalism, has been placed in a ‘Conservative Protestant’ group by Wolkomir et al. (1997a, p.343) or ‘Protestant Sects’ by Hand and Van Liere (1984, p.569); the latter is especially misleading as it groups them with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Scientists. It is clear that a discrepancy exists between studies when denominations are categorised by researchers, in addition to some categorisations being misleading, and further examples include categorisation of both Lutherans and the Assemblies of God.
Such differences may be in part due to the fact that many empirical studies are undertaken by academics who may not be practising Christians, evangelical or otherwise, as none of the authors identify themselves in this way, and this further complicates the reliability of practices used as they do not benefit from having ‘insider knowledge’ of specific Protestant churches and doctrines. Other studies focusing more upon evangelical Protestants have further broken this group down into
‘fundamentalist, charismatic, Pentecostal, conservative or evangelical’ (Guth et al. 1993, p.376) or
‘fundamentalist, charismatic or evangelical Protestant’ (Eckberg and Blocker, 1989, p.511), though it is not clear what the differences may be.
Biblical literalism is a common technique to differentiate between what the literature terms fundamentalist, liberal Protestant and atheist, and has been used in twelve of the studies (Figure 5, p.20): such as those by Eckberg and Blocker (1989); Greeley (1993); and Stephen Klineberg, Matthew McKeever and Bert Rosenbach (1998). Here respondents are given three possible alternative ways to view the Bible and they rate them on a ‘Likert-type’ point scale.15 For instance, options of how to view the Bible could be, first, that it is the inspired word of God and should be taken literally word for word, second, that the Bible is inspired by God but contains human errors, or third, that the Bible is a book of fables and history that God had nothing to do with (Klineberg, McKeever and Rosenbach, 1998, p.743).
15 The ‘Likert-type Scale’, named after its inventor Rensis Likert, is a technique commonly used in survey research that uses questionnaires. It is whereby respondents, when answering a specific question, are given a scale of points, normally five, to choose from. For instance, 1) Strongly agree, 2) Agree, 3) Neither agree nor disagree, 4) Disagree, 5) Strongly disagree.
23
Frequency of church attendance has been the most common technique to use in operationalising religiosity, featuring in twenty-one of the studies. This technique is able to separate active Christians from more dormant or cultural Christians by separating those that attend church regularly. Scales used often measure attendance from several times per week, weekly, monthly, several times per year, or barely ever (Sherkat and Ellison, 2007, p.76). This appears to be one of the best measures available, though of course it is still open to error, as for instance many elderly people cut down or stop their church attendance due to old age or ill health, which would lead them to be factored out. Other studies using this measure include Hand and Van Liere (1984), Greeley (1993) and Eric Woodrum and Thomas Hoban (1994).
Religious salience is a measure of how important respondents see religion in their lives and has been used in eighteen of the studies (Figure 5, p.20). Again the Likert-type scale is often used with five or seven points to answer specific questions. Questions for religious salience have included
‘How important would you say religion is in your life?’ (Eckberg and Blocker, 1989, p.511; Woodrum and Hoban, 1994, p.196) and ‘Would you consider yourself as having strong religious affiliation?’
(Woodrum and Wolkomir, 1997, p.227). Level of belief in God has also been measured by choosing one from a range of possible answers such as ‘I know God exists and I have no doubt about it’ at one end of the spectrum to ‘I don’t believe in God’ at the other (Boyd, 1999, p.38).
Religious orthodoxy is that measure by which respondents answer questions in relation to specific Christian doctrines and beliefs. Examples include adherence to the six-day biblical creation account (Woodrum and Hoban, 1994, p.196), a belief in the final judgement (Kanagy and Nelsen, 1995), in heaven and hell (Ester and Seuren, 1992), in prophecy, in being ‘born again’, and in dispensational eschatology (Guth et al. 1995, p.371). Measures of religious orthodoxy have been used in eleven of the studies (Figure 5). Religious practice or experience has included the measure of frequency of prayer (Djupe and Hunt, 2009, p.686) and frequency of Bible reading (Guth et al. 1995, p.371). Religious experience has also involved the belief that the power of God can be seen in everyday activities and lives of Christians (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996, p.348) and that miracles still happen today by the power of God (Kanagy and Nelsen, 1995, p.37). Measures of religious practice or experience have been used in 10 of the studies.
The measure of ‘Image of God’ was an idea first used by Greeley (1993). Here labels or terms are given to respondents to choose how ‘graceful’ is their view of God. Examples include mother, friend, spouse, master, king, judge, father (Greeley, 1993, p.22). In addition, terms have also been used for a ‘benevolent God’ such as forgiving, guiding, helpful, merciful and loving, or a ‘strict God’
24
such as punishing, rigid, strict, or wrathful (Pepper, Jackson and Uzzel, 2011, p.280). In total five studies use this technique (Figure 5) including Heather Boyd (1999) and Eckberg and Blocker (1996).
2:4:2 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR OPERATIONALISED?
Just as with religiosity, environmental concern has also been measured in various ways. An analysis of the empirical literature has shown that the majority of these measures can be placed into eight different categories (Figure 7, p.25). As with religiosity, there is no set standardised mode of measurement across the literature yet eight common themes emerge. It should be noted that of the eight thematic clusters presented in Figure 7, multiple questions are commonly used for each category and most studies adopt three or four of the eight measures. Likert-type point scales are again a common format for assessing responses to environmental sections of questionnaires.
25
FIGURE 7: HOW ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IS OPERATIONALISED
Measurements of Environmental Concern
Source: Number of studies using particular measures calculated from the 37 empirical studies included in Appendix 1.*Environmental Behaviours placed into 3 categories (Activism, Consumption and Lifestyle).
The most frequent measure of attitudes has been ‘concern over specific environmental issues’ which has been used in twenty of the studies (Figure 7). Environmental concern or perception of dangers has been measured in relation to any of the following issues: air and water pollution, industrial pollution, population levels, resource conservation, runaway technologies, nuclear power, pesticide use, and climate change (Shaiko, 1987, p.248; Weaver, 2002, p.90; Biel and Nilsson, 2005, p.184). These are most commonly presented as general issues yet occasionally there is a focus upon local issues such as air and water quality in a respondent’s specific locality (local streams/rivers and lakes), and the availability and effectiveness of local waste disposal facilities (Eckberg and Blocker,
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Studies
26
1989, p.511). The second most commonly used measure is ‘willingness to pay’, adopted in half the studies. Questions operationalising this measure assess an individual’s willingness to personally pay for a higher level of environmental quality. This could include paying higher tax rates, extra taxes, increased prices for goods, or just general cuts in family income and standard of living, such as in Guth et al. (1993, p.375) and Tarakeshwar et al. (2001, p.393). These measures assess an economic/environment trade-off in personal willingness to pay for such things as a reduction in pollution and a stricter protection of nature.
Related to this measure, though separate, is ‘government regulation’. This again measures the economy versus environment prioritization, but this time via government legislation rather than a willingness to financially pay. These include levels of support for increased government regulation generally (Hand and Van Liere, 1984, p.559; Stanford and Brewer, 2011, p.11), more environmental controls at the expense of growth and development (Woodrum and Hoban, 1994, p.198; Kanagy and Nelsen, 1995, p.37), the regulation of businesses and personal behaviour via legislation to protect the environment (Klineberg, McKeever and Rosenbach, 1998, p.740), whether government focus should be upon environmental protection at the expense of jobs (Guth et al. 1993, p.376), and attitudes toward the use of nature for economic advancement (Wolkomir et al. 1997a, p.329). In total, fifteen studies have measured government regulation (Figure 7).
A further measure could be termed ‘environmental awareness or knowledge’ and this measure has been operationalised by thirteen of the studies. This is whereby a study attempts to gauge the level of awareness and/or knowledge of a specific environmental issue: this could be the perceived seriousness of the threat in relation to public health (Truelove and Joireman, 2009, p.811), knowledge and level of understanding of the scientific arguments involved (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996, p.347; Weaver, 2002, p.91), and the way respondents may have been exposed to different media sources discussing an issue (Woodrum and Hoban, 1994, p.198). An example of one specific environmental issue used is that of climate change (Michaud, 2009, pp.8-11; Djupe and Gwiasda, 2010, pp.78-82). Also included is the extent to which people see environmental concerns as either one of the most important issues facing society (Guth et al. 1993, p.376), or rather something that is exaggerated (Biel and Nilsson, 2005, p.183-184). A less common measure has been a respondent’s willingness to be identified as an environmentalist (Kanagy and Nelsen, 1995, p.37), and association with and attitudes towards environmental advocacy groups (Guth et al. 1995, p.380). A total of six studies include this environmentalist identification (Figure 7).
A more complex measure, yet of crucial importance in relation to the White thesis, is what I have termed ‘level of anthropocentrism’. Studies adopting this technique attempt to gauge a
27
person’s willingness to move from the societal norm of prevailing anthropocentric values to ecologically integrated positions (Kanagy and Willits, 1993). For this purpose the New Environmental Paradigm16 (NEP) has been used by studies such as Hand and Van Liere, 1984, p.558; Kanagy and Willits, 1993, p.676; Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.581. The movement that the NEP has attempted to gauge has been described as ‘from human dominance over nature to that of human interdependence with the natural world’ (Weaver, 2002, p.79). Specific questions address the need to preserve the balance of nature, to limit growth to protect the environment and that humans are a part of nature rather than above it (Kanagy and Willits, 1993, p.676). In addition to the use of the NEP, Thompson and Barton’s17 (1994) scale of eco-centric versus anthropocentric environmental values has been incorporated (Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.581). An ‘ecological world-view’ assessing such things as nature’s purpose not being primarily for human use and that humans need to be integrated as part of their environment has also been used (Klineberg, McKeever and Rosenbach, 1998, p.740). ‘Level of anthropocentrism’ has been measured by 12 studies.
Attempts to measure the extent to which the Genesis creation account is either interpreted as a dominion/mastery over nature orientation or alternatively more in line with stewardship, feature in nine studies, such as those by Eckberg and Blocker (1996), Hayes and Marangudakis (2000, 2001), Tarakeshwar et al. (2001) and Holland and Carter (2005). Here both interpretations represent anthropocentric positions yet mastery over nature has negative effects upon the environment whilst stewardship represents a more caring attitude. This is why these measures have been organised as a different theme to ‘level of anthropocentrism’ though they obviously are closely related. Whereas
‘dominion/stewardship’ measures interpret biblical anthropocentrism, ‘level of anthropocentrism’
measures the ability to move beyond an anthropocentric paradigm. Questions used to assess mastery over nature versus stewardship assess the level of agreement with such assertions as the following: humans were created to rule over the rest of nature and plants and animals exist primarily
16 The NEP was a concept first put forward by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) in response to the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) which endorses the societal world-view that approves of economic growth, progress and individuality (Weaver, 2002, p.79). The NEP attempted to assess the extent to which a target group were open to a shift in values from purely anthropocentric to being more ecologically minded and specifically that individual behaviour should incorporate responsibility in relation to effects upon the environment. Within broader environmental attitudes research it has been described as the most widely used measure (Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.579).
17 Suzanne Thompson and Michelle Barton (1994) developed a battery of questions to measure eco-centric and anthropocentric valuations of the environment. With regards to environmental degradation eco-centric refers to the intrinsic worth of plants and animals whereas anthropocentric refers to how environmental problems affect humans.
28
to be used by humans (Hand and Van Liere, 1984, p.558; Wolkomir et al. 1997a, p.329); nature would be harmonious if only humans left it alone (Hayes and Marangudakis, 2000, p.163); and almost everything we do in modern life harms the environment (Hayes and Marangudakis, 2001, p.145). Attitudes toward animal rights have been assessed (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996, p.347), with a specific example via the question ‘should animals have the same moral rights as humans’ (Hayes and Marangudakis, 2001, p.145). Some of these studies, such as Hayes and Marangudakis (2000 and 2001), used measures that are more in line with the NEP, and it is possible that although their stated aim was to measure stewardship or mastery over nature, they were in fact measuring willingness to move beyond anthropocentrism rather than either of its two forms. Indeed, Eckberg and Blocker (1996, p.347) express doubt over whether the questions they themselves gleaned from the 1993 GSS to measure mastery over nature or stewardship actually adequately do this, as they point in the direction of animal rights on an equality basis rather than a biblical stewardship basis. The fact that nine of the 37 empirical studies use the results of the 1993 GSS therefore further complicates the reliability of results specifically measuring biblical stewardship as the tendency is to drift to an NEP model, certain elements of which have been linked with the New Age movement and eastern religions (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996, p.347). This would be a further reason why conservative Christians score lower with this measure. A further and possibly more reliable way a stewardship orientation has been measured is by what has been termed ‘sacredness of nature’. Here, level of agreement is assessed with such positions as ‘nature is sacred because it was created by God’ and that ‘humans should respect nature more because it was created by God’ (Tarakeshwar et al. 2001, p.392).
Environmental behaviours have also been assessed as well as environmental attitudes.
Together they represent a green lifestyle index. They represent past, present, and intentional actions. These can be broken down into three different categories: environmental activism as measured in thirteen studies; consumption patterns as measured in ten studies; and other lifestyle choices affecting the environment as measured in thirteen studies (Figure 7).
Activism, environmental or political, includes those measures of involvement with such things as: the signing of environmental petitions for issues such as opposition to nuclear power, new oil drilling, or other pollution (Weigel, 1977, p.42); social and political activism such as taking part in an environmental demonstration (Woodrum and Wolkomir, 1997, p.228); and active support of an environmental group or cause through financial support, being a member or giving of one’s time (Wolkomir et al. 1997a, p.329; Klineberg, McKeever and Rosenbach, 1998, p.740). Also taking part in other environmentally important activities such as boycotting certain products for environmental
29
reasons (Wolkomir et al. 1997a, p.329); voting for a certain political candidate or party for environmental reasons (Truelove and Joireman, 2009, pp.811-2); or writing letters campaigning for environmental causes (Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.581). These are often assessed by the identification of the number of times these things have been done in the previous year. Activism has figured in 13 of the studies.
Behaviours assessed by consumption include eating organic produce for environmental reasons or stopping eating certain foods because of safety concerns (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996, p.347), eating vegetarian food for environmental reasons (Woodrum and Wolkomir, 1997, p.228), and restricting automobile use to reduce emissions (Dietz, Stern and Guagnano, 1998, p.466). These have figured in ten of the studies, such as Kanagy and Willits (1993), Eckberg and Blocker (1996), Woodrum and Wolkomir (1997) and Boyd (1999).
The group of other lifestyle practices include the following: purchasing second hand products instead of new ones (Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.580); purchasing ethically or frugally (Pepper, Jackson and Uzzel, 2011, pp.279-80); involvement with kerbside recycling (Dietz, Stern and Guagnano, 1998, p.466); picking up other people’s litter (Weigel, 1977, pp.41-42; Schultz,
The group of other lifestyle practices include the following: purchasing second hand products instead of new ones (Schultz, Zelezny and Dalrymple, 2000, p.580); purchasing ethically or frugally (Pepper, Jackson and Uzzel, 2011, pp.279-80); involvement with kerbside recycling (Dietz, Stern and Guagnano, 1998, p.466); picking up other people’s litter (Weigel, 1977, pp.41-42; Schultz,