This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 01:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

The Effects of Children's Age and Sex onAcquiring Pro-Environmental AttitudesThrough Environmental EducationAnne Kristin Liefländer a & Franz Xaver Bogner aa University of Bayreuth , Bayreuth , GermanyPublished online: 12 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Anne Kristin Liefländer & Franz Xaver Bogner (2014) The Effects of Children's Ageand Sex on Acquiring Pro-Environmental Attitudes Through Environmental Education, The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 45:2, 105-117, DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2013.875511

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.875511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 45(2), 105–117, 2014Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0095-8964 print/1940–1892 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00958964.2013.875511

The Effects of Children’s Age and Sex on AcquiringPro-Environmental Attitudes Through

Environmental Education

Anne Kristin Lieflander and Franz Xaver BognerUniversity of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

Environmental education programs aiming to enhance children’s environmental attitudes in a pro-environmental direction require background information, such as age and sex differences, to ensureappropriate design. We used the 2-MEV model with its domains preservation and utilization of natureto assess a four-day program at an educational field center with students 9–10 and 11–13 years of age.A pre- and post-retention test design revealed younger students to be more responsive concerningpositive attitude shifts than older students, whereas the sexes were equally influenced. Programdevelopers should consider that education has a stronger effect on young children’s environmentalattitudes.

Keywords age differences, comprehensive education, environmental attitudes, gender differences,2-MEV model, water

Research about attitudes has a long tradition and is one of the most frequently studied concepts inthe field of psychology (e.g., Dunlap, van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;Thurstone, 1928). Environmental psychologists specify attitudes by referring to preferences orthe evaluative tendency “a person holds regarding environmentally related activities or issues”(Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004, p. 31).

Education aims at achieving a sustainable, positive enhancement of attitudes in a pro-environmental direction. When we speak of pro-environmental attitudes, we mean attitudeswhich may lead to actions that either prevent or reduce harm to the environment or that mayeven benefit the environment (e.g., Steg & Vlek, 2009). Enhancing pro-environmental attitudes ofstudents, however, is an important but inevitably slow process (Bogner, 1998). The importance ofintervening to enhance attitudes is neatly demonstrated in the Irish plastic bag example describedby Dobson (2007): The government encouraged the use of reusable bags by imposing a fee onplastic shopping bags. This approach aimed at enhancing individual attitudes toward littering andpollution. Indeed, in the follow up, 90% of all bags were removed from circulation. However, didthe attitudes regarding litter and pollution really change or did only the behavior change? Whatwould happen if plastic bags were again free of charge? Most people would certainly use the free

Correspondence should be sent to Anne Kristin Lieflander, Centre of Math & Science Education (Z-MNU), Departmentof Biology Education, University of Bayreuth, NW I, University Campus NW-1, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany. E-mail:anne.lieflaender@uni-bayreuth.de

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

106 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

plastic bags again, meaning that pro-environmental attitudes had not been promoted. Therefore,only enhancement in attitude can ensure pro-environmental behavior, for example, in the absenceof externally imposed sanctions.

Many researchers have developed instruments to measure environmental attitudes. Theseinstruments can be used to investigate the effect of educational programs on the developmentof pro-environmental attitudes. We will briefly describe the most commonly used constructs toallow a comparison with the construct used in our study. First, we consider the revised NewEnvironmental Paradigm (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000). This instrument isdesigned to measure a person’s endorsement of an ecological worldview (also referred to as pro-environmental orientation, environmental concern or values). The NEP refers to environmentalattitude as a one-dimensional, bipolar construct, which varies from unconcerned to concernedabout the environment.

Second, we consider multidimensional constructs that are related to value-based orientationsand consist of either two or three dimensions (Milfont & Gouveia, 2006). Thompson and Barton’s(1994) instrument measures attitudes with a two-dimensional scale: ecocentric (concern for allliving things) and anthropocentric (concern for humans). In comparison, Stern and Dietz’s (1994)theory uses a tripartite value orientation: egoistic concern (concern for self), altruistic concern(concern for other people), and biospheric concern (concern for the biosphere). Measurementinstruments to capture these orientations are Schwartz’s (1977) value items or Schultz’s (2001)Environmental Motives Scale.

The model we have chosen for our study is Bogner and Wiseman’s (1999, 2002, 2006), TwoMajor Environmental Values (2-MEV) model, which is based on a theoretical framework compris-ing environmental attitudes that can be grouped under two distinct higher-order-factor domains:preservation and utilization. The ecological value preservation describes a (more) selfless envi-ronmental attitude and is determined by “a biocentric dimension that reflects conservation andprotection of the environment.” Utilization, on the other hand, describes a self-interested environ-mental attitude and is determined by “an anthropocentric dimension that reflects the utilization ofnatural resources” (Wiseman & Bogner, 2003, p. 5). From this, it follows that a person who hasa high preservation attitude and a low utilization attitude holds pro-environmental attitudes. Thetheory posits preservation and utilization into four quadrants, not a linear scale. This orthogonalallocation permits a change of an individual’s position on one dimension independent of the otherdimension. This is important because “people who have strong Preservation (biocentric) attitudesdo not necessarily have weak Utilisation (anthropocentric) attitudes” (Johnson & Manoli, 2011,p. 87). Assuming this, a conflict between the protection of the environment and the need to makeuse of natural resources, which can occur in real life, can be excluded (Bogner & Wiseman,2006).

Other groups working with the 2-MEV model have independently determined that the psy-chometric properties of the model are sound (Boeve-de Pauw & Van Petegem, 2011; Drissner,Haase, & Hille, 2010; Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Munoz, Bogner, Clement, & Carvalho, 2009).The measure has undergone various validation steps and its dichotomous structure has proven tobe consistent, reliable, and highly valid in diverse settings (across 22 languages and age barri-ers), for example, with pre- and in-service teachers in 16 countries in and neighboring Europe,with adolescents in Belgium and the USA, as well as with freshman students in New Zealand(Boeve-de Pauw & Van Petegem, 2011; Drissner et al., 2010; Johnson & Manoli, 2008; Milfont& Duckitt, 2004; Munoz et al., 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 107

The great variety of scales makes it difficult to compare and evaluate intervention studiesor educational programs. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the same measure in differentstudies to allow a comparison across studies (Bogner, 2002; Bogner & Wiseman, 2006). The2-MEV scale consists of 20 items which are easy to understand and which can be answeredquickly via a 5-point-Likert scale, which varies from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).These features make this model especially convenient for evaluating educational programs foradolescents and children via repeated measurement designs (Bogner & Wiseman, 2006; Johnson& Manoli, 2011). Reviewing results from previous research allows new outcomes based on the2-MEV model to be compared.

First, we focus on baseline studies, which only measure the current state of environmentalattitudes with the 2-MEV model in study groups differing in location, age, and gender. Germanuniversity students (mean age ± SD = 22.12 ± 1.55 years; Wiseman, Wilson, & Bogner, 2012)scored about 3.8 on the preservation dimension and 2.1 on the utilization dimension. In theUnited States, Johnson and Manoli (2011) investigated the environmental attitudes of students9–12 years of age and found an average preservation score of 3.7 and utilization score of 2.5. Bothstudies found that respondents show a tendency to agree with preservation and refuse utilization.With reference to gender, studies from Western Europe revealed young women score higher onpreservation and lower on utilization compared to young men (Bogner & Wiseman, 1999, 2006;Wiseman & Bogner, 2003). The same pattern was found for New Zealand introductory psychologystudents (Milfont & Duckitt, 2004). Further studies with German pre- and in-service teachersand with Flemish students revealed the same result for the utilization dimension; however, theyfound no significant differences between the preservation scores of male and females (Boeve-dePauw & van Petegem, 2011; Oerke & Bogner, 2010).

Intervention studies, like out-of-school learning or environmental education programs, can bedesigned to foster pro-environmental attitudes. The 2-MEV model has been used as an empiri-cal basis for many previous intervention studies and is therefore useful for comparing differingsamples and educational programs. Some programs were able to improve both of the measuredenvironmental attitudes, with preservation scores increasing and utilization scores decreasing(e.g., Bogner & Wiseman, 2004; Johnson & Manoli, 2011). In other studies, only the utiliza-tion or the preservation scores improved (e.g., utilization: Bogner, 2002; Drissner et al., 2010;preservation: Bogner, 1999).

The intervention programs differed in length, content, as well as the age of participants. Johnsonand Manoli (2011) used outdoor programs for students in grades four to six. The programs dealtwith abstract ecological concepts which were made more concrete. Both environmental attitudes,preservation and utilization (modified 2-MEV scale), stayed improved with moderate effect sizesfour to six weeks after the interventions. Drissner et al. (2010) established an experiential learningforum outside school for grades four to five. Their intervention lasted only three hours and studentshad direct contact with small animals, which led only to an improvement of utilization. Theyargue that their program might have been too short for an enhancement of preservation, especiallysince the program content did not specifically target issues of preservation. A three-day programon an endangered migratory bird species for students 11–16 years of age was found to lead to animproved preservation preference (Bogner, 1999); this result is most likely due to the programtopic, which focused on bird conservation. Sellmann and Bogner (2013) conducted a one-dayintervention study in a botanical garden with tenth grade students on the topic of global climatechange. The program had a positive short-term effect on preservation and utilization directly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

108 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

after the program, but only utilization persisted four to six weeks after the program. They arguethat the topic taught mainly dealt with the utilization factor and had no focus on conservationor preservation issues. In conclusion, the enhancement of pro-environmental attitudes probablydepends on the topic taught. To improve both preservation and utilization attitudes, it seemsnecessary to carefully design programs that cover both dimensions sufficiently. Until now, therehas been no investigation as to whether students of differing ages or sex are equivalently accessibleconcerning their environmental attitudes due to participation in environmental education, whichis highly relevant for education.

The following four research questions will be addressed: (a) Are we able to confirm theorthogonal structure of the 2-MEV model? (b) Do children in the age groups 9–10 and 11–13 scoredifferently on preservation and utilization? (c) Based on previous literature, can we confirm thatfemale students and male students score differently on the two environmental attitudes? (d) Doesour environmental education program enhance the pro-environmental attitudes of (i) both agegroups and (ii) both sexes? The answer to these questions may alter how we implement and designeffective environmental education according to the time in a student’s life and the methods used.

METHODS

Participants

Students from German (Bavarian) schools formed two main subsamples, which consisted ofstudents participating in our educational program or students assigned to an external controlgroup (Table 1). The subsamples were further divided according to grade: fourth grade students(9–10 years of age) from primary schools and sixth grade general-education track students(11–13 years of age).

Overall, our study group consisted of 15 participating classes and had an average group sizeof M ± SD = 20.8 ± 5.22 students. The participant group consisted of 11 classes, which hadalready been registered by their schools to spend a week at an educational field center before

TABLE 1Number, Age, and Sex Distribution of the Study Group Divided Into the Subsamples Participants and Control

Item Subsamples Participants Control Total

N 9–10 138 39 17711–13 55 35 90Total 193 74 267

Age [M (SD)] 9–10 9.82 (0.53) 9.62 (0.54) 9.77 (0.54)11–13 11.93 (0.50) 12.00 (0.59) 11.96 (0.54)Total 10.74 (1.32) 10.42 (1.09) 10.51 (1.17)

Gender [% female] 9–10 47.83 53.85 49.1511–13 43.64 51.43 46.67Total 46.63 52.70 48.31

Note: To detect a large effect size (r = .5) for all the relevant tests of significance with a standard α-level of .05 and apower of .8, we aimed for a sample size of n ≥ 28 for each subsample (Cohen 1992, in Field 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 109

they were invited to take part in our study. The control group consisted of students from fourclasses without program participation who only completed our questionnaires. Both groups wereconvenience samples. Only those students whose parents signed consent forms to participate inthe study were included in the data analysis. Each student was assigned a strictly confidentialcode that was used on the students’ T0, T1, and T2 questionnaires to link them for statisticalanalysis.

Environmental Education Program

Our residential environmental education program was titled “Water in Life-Life in Water” and wasadapted to the Bavarian curriculum for fourth grade students and sixth grade general educationstudents. During late spring and summer, students spent four days at the educational field centerand received approximately six hours of guidance every day from the same instructor. Thetime schedule ensured that each participating class underwent the same activities, structure, andtime frame. Various methods and subtopics were included in the program design to account forgender preferences concerning learner types, learning style, and interests. For example, girlsprefer collaboration and socially relevant topics, whereas males prefer competition and learningabout how things work (Weber & Custer, 2005). We addressed both types of gender preferencesby including group work and competitive elements as well as socially relevant content andexperiments. The program also covered various cognitive and affective aspects as well as formaland informal aspects aimed at improving the environmental attitudes and knowledge of bothsexes along with their relationship to nature. Interactive didactic methods such as “learningat workstations” (e.g., Gerstner & Bogner, 2010) or “jigsaw puzzle” (Aronson, 1978) wereimplemented to foster environmental understanding, to assist students in interactively confrontinglocal and global water problems, as well as to teach students how to lessen their individualimpacts on the water supply. Direct multisensory nature-encounters were used to strengthenpositive attitudes toward nature (e.g., discovery and perception games and biological water qualityassessment). To sum up, we have implemented numerous and differing elements to promotepro-environmental attitudes. To give one example, our program promoted pro-environmentalutilization by having the participants explore the negative impact they may have on water; and theprogram promoted their preservation attitude by having them determine ways of protecting water.

Procedure

We selected 16 out of the 20 items from Bogner and Wiseman’s 2-MEV scale (2006; originalGerman version; see Appendix). We adapted the questionnaire to the cognitive capacity of ouryounger students by omitting two items from each scale. We embedded the eight preservation andthe eight utilization items into a larger, paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing 31 additionalitems (on environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature) which took about 15 minutesfor students to complete. The students responded to the scale items on a 5-point-Likert scale,ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an “undecided” category (3). This“undecided” category does not force a response, which is especially important for maintainingyoung children’s interest (Johnson & Manoli, 2011). We administered the questionnaire threetimes, always presenting the items in a differing order: T0 (pre-test at school two weeks beforeparticipation in the program), T1 (post-test directly after the program at the educational field

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

110 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

center), and T2 (follow-up test at school four to six weeks later). The control group completedthe questionnaires without any program participation before T2. Teachers whose classes tookpart in the study were advised not to teach their students anything on the curricular topic of wateruntil after T2. The percentage of missing answers was low (1.47%) for all test times. Only thosestudents who completed all three questionnaires and at least 80% of each individual 2-MEV scalewere included in the analyses.

Statistical Analysis

To assess the dichotomous structure of the 2-MEV model, we conducted a confirmatoryprincipal-axis factor analysis with oblique rotation (direct oblimin; post-test data; see alsoBogner & Wiseman, 2006; Johnson & Manoli, 2011; Munoz et al., 2009). A bivariate correlationof preservation with utilization was calculated.

We used the sum mean of each person for the calculation of overall preservation and utilizationpreferences for both age groups and both sexes. For the baseline studies (age and gender), wemerged the pre-test data of the intervention and control group. According to the central limittheorem, we assume normality and apply parametric tests (Wilcox, 2005) to determine anychanges in preservation and utilization scores due to the environmental education program.

The scale reliability of the pre-test data of the whole study group expressed as Cronbach’s α

was moderate with α = .62 for preservation and α = 0.60 for utilization. The inter-relatednessof the items is high (Pearson correlation for preservation: T0–T1: r = .485; T0–T2: r = .548,T1-T2: r = .697; for utilization: T0–T1: r = .691; T0–T2: r = .651, T1–T2: r = .760).

RESULTS

Factor Analysis

The principal-axis factoring analysis clearly supports the proposed dichotomous structure of the2-MEV model because both dimensions fall on different axes (Figure 1). Preservation accountedfor 18.5% and utilization for 14.3% of the total variance. The bivariate correlation betweenutilization and preservation show both factors to be almost completely independent (pre-test:r = –0.034, p = .557; post-test: r = –0.119, p = .051; retention test: r = .192, p = .002).

Environmental Attitudes and Age

The baseline scores of the students 9–10 years of age differ significantly from the students11–13 years of age for preservation (t = 4.90, df = 265, p < .001, r = .29) and utilization(t = −2.14, df = 265, p = .033, r = .13). With 4.34 ± 0.44 on preservation and 2.47 ± 0.63 onutilization, the younger students show a higher preservation and a lower utilization preferencethan the older students (preservation: 4.03 ± 0.57, utilization: 2.63 ± 0.58).

We calculated program-induced enhancement of preservation and utilization for both agegroups. In the following, when speaking of improvement, we refer to a change toward more pro-environmental attitudes with preservation preference rising and utilization preference falling.Over all test times, we find the younger students 9–10 years of age differ significantly from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 111

FIGURE 1 Orthogonal structure of the 2-MEV preservation and utilization dimensions. Note: Post-test results given asan example homologous to the pre- and retention test results.

older students 11–13 years of age in the preservation dimension (F (1, 577) = 88.58, p < .001)and in the utilization dimension (F (1, 577) = 22.82, p < .001). Differences between the testtimes are shown in Table 2. The program positively promoted the preservation and utilizationpreference of our younger students over the short term (T0 to T1) and long term (T0 to T2).

TABLE 2Enhancement of Environmental Attitudes With Regard to Student Age

Preservation Utilization

Effect Age t df p r t df p r

Short-term 9–10 −3.97 137 <.001 .32 6.00 137 <.001 .4611–13 −3.00 54 .004 .38 1.41 54 .165 —

Long-term 9–10 −3.64 137 <.001 .30 3.08 137 .003 .2611–13 −1.40 54 .168 — −0.29 54 .774 —

Persistency 9–10 0.43 137 .666 — −3.09 137 .002 .2611–13 1.63 54 .108 — −1.55 54 .127 —

Note: Short-term effects: T0 – T1, long-term effects: T0–T2, persistency of effects: T1–T2; the effect size r wascalculated with .10 as a small, with .30 as a medium, and with .50 as a large effect (r = √

(t2/(t2 + df )); (Cohen 1992 inField 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

112 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

However, only the improvement in the preservation dimension persisted after the program, whilethe improvement in the utilization dimension significantly decreased. Significant effects werealso seen for the older students’ preservation dimension; however, the effects persisted just overthe short term with a medium effect size (Table 2). We detect no enhancement in the utilizationdimension for the older students. We find no effects from filling in questionnaires as determinedby comparison with the control group (preservation: F (2, 211) = 0.45, p = .642, utilization: F(2, 211) = 0.13, p = .876).

Environmental Attitudes and Gender

Baseline results on the environmental attitudes of the sexes show no differences between femaleand male students, neither for the younger (preservation: t = –0.64, df = 175, p = .526; utilization:t = –0.24, df = 175, p = .810), nor for the older students (preservation: t = –0.89, df = 88, p =.377; utilization: t = 0.15, df = 88, p = .882).

We used a multivariate test with the variables sex and grade to reveal program-induceddifferences. As described previously (see Table 2), we again find a differing program effecton the younger compared to the older students (preservation: F (3, 187) = 14.82, p < .001;utilization: F (3, 187) = 4.52, p = .004). Male and female students, however, show no differencerelated to program participation (preservation: F (3, 187) = 0.80, p = .498; utilization: F (3,187) = 0.51, p = .679). We also find no interrelationship between age and sex (preservation:F (3, 187) = 2.54, p = .058; utilization: F (3, 187) = 0.72, p = .544). The program had nosignificant sex effects with regard to the enhancement of students environmental attitudes.

DISCUSSION

Our study contributes to the field of attitude research by considering the initial attitudes and theeffects of participation in a four-day environmental education program on students of differentages and sexes. We confirmed the dichotomous orthogonal 2-MEV’s structure with regard to itsprincipal domains preservation and utilization with a principal-axis factor analysis. The modelallows for a possible change of one attitude independent from the other, which is also supportedby our correlation result and those results reported by Boeve-de Pauw and van Petegem (2011).The explained variance of our study sample, 32.8%, accounted for by preservation and utilizationwas in line with the results from literature (Bogner and Wiseman 2006: overall explained variance38.5%).

Regarding the baseline scores, our participants’ scores were slightly higher for preservationthan the baseline scores specified in earlier studies and similar for utilization (Bogner & Wilhelm,1996; Johnson & Manoli, 2011; Wiseman et al., 2012). Our high initial scores, especially onthe preservation scale, limit the potential space for improvement in a positive direction (ceilingeffect). Studies that rely on the self-reporting of young children also need to consider socialdesirability when interpreting results as younger children were found to show a higher socialdesirability than their older counterparts (Boehnke, Silbereisen, Reynolds, & Richmond, 1986;Oerke & Bogner, 2011). For instance, Oerke and Bogner (2011) investigated the influence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 113

“socially acceptable” answers on students’ responses on the 2-MEV scale, similarly portraying asignificant effect of age on preservation. This was consistent with Wiseman and Bogner (2003),who also found Lie scores to be a highly significant predictor for preservation scores. Both studiesfound no influence on the utilization dimension. Therefore, we must consider that our initialpreservation scores may very likely have been increased due to social desirability, especially inour younger cohort. A previous publication, based on the same environmental education programas the current study, finds that younger students have a higher connectedness to nature than theolder students (Lieflander, Frohlich, Bogner, & Schultz, 2012). The authors argue that the onsetof puberty and the accompanying psychological development of the older students might explainthe change toward less favorable connectedness to nature. Piaget’s developmental theory (asdescribed in Berk, 2004) can explain the differences we encountered between our two age groups(9–10 and 11–13 year old students) as attitudes are subject to change. Our younger students arein the “concrete operational stage,” ranging from around seven to eleven years of age. In thisstage, children are oriented toward role models like parents or teachers. This may explain whyour program had a stronger impact on the younger participants. Our older students, however,have probably reached the consecutive “formal operational stage” which is entered at aroundeleven years of age. Adolescents, for example, develop the ability of abstract scientific thinking(Berk, 2004). Within this stage, a detachment process from parents takes place which leads toemotional autonomy (Parra & Oliva, 2009). The presence of peers may influence the responsesto questionnaire items dramatically (Borgers, de Leeuw, & Hox, 2000). This may account for thecomparably poor effect of our program on the 11–13-year-old general education students.

On the basis of the orthogonal structure of the 2-MEV model, an environmental educationprogram may influence only one or both environmental attitudes. Although we intended to coverboth environmental attitudes through the program design, we found a more sustainable influenceon the preservation dimension than on the utilization dimension. Following the assumptions offormer intervention studies (e.g., Bogner, 1999; Drissner et al., 2010; Sellmann & Bogner, 2013),this is probably due to the program content. Despite our careful design, it is possible that theprogram content had a more positive overall influence on preservation. Another considerationpoints to the questionnaire itself: Inspecting the items for utilization and preservation reveals thatthree preservation items explicitly deal with the topic water, whereas there is only one utilizationitem (see Appendix: Addition to the original wording). Therefore, our program content and surveyitems had a major influence on the findings.

The enhancement of environmental attitudes also differs between younger and older students,confirming our expectations. In contrast to the positive effects on the younger students, thepreservation dimension of the older students only increased over the short term and the utilizationdimension was not impacted at all due to program participation. The differing developmentalstages of our age groups, as we have mentioned previously, might also explain the limited effectof the program on the older cohort.

Referring to gender, we find no baseline differences between boys and girls. This is incon-sistent with the majority of literature, which mostly finds female participants to score lower onutilization and higher on preservation, indicating they have stronger pro-environmental attitudesthan male participants do (e.g., Bogner & Wiseman, 2004, 2006; Wiseman et al., 2012; andreview by Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Some other studies, however, also report no dif-ferences in environmental concern between the sexes (Arcury & Christianson, 1993; Widegren,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

114 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

1988, as cited by Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). The impact of participation in our programdid not enhance pro-environmental attitudes in girls and boys differently, which may indicatea suitable program design regarding gender. The reason may be the diverse program topicsand methods, which we used to address the various possible preferences in learning style andcontent.

To conclude, we give recommendations on future research, partly arising from study limita-tions: One important factor influencing environmental attitudes is the level of education (Buttel,1979). Our general education track students from grade 6 may differ in attitudes from their same-age university track counterparts, whom we have not tested. To further clarify the enhancementof pro-environmental attitudes through environmental education, future research should thereforeexamine whether low- and high-achieving students also differ in their environmental attitudes.The 2-MEV scale is an established scale and its wording was not adjusted to the content of oureducational program since the success of a program should be rather independent of the topictaught. The 2-MEV items are suitable for young children (like our young 9–10 year old partici-pants) as they avoid using negations. This is important for children in the “concrete operationalphase” (up to 11 years of age) as they were found to have problems with understanding negativelyphrased items (Borgers et al., 2000). It seems advisable to use the whole scale consisting of 20items to ensure high scale reliability as our Cronbach’s alpha values are below the commonlyaccepted values of alphas between .70 and .90. Tavakol & Dennick (2011, p. 54) claim that “Alow value of alpha could be due to a low number of questions, poor inter-relatedness betweenitems or heterogeneous constructs.” We had reduced the original, established, and valid 2-MEVscale from 20 to 16 items. The implemented scale therefore had a lower number of items (8 itemsper subscale), while the inter-relatedness was high and its unidimensionality was confirmed bythe factor analysis. We conclude that the low number of items can be held responsible for themoderate Cronbach’s alpha. We think it might also be feasible to include additional items basedon the environmental attitudes conveyed by the program. These questions outside the established2-MEV scale can be used to estimate the program-specific outcome on attitudes. If these itemsare found to have a high quality and are unidimensional with preservation or utilization, theycould be included in a future version of the 2-MEV. Especially, more “difficult” items are neededto prevent a ceiling effect, which we encountered for the preservation attitudes of our youngparticipants.

SUMMARY

Due to its orthogonal structure, the empirical 2-MEV model allows shifts in the environmentalattitudes preservation and utilization to be recorded. Our article advances the current literatureby using the 2-MEV model to record and show the attitudinal differences between the agegroups 9–10 and 11–13 years of age: Our younger students obtained and maintained higherpro-environmental attitudes than their older counterparts. The effect of environmental educationwhich aims at enhancing pro-environmental attitudes may be more effective with younger childrenand may become less effective and more difficult to implement with increasing age. The factorsex does not necessarily have an influence on the enhancement of pro-environmental attitudesif content and methods are used that are appropriate for both sexes. Researchers and educatorsneed to be aware that environmental education programs (lasting four or more days) that aim

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 115

to enhance environmental attitudes, may be more effective for younger children than for olderchildren regardless of gender.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank all participating students and teachers and we acknowledge the continuoussupport of the educational field center “Schullandheim Weißenstadt” during the implementationphase, in particular, Cornelia Riedel und Anne Gebhardt.

REFERENCES

Arcury, T., & Christianson, E. (1993). Rural and urban differences in environmental knowledge and action. The Journalof Environmental Education, 25, 19–25. doi:10.1080/00958964.1993.9941940

Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Oxford, England: Sage.Berk, L. E. (2004). Development through the lifespan. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Boehnke, K., Silbereisen, R. K., Reynolds, C., & Richmond, B. (1986). What I think and feel: German experience

with the revised form of the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 553–560.doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90132-7

Boeve-de Pauw, J., & van Petegem, P. (2011). The effect of Flemish eco-schools on student environmental knowl-edge, attitudes, and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1513–1538. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.540725

Bogner, F. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmentalperspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29. doi:10.1080/00958969809599124

Bogner, F. (1999). Empirical evaluation of an educational conservation program introduced in Swiss secondary school.International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1169–1185. doi:10.1080/095006999290138

Bogner, F. (2002). The influence of a residential outdoor education program to pupil’s environmental perception. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 17(1), 19–34. doi:10.1007/BF03173202

Bogner, F. X., & Wilhelm, M. (1996). Environmental perspectives of pupils: The development of an attitude and behaviourscale. The Environmentalist, 16(2), 95–110. doi:10.1007/BF01325101

Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (1999). Toward measuring adolescent environmental perception. European Psychologist,4, 139–151. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.3.139

Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2002). Environmental perception: Factor profiles of extreme groups. European Psychol-ogist, 7, 225–237. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.3.225

Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2004). Outdoor ecology education and pupils’ environmental perception in preservationand utilization. Science Education International, 15(1), 27–48.

Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2006). Adolescents’ attitudes towards nature and environment: Quantifying the 2-MEVmodel. The Environmentalist, 26, 247–254. doi:10.1007/s10669-006-8660-9

Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development andresponse quality 1. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75. doi:10.1177/075910630006600106

Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth and Society, 10, 433–450.Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15, 276–285.

doi:10.1002/sd.344Drissner, D., Haase, H.-M., & Hille, K. (2010). Short-term environmental education—Does it work?: An evaluation of

the “Green Classroom.” Journal of Biological Education, 44, 149–155. doi:10.1080/00219266.2010.9656215Dunlap, R., & van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed instrument and preliminary results.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19. doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.19-28Dunlap, R., van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A

revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

116 EFFECTS OF AGE AND SEX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Cognitive achievement and motivation in hands-on and teacher-centred science

classes: Does an additional hands-on consolidation phase (concept mapping) optimise cognitive learning at workstations? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 849–870. doi:10.1080/09500690902803604

Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. (2008). Using Bogner and Wiseman’s model of ecological values to measure the impact of anearth education program on children’s environmental perceptions. Environmental Education Research, 14, 115–127.doi:10.1080/1350462080195167

Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. C. (2011). The 2-MEV scale in the United States: A measure of children’s environmen-tal attitudes based on the theory of ecological attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(2), 84–97.doi:10.1080/00958964.2010.503716

Lieflander, A. K., Frohlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). Promoting connectedness with nature throughenvironmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19, 370–384. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.697545

Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatoryfactor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 289–303. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001

Milfont, T., & Gouveia, V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmentalattitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.001

Munoz, F., Bogner, F. X., Clement, P., & Carvalho, G. (2009). Teachers’ conceptions of nature and environment in 16countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 407–413. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.007

Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. (2010). Gender, age and subject matter: Impact on teachers’ ecological values. The Environmen-talist, 30, 111–122. doi:10.1007/s10669-009-9250-4

Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. (2011). Social desirability, environmental attitudes, and general ecological behaviour in children.International Journal of Science Education, 35, 713–730. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.566897

Parra, A., & Oliva, A. (2009). A longitudinal research on the development of emotional autonomy during adolescence.The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 66–75.

Schultz, P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 21, 327–339. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.

Schultz, P., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J., & Khazian, A. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 24(1), 31–42. doi:0.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10,221–279.

Sellmann, D., & Bogner, F. (2013). Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on environmental attitudesand connectedness with nature. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1077–1086. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0155-0

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

Stern, P., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2,53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Thompson, S., & Barton, M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 14, 149–157. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168–9

Thurstone, L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554.Weber, K., & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instruc-

tional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55–71.Widegren, O. (1988). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 30, 75–100.

doi:10.1177/0013916598301004Wilcox, R. (2005). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Wiseman, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality.

Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783–794. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00071-5Wiseman, M., Wilson, G., & Bogner. F. X. (2012). Environmental values and authoritarianism. Psychology Research,

2(1), 25–31.Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender

differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIEFLANDER AND BOGNER 117

APPENDIX

The 2-MEV items applied in the study (retrieved from Bogner & Wiseman, 2006).

Preservation (8 items)MEV01 It upsets me to see the countryside taken over by building sites.MEV02 I enjoy trips to the countryside (woods, meadow).MEV03 Humankind will die out if we don’t live in tune with nature.MEV04 Sitting at the edge of a pond watching dragonflies in flight is enjoyable.∗MEV05 I save water by taking a shower instead of a bath (in order to spare water).∗MEV06 I always switch the light off when I don’t need it.MEV07 We must set aside areas to protect endangered species.MEV08 It is interesting to know what kinds of creatures live in ponds or rivers.∗

Utilization (8 items)MEV11 We need to clear forests in order to grow crops (e.g., cereals).MEV12 Our planet has unlimited resources (e.g,. potable water, wood, coal, or oil)∗MEV13 We must build more roads so people can travel to the countryside.MEV14 Only plants and animals of economical importance need to be protected.MEV15 Humans have the right to change nature as they see fit.MEV16 People worry too much about pollution.MEV17 Human beings are more important than other creatures (animals and plants).MEV18 We should remove garden weeds to help beautiful flowers grow.

Note: A German version was used with equivalent wording. Additions to the original wording were added to ease thestudents’ understanding and are highlighted in italics.

∗ Items dealing with the topic water.The numbers resemble those in Figure 1. The original scale contains 10 items each.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014