3.2.1. Intrinsic Construct
The intrinsic construct is defined as individual aspects that are stable and, to some extent, unconscious traits, such as personality and values [51
], and able to explain the human–nature nexus [52
]. The variables used in the intrinsic construct were: demographics, personality, and values [53
Personality assists the understanding of environmental views [54
] since it describes how a person relates to and interprets the world [55
]. Jung’s work often focused on the repression of nature, animals, creative fantasy, and the primitive side of humans, and therefore his personality theory took this into consideration [36
]. The Jung Type Indicator (JTI) measured personality by asking the degree of agreement on a scale of 1–5 on 60 items to identify psychological types based on attitudes (extraversion versus introversion—EI), psychological functions (sensing versus intuiting—SN; thinking versus feeling—TF), and secondary processes (judging versus perceiving—JP) [56
]. The JTI had a high level of internal reliability across samples, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 (EI), 0.78 to 0.86 (SN), 0.75 to 0.84 (TF), and 0.75 to 0.85 (JP) [56
]. The JTI was chosen because it uses modern psychometric test theory (identifying preferences across four dimensions rather than a dichotomous model); it interprets psychological types as being on a continuum rather than as discrete categories. A limitation of using the JTI was that due to the proprietary nature of the measure, individual items were not available for Cronbach alphas to be calculated and therefore reliability and internal consistency could not be established.
The Schwartz value theory describes values as linked to affect, motivating action, as transcending situations, serving as standards or criteria, and hierarchical; according to the theory, values of importance guide action [37
]. Individuals are more likely to protect things that they value [37
]. The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) was chosen for this study because it is the most widely used values survey, measures ten universal values, and is adequate for research across cultures [37
]. The SVS uses 57 items to measure ten culturally universal values, namely power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security, using a rating of between −1 (opposed to value) to 7 (value of supreme importance). Across 212 samples, alpha reliabilities of the ten values averaged 0.68, ranging from 0.61 for tradition to 0.75 for universalism [37
]. The Cronbach alpha was calculated using raw scores as was done in a South African study [58
] and showed 0.72 for conformity, 0.68 for tradition, 0.70 for benevolence, 0.75 for universalism, 0.60 for self-direction, 0.60 for stimulation, 0.64 for hedonism, 0.73 for achievement, 0.67 for power, and 0.60 for security. A limitation of using the SVS is the lack of research using this instrument in the South African context; therefore comparative data are sparse.
3.2.2. Cognitive Construct
In the context of this study, the cognitive construct is defined as the mental process of knowing, awareness, perception, reasoning, and judging [59
] rather than affect [64
]. The cognitive construct was captured by the various aspects of environmental awareness [60
Environmental awareness, attitudes, and concern are the extent to which individuals are cognitively aware and concerned about environmental issues [62
]. To understand issues that individuals prioritize versus marginalize [67
], a measure of awareness, concern, and attitudes towards the environment (the Environmental Issues and Attitudes Questionnaire—EIAQ) was developed to include concerns specific to South Africa (i.e., canned lion hunting; poaching). No single existing questionnaire could be found that included issues such as natural disasters, water scarcity, human overpopulation, poaching, use of pesticides, animals used in entertainment, over-fishing, animal cruelty, factory farming, and vivisection. This questionnaire contained four sections, namely ranking, environmental (awareness, concerns, and accountability), animal (awareness, concerns, and accountability), and general attitudes.
The first section explored the level of awareness to personal safety, economic, social, religious, environmental, health, political, animal rights, and international tension issues on a 4-point scale, where 0 = I do not know, 1 = I am now less aware than before, 2 = My awareness is the same as before, and 3 = I am more aware than before. The second section then explored the degree of concern about specific environmental versus animal issues on a 6-point scale, where 0 = No opinion, 1 = Not at all concerned, 2 = Slightly concerned, 3 = Somewhat concerned, 4 = Moderately concerned, and 5 = Extremely concerned. The third section contained an accountability question asking the participants the extent to which they felt they had control (locus of control) over the items they were concerned about on a 4-point scale, where 0 = I do not know, 1 = I have no control over this, 2 = I can maybe change something small or help in a small way, and 3 = What I do could have a direct impact. The final section in the questionnaire explored attitudes towards the environment, domestic animals, farm animals, wild animals, and general topics on 6-point scale, where 0 = Do not know, 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly agree.
Varimax (orthogonal) rotation factor analysis was conducted on the EIAQ to determine underlying dimensions in the data and to reduce the dimensionality of the data for further analysis. The factor analysis reduced the items from 67 to 60, where items with loadings <0.50 were removed. The environmental concern subscale yielded four factors: human-centric (items included human overpopulation, loss of natural rea, waste generation, urbanization, over consumption, and biodiversity loss) (α = 0.795), climate-centric (items included climate change, rising sea level, global warming, natural disaster, and ozone depletion) (α = 0.824), resource-centric (items included air pollution, water scarcity, and natural resource depletion) (α = 0.752), and science-centric (items included nuclear energy, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms GMO) (α = 0.668). The animal concern subscale yielded two factors: animal exploitation (items included animals used in entertainment, animals’ legal rights, domestic breeding, wild breeding, factory farming, domestic/farm animal welfare, vivisection, and animals used in consumer products) (α = 0.894) and animal extinction (items included canned lion hunting, deforestation, overfishing, whale hunting, dolphin capture, cruelty, poaching, and trophy hunting) (α = 0.886). The attitudes subscale had five factors: shifting responsibility (items included environmental/domestic animals/farm animals/wild animals issues are overstated/exaggerated, environmental/domestic animals/farm animals/wild animals issues are for future generations to deal with, and wild animals should contribute to the economy) (α = 0.904), role of the individual (items included each individual can contribute to better environmental/domestic/farm/wild animal welfare) (α = 0.707), role of government (items included environmental/domestic/farm/wild animal issues are the government’s responsibility) (α = 0.809), role of technology (items included environment/domestic/farm/wild animal issues will be solved through technological progress) (α = 0.826), and apathetic attitudes (items included hard to change, environment is not a priority, effects of environmental destruction is too far in the future, too much effort to adopt an environmentally friendly lifestyle) (α = 0.747). A limitation of the EIAQ is that many of the items are specific to South Africa, such as canned lion hunting, and therefore the instrument might not be a reliable measure for use in countries where environmental issues of this nature are unknown.
3.2.4. Behavioral Construct
Behavior is not an adequate form of typology on its own [70
], but is impacted by locus of control, personality, accountability [71
], and values [72
]. Including a behavioral construct would provide a broader understanding of each type.
The Behavioral Questionnaire (BQ) was self-developed to evaluate current behaviors, such as waste, transport, energy, purchase and consumption, water, and general behaviors. No existing behavioral questionnaire included broad-ranging aspects related to waste, transport, energy, purchase, consumption, water, and charitable behaviors. Questionnaires and attributes used by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [23
] and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [49
] were used as a framework. The BQ asked participants to what extent they participated in a range of behaviors on a scale of 1 = never do it, 2 = rarely do it, 3 = sometimes do it, 4 = often do it, and 5 = always do it. Sample items were as follows: the waste section included “recycle glass bottles/containers”; the transport section included “find ways to reduce fuel consumption”; the energy section included “switch off lights when not needed”; the purchase and consumption section included “purchase products that generate the least amount of waste”; the water section included “bath less, shower more”; and the general section included “I grow my own vegetables and fruits”.
Varimax (orthogonal) rotation factor analysis was conducted on the BQ to determine underlying dimensions in the data and hence to reduce the dimensionality of the data for further analysis. The factor analysis reduced the questionnaire items from 58 to 41, where items with loadings <0.50 or those loading on multiple factors were removed. The BQ had nine factors: recycle (items included recycle glass, plastic, cans, paper, batteries, medication, and reuse cans) (α = 0.885), energy reduction (items included switch off lights, energy saving lightbulbs, use appliances less, and turn off appliances off) (α = 0.776), conscious consumption (items included purchase products with least waste, purchase organic/fair trade/non-endangered fish/free range, carbon count purchases, boycott bad companies, and purchase local/environmentally friendly) (α = 0.853), environmentally friendly travel (items included public transport, recycled tires, and walk or cycle) (α = 0.681), charitable behavior (items included give money to wildlife/animal welfare groups and volunteer time to wildlife/animal welfare groups) (α = 0.866), environmentally conscious travel (items included reduce air travel, reduce fuel use, and adapt driving style) (α = 0.723), individual water reduction (items included bath less, shorter showers, and turn off water when brushing teeth) (α = 0.613), re-use (items included glass, plastic, and paper re-use) (α = 0.759), and smart gardening (items included capture rain water, use grey water, and grow own fruit and vegetables) (α = 0.666). The BQ fails to cover all behavioral items imaginable and therefore might not be a complete measure for use across studies.
The benefits of self-report measures include: they are practical and effective, convenient and easy to administer, affordable, provide direct insight into unique information, give individual inspiration to respond, provide control of most response biases, and provide some readily available psychometrically-tested inventories [73
]. Self-report measures are ideal for exploring issues related to the environment since participants feel less burdened [74
]. Some drawbacks include that they are open to social desirability, agreeable, or extreme responding. There is the assumption that participants are self-knowledgeable and do not have distorted self-perceptions, issues with non-context-specific use of language, and cultural limitations in studies with moral overtones [73
]. Limitations such as self-selection, demand characteristics, and response burden were minimized by allowing participants to remain anonymous, confirming that there were no right or wrong answers, and excluding repetitive responses in the data. Participants were able to complete the questionnaire in various sittings to reduce fatigue and were screened for English proficiency.
3.2.6. Confirmatory Descriptive Variables
While worldviews might also be considered as an aspect of the cognitive construct, the measure selected for this study correlated significantly with the measure for the affect construct and therefore was treated only as a confirmatory descriptive variable in this study. Worldviews represent an individual’s inner experience of the outer world [60
] and inform how reality is interpreted [61
]. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) was selected based on its extensive use for establishing environmental worldviews [62
], and its use in emerging economies [63
]. The NEP does not measure emotional or physical connections to the natural world [64
]. It uses 15 items, including an ecological paradigm (8 items) and a dominant social paradigm (7 items) [38
]. Participants responded on a 5-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree [38
]. In this study, the overall scale’s Cronbach alpha was 0.772, similar to more developed countries [65
]. The NEP facets (reality of limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exemptionalism, and the possibility of an eco-crisis) would have added more descriptive depth, but due to the low Cronbach alphas on these facets, the NEP was used as a single measure in this study.
The factor analysis of the EIAQ produced 11 distinct variables. As is described in the analysis section, this was too many clustering variables to consider for cluster analysis given the sample size. Based on the correlation between the EIAQ variables, six variables were selected for clustering and five variables were selected for confirmatory descriptive analysis. These variables were climate-centric, animal exploitation, animal extinction, the role of government, and the role of technology from the EIAQ.