Next Article in Journal
A Combined Measurement and Modelling Approach to Assess the Sustainability of Whole-Tree Harvesting—A Swedish Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Are Professionals Rationals? How Organizations and Households Make E-Car Investments
Previous Article in Journal
Bikeability and Emerging Phenomena in Cycling: Exploratory Analysis and Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Domestic Precycling Behavior: A Social Identity Perspective
Open AccessArticle

Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale

1
Department of Psychology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH 44691, USA
2
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
3
Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 101000, Russia
4
Department of Recreation Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
5
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
6
Department of Science Education and Application, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung City 403454, Taiwan
7
Department of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Cusco 08000, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Fanli Jia, Kendall Soucie, Kyle Matsuba and Marc A. Rosen
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 2387; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387 (registering DOI)
Received: 28 December 2020 / Revised: 7 February 2021 / Accepted: 17 February 2021 / Published: 23 February 2021
The environmental identity (EID) scale, first published in 2003, was developed to measure individual differences in a stable sense of interdependence and connectedness with nature. Since then, it has been reliably correlated with measures of environmental behavior and concern. However, the original scale was developed based on U.S. college students, raising questions about its validity for other types of populations. This study revised the EID scale and tested it in five countries (four continents) with a total sample size of 1717 participants. Results support strong internal consistency across all locations. Importantly, EID was significantly correlated with behavior and with environmental concern. This research gives us greater confidence that the EID construct is meaningful across different cultural contexts. Because the revised EID was designed to be relevant to a wider range of people and experiences, it is recommended as a replacement for the 2003 version. View Full-Text
Keywords: environmental identity; reliability; cross-cultural validity; pro-environmental behavior environmental identity; reliability; cross-cultural validity; pro-environmental behavior
MDPI and ACS Style

Clayton, S.; Czellar, S.; Nartova-Bochaver, S.; Skibins, J.C.; Salazar, G.; Tseng, Y.-C.; Irkhin, B.; Monge-Rodriguez, F.S. Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387

AMA Style

Clayton S, Czellar S, Nartova-Bochaver S, Skibins JC, Salazar G, Tseng Y-C, Irkhin B, Monge-Rodriguez FS. Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Clayton, Susan; Czellar, Sandor; Nartova-Bochaver, Sonya; Skibins, Jeffrey C.; Salazar, Gabby; Tseng, Yu-Chi; Irkhin, Boris; Monge-Rodriguez, Fredy S. 2021. "Cross-Cultural Validation of A Revised Environmental Identity Scale" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop