The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Religion, Science and Environmental Concern
2.1. Religion and Scientific Knowledge
2.2. Message Framing
2.3. Water Conservation
3. Methods
3.1. Experimental Design
3.2. Sample
3.3. Dependent Variable
Whether or not your city has a water use policy, imagine that the legislature in your state is proposing to enact a policy to regulate outdoor use of water on personal property during times of water scarcity, such as we have seen in the United States during the summer of 2012. This policy would require that municipalities reduce water use by 50% during times of drought.The policy described above could mean mandatory prohibitions on outdoor uses, such as washing cars, watering lawns and gardens, and filling swimming pools so that municipalities can insure safe and reliable water for the entire population. What is your level of agreement with this proposed policy?
3.4. Experimental Conditions
Many people are concerned with water as a natural resource. Some people argue that water is a gift from God. We should be concerned about rivers, lakes, oceans, and ground water. We are a part of God’s creation and by working to protect the environment we can continue to create life. It is the duty of Christians to protect water.Many people are concerned with water as a natural resource. Some people argue that 80% of the United States is facing abnormally dry conditions. Much of the southern half of the country is experiencing drought, which will not likely change soon. We can effectively reduce drought problems by creating solutions to conserve water in drought-affected areas.
3.5. Religion Predictors
3.6. Political, Socio-Demographic, and Biophysical Predictors
3.7. Environmental Concern Indicators
3.8. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Igor Shiklomanav. “World Fresh Water Resources.” In Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. Edited by Peter H. Gleick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- “U.S. Drought Monitor.” Available online: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu (accessed on 16 October 2013).
- Jim Carlton. “California Farm Belt Shrivels—Dry Winters, Water Rationing Force Output Cuts, Test Fragile Regional Economy.” The Wall Street Journal, 27 June 2013, A3. [Google Scholar]
- Michael Wines. “Wells Dry, Fertile Plains Turn to Dust.” The New York Times, 19 May 2013, A1. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “WaterSense: An EPA Partnership Program. ” Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/index.html (accessed on 21 November 2016).
- U.S. Department of the Interior. “Water SMART: A Three-year Progress Report. ” Available online: http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/docs/WaterSMART-thee-year-progress-report.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2013).
- Jerry Harke. “Water Conservation Today Key to Agriculture’s Water Tomorrow.” 2008. Available online: http://www.fb.org/index.php?action=newsroom.focus&year=2008&file=fo0519.html (accessed on 7 September 2013).
- “National Ground Water Association.” Available online: http://www.ngwa.org/About/Pages/about.aspx (accessed on 7 September 2013).
- Water.org. “Water.org Fact Sheet.” Available online: http://static.water.org/public/pdf/WaterorgFactsheet2012.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2013).
- Gary L. Chamberlain. Troubled Waters: Religion, Ethics, and the Global Water Crisis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Emilio Chuvieco. “Religious Approaches to Water Management and Environmental Conservation.” Water Policy 14 (2012): 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin Palmer, ed. Faith in Water. Bath: Alliance of Religions and Conservation, 2010.
- Robert A. Campbell, and James E. Curtis. “The Public’s View on the Future of Religion and Science: Cross-National Survey Results.” Review of Religious Research 37 (1996): 260–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allan W. Eister. “Religion and Science in AD 1977: Conflict? Accommodation? Mutual Indifference? Or What? ” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17 (1978): 347–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John H. Evans. “Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41 (2002): 747–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John H. Evans, and Michael S. Evans. “Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 (2008): 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Eunkyung Kim, and Bruce V. Lewenstein. “Religiosity as a Perceptual Filter: Examining Processes of Opinion Formation about Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (2009): 546–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirley S. Ho, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A. Scheufele. “Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (2008): 171–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley E. Dunlap, and Robert Emmet Jones. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.” In Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edited by Riley E. Dunlap and William Michelson. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002, pp. 482–514. [Google Scholar]
- Riley E. Dunlap, Chenyang Xiao, and Aaron M. McCright. “Politics and Environment in America: Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Public Support for Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics 10 (2001): 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chenyang Xiao, and Aaron M. McCright. “Explaining Gender Differences in Concern about Environmental Problems in the United States.” Society and Natural Resources 25 (2012): 1067–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaime Berenguer. “The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors.” Environment and Behavior 39 (2007): 269–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas Dietz, Amy Fitzgerald, and Rachael Shwom. “Environmental Values.” Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30 (2005): 335–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul C. Stern, Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory A. Guagnano, and Linda Kalof. “A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism.” Research in Human Ecology 6 (1999): 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Paul C. Stern, Thomas Dietz, Linda Kalof, and Gregory A. Guagnano. “Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation toward Emergent Attitude Objects.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (1995): 1611–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- P. Wesley Schultz. “The Structure of Environmental Concern, Concern for Self, Concern for People, and the Biosphere.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (2001): 327–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samueal D. Brody, Sammy Zahran, Arnold Vedlitz, and Himanshu Grover. “Examining the Relationship between Physical Vulnerability and Public Perceptions of Global Climate Change in the United States.” Environment and Behavior 40 (2008): 72–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexa Spence, Wouter Poortinga, Catherine Butler, and Nicholas Frank Pidgeon. “Perceptions of Climate Change and Willingness to Save Energy Related to Flood Experience.” Nature Climate Change 1 (2011): 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorraine Whitmarsh. “Are Flood Victims More Concerned about Climate Change than other People? The Role of Direct Experience in Risk Perception and Behavioral Response.” Journal of Risk Research 11 (2008): 351–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sammy Zahran, Samuel D. Brody, Himanshu Grover, and Arnold Vedlitz. “Climate Change Vulnerability and Policy Support.” Society and Natural Resources 19 (2006): 771–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John M. Clements, Aaron M. McCright, and Chenyang Xiao. “Green Christians? An Empirical Examination of Environmental Concern within the U.S. General Public.” Organization and Environment 27 (2014): 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas L. Eckberg, and T. Jean Blocker. “Varieties of Religious Involvement and Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989): 509–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas L. Eckberg, and T. Jean Blocker. “Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35 (1996): 343–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carl M. Hand, and Kent D. Van Liere. “Religion, Mastery-Over-Nature, and Environmental Concern.” Social Forces 63 (1984): 555–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad L. Kanagy, and Hart M. Nelsen. “Religion and Environmental Concern: Challenging the Dominant Assumptions.” Review of Religious Research 37 (1995): 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michelle Wolkomir, Michael Futreal, Eric Woodrum, and Thomas Hoban. “Denominational Subcultures of Environmentalism.” Review of Religious Research 38 (1997): 325–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michelle Wolkomir, Michael Futreal, Eric Woodrum, and Thomas Hoban. “Substantive Religious Belief and Environmentalism.” Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 96–108. [Google Scholar]
- Heather H. Boyd. “Christianity and the Environment in the American Public.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38 (1999): 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James L. Guth, John C. Green, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Schmidt. “Faith and Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes on Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1995): 364–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad L. Kanagy, and Fern K. Willits. “A ‘Greening’ of Religion? Some Evidence from a Pennsylvania Sample.” Social Science Quarterly 74 (1993): 674–83. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew M. Greeley. “Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (1993): 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernadette C. Hayes, and Manussos Marangudakis. “Religion and Environmental Issues with Anglo-American Democracies.” Review of Religious Research 42 (2000): 159–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eric Woodrum, and Thomas Hoban. “Theology and Religiosity Effects on Environmentalism.” Review of Religious Research 35 (1994): 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darren E. Sherkat, and Christopher G. Ellison. “Structuring the Religion-Environment Connection: Identifying Religious Influences on Environmental Concern and Activism.” Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 46 (2007): 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregory E. Hitzhusen. “Judeo-Christian Theology and the Environment: Moving Beyond Skepticism to New Sources for Environmental Education in the United States.” Environmental Education Research 13 (2007): 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katherine K. Wilkinson. “Climate’s Salvation?: Why and How American Evangelicals are Engaging with Climate Change.” Environment 52 (2010): 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- “Evangelical Environmental Network.” Available online: www.creationcare.org (accessed on 16 October 2013).
- “Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative.” Available online: www.baptistcreationcare.org (accessed on 16 October 2013).
- T. Jean Blocker, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. “Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the 1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 841–58. [Google Scholar]
- Richard J. Bord, Robert E O’Connor, and Ann Fisher. “In What Sense Does the Public Need to Understand Global Climate Change? ” Public Understanding of Science 9 (2000): 205–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brent S. Steel, Denise Lach, and Vijay A. Satyal. “Ideology and Scientific Credibility: Environmental Policy in the American Pacific Northwest.” Public Understanding of Science 15 (2006): 481–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence Hamilton, Matthew J. Cutler, and Andrew Schaefer. “Public Knowledge about Polar Regions Increases while Concern Remains Unchanged.” Carsey Institute Issue Brief 42 (2012): 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Matthias Finger. “From Knowledge to Action? Exploring the Relationships between Environmental Experiences, Learning, and Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 50 (1994): 141–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osamu Iwata. “Some Attitudinal and Literacy Correlates of Proenvironmentalism.” Social Behavior and Personality 24 (1996): 335–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank E. Dardis. “The Role of Issue-Framing Functions in Affecting Beliefs and opinions about a Sociopolitical Issue.” Communication Quarterly 55 (2007): 247–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas A. Morton, Anna Rabinovich, Dan Marshall, and Bret Schneider. “The Future that May (Or May Not) Come: How Framing Changes Responses to Uncertainty about Climate Change Communications.” Global Environmental Change 21 (2011): 103–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liesbeth Van de Velde, Wim Verbeke, Michael Popp, and Guido VanHuylenbroeck. “The Importance of Message Framing for Providing Information About Sustainability and Environmental Aspects of Energy.” Energy Policy 38 (2010): 5541–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenneth R. Lord. “Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasiexperimental Investigation of Message and Source Strategies.” Psychology and Marketing 11 (1994): 341–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katie Gifford, and John C. Bernard. “The Impact of Message Framing on Organic Food Purchase Likelihood.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 35 (2004): 19–28. [Google Scholar]
- Katie Gifford, and Louise A. Comeau. “Message Framing Influences Perceived Climate Change Competence, Engagement, and Behavioral Intentions.” Global Environmental Change 21 (2011): 1301–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaron M. McCright, and Riley E. Dunlap. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47 (2000): 499–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael Aklin, and Johannes Urpelainen. “Debating Clean Energy: Frames, Counter Frames and Audiences.” Global Environmental Change 23 (2013): 1225–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelly Chaiken, and Durairaj Maheswaran. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (1994): 460–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petr Matous, Yasayuki Todo, and Dagne Mojo. “Roles of Extension and Ethno-Religious Networks in Acceptance of Resource-Conserving Agriculture among Ethiopian Farmers.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (2013): 301–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fachruddin M. Mangunjaya, and Jeanne E. McKay. “Reviving an Islamic Approach for Environmental Conservation in India.” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 16 (2012): 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillian Rice. “Pro-Environmental Behavior in Egypt: Is There a Role for Islamic Environmental Ethics? ” Journal of Business Ethics 65 (2006): 373–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaron M. McCright, and Riley E. Dunlap. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011): 155–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bethany Cooper, and Lin Crase. “Urban Water Restrictions: Unbundling Motivations, Compliance and Policy Viability.” In Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Conference on Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Cairns, Australia, 11–13 February 2009.
- Andrew Gilg, and Stewart Barr. “Behavioural Attitudes toward Water Saving? Evidence from a Study of Environmental Actions.” Ecological Economics 57 (2006): 400–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bill Randolph, and Patrick Troy. “Attitudes to Conservation and Water Consumption.” Environmental Science and Policy 11 (2008): 441–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig W. Trumbo, and Garrett J. O’Keefe. “Intention to Conserve Water: Environmental Values, Planned Behavior, and Information Effects. A Comparison of Three Communities Sharing a Watershed.” Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 14 (2001): 889–99. [Google Scholar]
- Craig W. Trumbo, and Garrett J. O’Keefe. “Intention to Conserve Water: Environmental Values, Reasoned Action, and Information Effects across Time.” Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 18 (2005): 573–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter Mason, and Siddharth Suri. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (2012): 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Judgment and Decision Making 5 (2010): 411–19. [Google Scholar]
- Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? ” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (2011): 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Coding | Mean | SD |
Dependent Variable | |||
Agreement with proposed water use restriction policy | 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” | 3.97 | 1.16 |
Religion Indicators | Mean | SD | |
Christian | 0 “all others” to 1 “Christian religion” | 0.34 | 0.47 |
Non-Christian | 0 “all others” to 1 “non-Christian religion” | 0.09 | 0.29 |
Attendance | 1 “never” to 9 “greater than once per week” | 2.62 | 2.37 |
Political, Socio-Demographic, and Biophysical Indicators | Mean | SD | |
Political ideology | 1 “extremely conservative” to 7 “extremely liberal” | 4.89 | 1.49 |
Female | 0 “male” to 1 “female” | 0.35 | 0.48 |
White | 0 “non-white” to 1 “white” | 0.83 | 0.38 |
Age | actual age in years | 29.01 | 8.74 |
Education | 1 “less than high school” to 5 “more than a 4 year degree“ | 3.52 | 0.84 |
Income | 1 “$0–$24,999” to 5 “$100,000 and up” | 2.46 | 1.26 |
Homeowner | 0 “renting” to 1 “owned or being bought” | 0.49 | 0.50 |
Drought location | 0 “does not live in drought zip code” to 1 “lives in drought zip code” | 0.36 | 0.48 |
Variable | Coding | Standardized Factor Loadings | |
Environmental Concern Indicators | |||
Personal Worry | |||
air pollution | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.73 | |
contamination of soil and water by toxic waste | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.80 | |
extinction of plant and animal species | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.70 | |
loss of tropical rain forests | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.71 | |
pollution of drinking water | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.72 | |
pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.80 | |
urban sprawl | 1 “not at all” to 4 “a great deal” | 0.57 | |
Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice to Protect the Environment | |||
pay much higher taxes | 1 “not at all willing” to 5 “very willing” | 0.86 | |
pay much higher prices | 1 “not at all willing” to 5 “very willing” | 0.91 | |
accept cuts in your standard of living | 1 “not at all willing” to 5 “very willing” | 0.72 |
Independent Variables | Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice for the Environment | Religious Message | Agreement with Proposed Water Policy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct | Indirect | Total | Direct | Indirect | Total | Direct | Indirect | Total | |
Religion Indicators | |||||||||
Christian | −0.06 | - | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.06 | −0.02 | 0.04 |
Non-Christian | 0.04 | - | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reference: No Religion | |||||||||
Attendance | 0.05 | - | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
Political and Socio-Demographic Controls | |||||||||
Political ideology | 0.23 * | - | 0.23 * | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.11 * | 0.04 * | 0.15 * |
Female | 0.03 | - | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 |
White | 0.04 | - | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.10 * | 0.00 | 0.10 * |
Age | −0.07 * | - | −0.07 * | −0.03 | −0.00 | −0.03 | 0.11 * | −0.01 | 0.10 * |
Education | 0.07 * | - | 0.07 * | −0.04 | 0.00 | −0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 * | 0.07 |
Income | −0.02 | - | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Homeowner | −0.04 | - | −0.04 | −0.00 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.05 |
Drought location | 0.01 | - | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 |
Environmental Concern Indicators | |||||||||
Personal Worry | 0.55 * | 0.55 * | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.09 * | 0.19 * | |
Willingness to Pay | - | - | - | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.18 * | −0.01 * | 0.17 * |
Message | |||||||||
Religious Message | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.13 * | - | −0.13 * |
Reference: Scientific Message | |||||||||
Chi-square | 223 (df = 50) | ||||||||
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) | 0.96 | ||||||||
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) | 0.90 | ||||||||
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | 0.86 | ||||||||
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.07, p < 0.001 |
Independent Variables | Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice For the Environment | Religious Message | Agreement with Proposed Water Policy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct | Indirect | Total | Direct | Indirect | Total | Direct | Indirect | Total | |
Religion Indicators | |||||||||
Attendance | 0.02 | - | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.13 |
Political and Socio-Demographic Controls | |||||||||
Political ideology | 0.21 * | - | 0.21 * | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.07 * | 0.05 |
Female | 0.03 | - | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.13 | −0.08 | −0.01 | −0.09 |
White | −0.02 | - | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.09 | −0.01 | 0.08 |
Age | −0.13 * | - | −0.13 * | −0.11 | −0.01 | −0.12 | 0.21 * | −0.03 | 0.18 * |
Education | 0.13 * | - | 0.13 * | −0.10 | 0.01 | −0.10 | −0.03 | 0.06 * | 0.02 |
Income | 0.03 | - | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.10 | −0.05 | 0.00 | -0.06 |
Homeowner | 0.00 | - | 0.00 | −0.09 | 0.00 | −0.09 | −0.02 | 0.01 | -0.01 |
Drought location | 0.05 | - | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Environmental Concern Indicators | |||||||||
Personal Worry | 0.59 * | 0.59 * | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.19 * | 0.30 * | |
Willingness to Pay | - | - | - | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.34 * | −0.01 | 0.33 * |
Message | |||||||||
Religious Message | - | - | - | - | - | - | -0.14 * | - | −0.14 * |
Reference: Scientific Message | |||||||||
Chi-square | 67.8 (df = 38) | ||||||||
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) | 0.96 | ||||||||
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) | 0.89 | ||||||||
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | 0.92 | ||||||||
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.05, p = 0.264 |
© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Clements, J.M. The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040076
Clements JM. The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions. Social Sciences. 2016; 5(4):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040076
Chicago/Turabian StyleClements, John M. 2016. "The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions" Social Sciences 5, no. 4: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040076