亲环境行为研究的衡量标准是什么?

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102381
Florian Lange
{"title":"亲环境行为研究的衡量标准是什么?","authors":"Florian Lange","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As a key outcome in environmental psychology, pro-environmental behavior is studied in various different ways. Researchers observe naturally occurring pro-environmental behaviors, ask people to complete self-report scales, or devise behavioral tasks with ecological consequences. These approaches have been claimed to yield measures of pro-environmental behavior. The present paper argues that this terminology is misleading. Some pro-environmental behavior researchers measure <em>behavioral properties</em> of pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., frequency, duration), while others apparently aim to measure more or less general <em>person properties</em> (e.g., pro-environmental propensity or preference). Behavioral properties and person properties are logically distinct, but they become conflated when researchers indiscriminately refer to observations, items, scales, and tasks as measures of pro-environmental behavior. As a result, researchers may end up evaluating their purported measures against irrelevant quality criteria, expecting convergence where it cannot be expected, using methods inconsistent with their research goal, and making spurious conclusions. They erroneously consider multi-item scales and behavioral tasks as measures of the same construct, examine the construct validity of procedures that cannot reasonably be assumed to capture a psychological construct, or mistake the correlates of person properties for the determinants of behavior. To promote a cumulative science of pro-environmental behavior and prevent misguided research efforts, researchers should carefully distinguish between measurement targets and avoid claiming that they “measured pro-environmental behavior”.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 102381"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is measured in pro-environmental behavior research?\",\"authors\":\"Florian Lange\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As a key outcome in environmental psychology, pro-environmental behavior is studied in various different ways. Researchers observe naturally occurring pro-environmental behaviors, ask people to complete self-report scales, or devise behavioral tasks with ecological consequences. These approaches have been claimed to yield measures of pro-environmental behavior. The present paper argues that this terminology is misleading. Some pro-environmental behavior researchers measure <em>behavioral properties</em> of pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., frequency, duration), while others apparently aim to measure more or less general <em>person properties</em> (e.g., pro-environmental propensity or preference). Behavioral properties and person properties are logically distinct, but they become conflated when researchers indiscriminately refer to observations, items, scales, and tasks as measures of pro-environmental behavior. As a result, researchers may end up evaluating their purported measures against irrelevant quality criteria, expecting convergence where it cannot be expected, using methods inconsistent with their research goal, and making spurious conclusions. They erroneously consider multi-item scales and behavioral tasks as measures of the same construct, examine the construct validity of procedures that cannot reasonably be assumed to capture a psychological construct, or mistake the correlates of person properties for the determinants of behavior. To promote a cumulative science of pro-environmental behavior and prevent misguided research efforts, researchers should carefully distinguish between measurement targets and avoid claiming that they “measured pro-environmental behavior”.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"volume\":\"98 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001543\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001543","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为环境心理学的一项重要成果,亲环境行为的研究方式多种多样。研究人员观察自然发生的亲环境行为,要求人们完成自我报告量表,或设计具有生态后果的行为任务。这些方法都被称为亲环境行为的测量方法。本文认为这一术语具有误导性。一些亲环境行为研究者测量的是亲环境行为的行为属性(如频率、持续时间),而另一些研究者显然旨在测量或多或少的一般个人属性(如亲环境倾向或偏好)。行为属性和个人属性在逻辑上是截然不同的,但当研究人员不加区分地将观察结果、项目、量表和任务称为亲环境行为的测量指标时,它们就会被混为一谈。因此,研究人员最终可能会根据不相关的质量标准来评估他们所谓的测量结果,在无法预期的情况下期望趋同,使用与其研究目标不一致的方法,并得出错误的结论。他们错误地将多项目量表和行为任务视为对同一建构的测量,对不能合理假设为捕捉心理建构的程序进行建构效度检查,或将个人属性的相关因素误认为行为的决定因素。为了促进亲环境行为科学的积累,防止研究工作被误导,研究人员应仔细区分测量目标,避免声称自己 "测量了亲环境行为"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What is measured in pro-environmental behavior research?

As a key outcome in environmental psychology, pro-environmental behavior is studied in various different ways. Researchers observe naturally occurring pro-environmental behaviors, ask people to complete self-report scales, or devise behavioral tasks with ecological consequences. These approaches have been claimed to yield measures of pro-environmental behavior. The present paper argues that this terminology is misleading. Some pro-environmental behavior researchers measure behavioral properties of pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., frequency, duration), while others apparently aim to measure more or less general person properties (e.g., pro-environmental propensity or preference). Behavioral properties and person properties are logically distinct, but they become conflated when researchers indiscriminately refer to observations, items, scales, and tasks as measures of pro-environmental behavior. As a result, researchers may end up evaluating their purported measures against irrelevant quality criteria, expecting convergence where it cannot be expected, using methods inconsistent with their research goal, and making spurious conclusions. They erroneously consider multi-item scales and behavioral tasks as measures of the same construct, examine the construct validity of procedures that cannot reasonably be assumed to capture a psychological construct, or mistake the correlates of person properties for the determinants of behavior. To promote a cumulative science of pro-environmental behavior and prevent misguided research efforts, researchers should carefully distinguish between measurement targets and avoid claiming that they “measured pro-environmental behavior”.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
期刊最新文献
Testing the effects of health-benefit, environmental-benefit and co-benefit priming for promoting sustainable food choice and their psychological mechanisms: A randomized controlled trial combined with eye tracking Communicating consensus among climate scientists increases estimates of consensus and belief in human-caused climate change across the globe Climate change mitigation: A question of humanitarian or environmental motivation? Humanization promotes equality over efficiency preference in carbon allocation Indoor environmental conditions and likelihood of reported violence and aggression in a purpose-built residential dementia hospital
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1