Environmental Efficacy Measure

Abstract

The Environmental Efficacy Measure (EEM), introduced by Meijers et al. in 2023, is a comprehensive psychological instrument designed to quantify seven specific efficacy beliefs related to environmental behavior. This scale is structured around the novel Personal-Collective-Governmental (PCG) typology, which integrates and expands upon previous theoretical frameworks established by Witte (1992), Koletsou & Mancy (2011), and Hart & Fieldman (2016).

The initial development phase involved deriving content from established research in the field, resulting in a 50-item instrument. Validation was conducted using a sample of adults recruited from the Dutch panel of Survey Sampling International. The researchers successfully reported robust findings regarding factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity. However, a noted limitation of the foundational study was the absence of a detailed examination into the complex interrelationships existing among the seven proposed efficacy subtypes.

Keywords

Personal-Collective-Governmental Efficacy Typology, Efficacy Beliefs, Personal Response Efficacy, Personal Efficacy, Collective Response Efficacy, Collective Efficacy, Internal Governmental Efficacy, External Governmental Efficacy, Governmental Response Efficacy, Environmental Attitudes, Pro Environmental Behavior, Self-Efficacy, Collective Behavior

Authors

Meijers, Marijn H.C., Wonneberger, Anke, Azrout, Rachid, Torfadóttir, Ragnheiður “Heather”, Brick, Cameron

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary objective of the Environmental Efficacy Measure is to advance scholarly understanding of the nuanced relationship between different subtypes of efficacy (personal, collective, and governmental) and varying forms of environmental actions.

By differentiating between these specific efficacy dimensions, the questionnaire aims to provide researchers with a refined tool to predict and analyze differential engagement in pro-environmental behaviors, ranging from individual actions to political participation.

Construct

The instrument is specifically designed to measure the broad construct of Environmental Beliefs, operationalized through the seven dimensions of the Personal-Collective-Governmental (PCG) efficacy framework. These dimensions quantify an individual’s perceived competence and belief in the effectiveness of actions taken at personal, collective, and governmental levels concerning environmental issues.

Validity

Evidence supporting the instrument’s validity was established through several rigorous psychometric analyses. For Convergent Validity, initial testing confirmed that items intended for the personal efficacy and collective efficacy factors successfully loaded onto their respective constructs, meeting theoretical expectations. Items that displayed poor loading characteristics were systematically removed to refine the final 50-item scale.

To assess Discriminant Validity, which ensures that the factors measure distinct concepts, the two factors exhibiting the highest correlation—Personal Response Efficacy and Collective Response Efficacy—were experimentally merged into a single factor model. This merging resulted in a significantly worse model fit (χ2 diff (df = 6) = 483.73, p < .001). This statistical outcome strongly supported the conclusion that the seven factors possess adequate discriminant validity and should be maintained as separate, yet related, constructs.

Reliability

The reliability of the Environmental Efficacy Measure was assessed by examining the internal consistency of its subscales. The computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across the seven distinct subscales demonstrated high reliability, with values ranging from .86 to .93. These strong coefficients indicate that the items within each subscale reliably measure their intended construct.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the scale was confirmed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Following the iterative process of removing problematic items identified during development, the researchers tested the hypothesized seven-factor structure.

The final CFA model demonstrated a good fit to the data, supporting the theoretical separation of the seven efficacy subtypes. Key model fit statistics were reported as: χ2 (df = 1134) = 2311.88, p < .001, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.04, 90%CI [0.04, 0.05], and PCLOSE = 1.000. These results confirm the scale’s empirical structure aligns with the proposed Personal-Collective-Governmental typology.

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire (50 items)

Format: All items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Language Available: Dutch (Original validation language); Items provided in English in the source publication.

Population Group: Adult humans (male and female).

Age Group: 18 years and older.

Population Details: The validation sample consisted of adult participants from The Netherlands, sourced via the Dutch panel of the market research company Survey Sampling International.

Test Methodology: Psychometric evaluation included assessment of Test Validity (Convergent and Discriminant), Test Reliability (Internal Consistency via Cronbach’s alpha), and Factor Analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis).

Keywords

Personal Response Efficacy, Collective Efficacy, Governmental Response Efficacy, Environmental Measures, Self-Efficacy, Environmental Psychology, Policy Making, Likert Scale, Personal-Collective-Governmental Efficacy Typology

[quads id=5]

Authors

Meijers, Marijn H.C.

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3783-7499

• Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

• Correspondence Address: Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Department of Communication Science, PO BOX 15791, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1001 NG

Wonneberger, Anke

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2209-9983

• Affiliation Email addresses: Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Department of Communication Science (Email address: No data is Available)

Azrout, Rachid

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6774-3472

• Affiliation Email addresses: Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Department of Communication Science (Email address: No data is Available)

Torfadóttir, Ragnheiður “Heather”

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-2406

• Affiliation Email addresses: Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Department of Communication Science (Email address: No data is Available)

Brick, Cameron

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7174-8193

• Affiliation Email addresses: University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology (Email address: No data is Available)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Environmental Efficacy Measure was developed and validated in 2023. It is available for Research/Teaching purposes and is not intended for commercial use. There is no fee required for its use. The instrument is distributed under a Creative Commons license, which can be viewed at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reference’s

Meijers, M. H. C., Wonneberger, A., Azrout, R., Torfadóttir, R. “H.”, & Brick, C. (2023). Introducing and testing the personal-collective-governmental efficacy typology: How personal, collective, and governmental efficacy subtypes are associated with differential environmental actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101915

[quads id=5]

Items of the Environmental Efficacy Measure

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way. The complete 50-item scale is available for review. The items are organized into seven distinct subscales: Personal efficacy, Personal response efficacy, Collective efficacy, Collective response efficacy, Internal governmental efficacy, External governmental efficacy, and Governmental response efficacy. The full list of items can be found in Appendix A (Pages 10-11) of the source reference document (Meijers et al., 2023).

Note. These items were translated from Dutch. Items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).