The Relationship between Religious Attitudes and Concern for the Environment. Aaron Horenstein QMSS G5999, Master s Thesis 5/4/2012

Transcription

1 The Relationship between Religious Attitudes and Concern for the Environment Aaron Horenstein QMSS G5999, Master s Thesis 5/4/2012

2 Table of Contents Abstract... 3 Introduction... 4 Previous Literature... 6 Purpose and Research Questions Data Descriptive Statistics Methods Discussion Appendix Original and Revised NEP Items General Social Survey Question Wordings Scale Creation Descriptive Statistics Simple Correlations References... 45

3 Abstract This study uses data from the 2010 General Social Survey to examine the relationship between religious attitudes and concern for the environment. Based on the previous literature the relationship was expected to be complex, with some measures of religiousness associating with lower levels of environmental concern, and other measures associating with higher levels of environmental concern. The results of multivariate OLS regressions confirmed the complexity of the relationship. Having stronger beliefs in God and interpreting the bible literally was associated with lower levels of some environmental concern measures, while attending religious services and praying more frequently was associated with higher levels of other environmental concern measures. It is believed that greater religious participation may expose individuals to messages of environmental responsibility, especially as religious institutions increasingly respond to environmental problems.

4 Introduction The environmental problems facing the world today are daunting. The United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment revealed that human activities in the past 50 years have led to more rapid and extensive changes in the natural environment (e.g., conversion of land to cropland, increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels, loss of biodiversity) than in any other comparable time period. Although the changes made to ecosystems have produced numerous benefits in the form of economic development, increasing food production, and overall human well-being, the depletion and unsustainable use of natural resources is compromising the planet s ability to support future generations (United Nations Environment Program, 2005). Environmental problems are easily dismissible because many individuals do not see the connection between environmental degradation and their daily lives. However, human survival depends on various ecosystem services that provide food to eat, clean air and water, and regulation of disease and climate (U.S. Department of Agriculture website). The United Nations Development Program s 2011 Human Development Report suggests that environmental deterioration jeopardizes the progress made in human development and poverty eradication in the past several decades. Despite contributing relatively little to the problem, typically the most disadvantaged people are disproportionally affected by environmental deterioration, with their incomes, livelihoods, and health at risk (United Nations Development Program, 2011). Proving or disproving the above claims is beyond the scope of this paper. What matters is that environmental problems threaten not only the plants, animals, and other non-human life forms around us, but that our very survival and general well-being are also at risk. According to United Nations spokesman William Orme, If you believe in something like a moral commitment to the global community and in getting people out of poverty, we must address these environmental problems (Nuwer, 2011). Addressing the world s environmental problems

5 therefore requires a shift in thinking regarding humans relationship to the natural environment and to each other, what constitutes economic/social progress, and what s most important in our lives. This shift in thinking requires a new set of cultural values and moral beliefs. As morals determine a large portion of how people think and act on a daily basis, researchers are increasingly focusing on the role of moral beliefs on social issues, including the environment. According to Farrel (2011): Few concepts are as important to explaining social life as are moral ideas namely, social constructions of right versus wrong and good versus bad, what is desirable, and what justice, equality, and the good life look like How individuals and social groups relate to the environment is also deeply tied to moral beliefs about what is good and right vis-à-vis the environment. Furthermore, an important source of moral beliefs is religion. According to Gardner (2002): In the most general terms, religion is an orientation to the cosmos and to our role in it. It offers people a sense of ultimate meaning and the possibility for personal transformation and celebration of life. Researchers have examined the influence of religion on individuals political attitudes and views on specific issues. Early studies focused on social/cultural issues like abortion and gay rights, but scholars are increasingly realizing the impact of religion on a much wider range of issues like the economy, international affairs, and environmental policy (Guth et al. 1995). As religion is an important source of morals and values for many individuals, and has the potential to influence political beliefs and views on social issues, it may serve as an important influence on environmental attitudes and behaviors. This paper will address these matters by thoroughly examining the relationship between religion and environmental attitudes. Based on previous literature I expect the relationship to be complex; some measures of religiousness may associate with lower levels of environmental concern, while other measures may associate with higher levels of environmental concern. The following sections provide a summary of past research on the religion-environment connection,

6 but before that discussion, I start with an overview of how researchers have measured public concern for the environment. Previous Literature Measuring Environmental Attitudes Dunlap et al (2000) and Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) discuss efforts to measure public concern for the environment over the years. When the environmental movement originated in the 1970s, attempts to gauge environmental attitudes focused on the main problems receiving attention at the time: water and air pollution and depletion of natural resources. For example, Weigel and Weigel s (1978) Environmental Concern Scale was a 16-item Likert scale measuring respondents concerns about conservation and pollution issues. These were mostly localized problems, but in the following decades, environmental problems evolved to become more geographically dispersed and more difficult to see (e.g., climate change, loss of biodiversity), which made it harder to determine their causes. There was also growing recognition that humans were part of natural systems -- as opposed to being independent from and superior to nature -- and that human activities were having a negative impact on the environment. Consequently, new measures of environmental concern sought to capture more general beliefs about humans relationship to the environment. The most widely used measure has been the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale, originally published by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The authors identified a set of 12 Likert items that measured three facets of environmental attitudes: a belief in humans ability to disrupt the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth, and humans right to dominate nature. In 2000 Dunalp and Van Liere revised the NEP scale in order to tap additional facets of environmental attitudes, make the scale more balanced in terms of pro- and anti-nep items, and avoid outdated terminology. The new scale, called the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, contains 15 items.

7 A number of studies have confirmed the reliability and validity of both the original and revised NEP Scales as a measure of environmental attitudes. The NEP scale was originally tested in a 1976 Washington State survey, which found that environmentalists scored higher on the scale than the general public, and that the scale correlated positively with support for environmental regulations and pro-environmental behavior among the general population (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978). Other studies have found that environmentalists score higher on the NEP Scale than other interest groups, and that the scale is a good predictor of proenvironmental behaviors. For example, in a study of the conflicts between fishing interests and marine wildlife protection in British Columbia, Edgell & Nowell (1989) found that commercial fisherman rejected almost all aspects of the NEP Scale, while environmentalists and the general public displayed strong support for the NEP. Tarrant and Cordell (1997) found that the NEP provided good predictions of self-reported general environmental behaviors (e.g., recycling, carpooling, attending public meetings on environmental issues), and similar results have been found even among different ethnic groups (Johnson et al, 2004). As indicated previously, the NEP Scale measures general beliefs about the relationship of human beings to the environment. The original and revised NEP items are listed in the appendix, but a few of the items are important to highlight here because of their relevance to the religion discussion: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist These three items are similar in theme to various biblical passages (e.g., be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and master it from Genesis) and to the religious notion of stewardship, which is the idea that humans have dominion over God s creatures and must

8 therefore take care of them. As such, individuals religious beliefs/values may heavily influence the extent to which they agree or disagree with the above statements (and likely with some of the other NEP items). This reinforces the need for an analysis of how religion may shape environmental attitudes, the main topic of this paper. Shaping Environmental Attitudes Many scholars have highlighted the relevancy of religion to the environmental movement. Not only do religious and environmental groups share similar values, such as opposing excessive consumption and valuing nature beyond economic terms, but religion shapes worldviews through its moral authority and large numbers of followers; it encourages individuals to support the well-being of other people, communities, and future generations; and it serves as an important source of individual and societal change (Gardner, 2002). Religion can also focus people s attention on disturbing matters that they would rather ignore, and it provides a more effective language than political rhetoric for expressing the seriousness of environmental problems and societal failings (Gottlieb, 2006). While religion can become an important ally in the environmental movement, the two groups have had a tenuous historical relationship. A number of barriers have limited cooperation between religion and environmentalists, including mutual misunderstandings, the longstanding rift between science and religion, different views on humans relationship to the natural world, and religion s association with conservative social and political views (Gardner 2011). Much of the discussion on religion and the environment stems from historian Lynn White s influential 1967 article, in which he argued that Judeo-Christian views emphasize man s dominance over nature and are therefore responsible for today s environmental crisis. Passages from the creation story in Genesis telling man to be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and master it can be interpreted as giving humans permission to dominate nature and use it

9 to fulfill their needs. Thus White argued that Judeo-Christian views are anti-environmental, and that environmental problems cannot be solved without rejecting Judeo-Christian views towards nature and adopting a new value system (White, 1967; Djupe and Hunt, 2009; Gottlieb, 2006; Gardner, 2002; Djupe and Hunt, 2009). Critics of White s paper argue that his reliance on only a few biblical passages misrepresent the Bible s complexity and ignores its messages promoting positive environmental behaviors. The Bible contains pro-environmental messages like Do not destroy (Gottlieb, 2006) and other passages suggesting that violence against nature is a sin (Schultz et al, 2000), while the fact that God created the earth can be viewed as a deterrent to exploiting it in its own right (Gottlieb, 2006; Sherkat and Ellison, 2007). There is also a diversity of viewpoints within denominations, and thus White s argument may not be generalizable to all Judeo-Christians (Hand and Van Leire, 1984). A number of empirical studies have tested White s assertion, and the results have been mixed. The findings from past research can be categorized into four broad categories: evidence that supports White's (1967) thesis, evidence of substantial variation among different denominations, evidence that religious measures promote environmental concern, and evidence of no significant effects of religious measures. The conflicting results highlight the need for a thorough examination of the relationship between religion and environmental attitudes. Support for White Among the earliest studies was Hand and Van Liere s (1984) analysis of a statewide survey of Washington residents, which found that Judeo-Christians had slightly less environmental concern than non-judeo-christians, and that greater church attendance was associated with less environmental concern. The authors identified mastery-over-nature beliefs as the primary mechanism linking religion with environmental concern. Eckberg and Blocker (1989) found a negative relationship between biblical literalism and environmental concern,

10 using data from a city-wide survey of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Kanagy and Willits (1993) analyzed survey data on Pennsylvania residents and found that religious service attendance had a significant, negative impact on environmental attitudes. Boyd s analysis (1999) of the 1993 General Social Survey found that members of fundamentalist groups had lower levels of environmental concern. Guth and Green (1995) assessed the effects of religious tradition and beliefs on environmental attitudes among religious leaders, political activists, and the mass public. The authors discovered strong, negative associations between environmental attitudes and conservative eschatology (represented by biblical literalism and end times thinking), although religious tradition and evangelical self-identification did not significantly affect environmental attitudes. The authors concluded that environmental attitudes stem from what individuals believe, not which tradition they identify with. Other studies have been consistent with this finding that specific religious beliefs are significant predictors of environmental attitudes. For instance, Wolkomir et al. (1997) determined that the belief that God gave humans dominion over the world reduced individuals concerns about the environment. Denominational Variation If environmental attitudes are a function of specific religious beliefs, then it is likely that environmental attitudes will vary among denominations and possibly even within. Although Hand and Van Liere s (1984) analysis found some support for White s (1967) thesis, the authors found significant differences among Judeo-Christian groups. Certain denominations (Baptists, Sects, and Mormons) were more likely to express mastery-of-nature beliefs and lower environmental concern than others (Episcopalians and Methodists), and as a result, high church attendance had a negative effect on environmental attitudes in the former group but had little impact on the latter. Greeley (1993) found that Catholics were more likely than Protestants to

11 express concern about the environment, explained in part by Catholics tendencies to have more gracious images of God (e.g., viewing God as a Mother as opposed to a Father). Guth and Green (1995) also found Catholicism to be the most environmentally-friendly of the Christian traditions. No Difference Using data from the 1988 General Social Survey, Greely (1993) found that being Christian, belief in God, and biblical literalism correlated negatively with environmental concern in bivariate analyses, but these relationships weakened to statistical insignificance after controlling for religious imagery, political views, and moral rigidity. Greely concluded that negative environmental attitudes stemmed from having stern images of God, conservative political views, and a reluctance to adopt new moral concerns, not from specific religious tradition or beliefs in God and biblical literalism. One drawback of the study was that it only included one environmental variable. Kanagy and Willits (1993) found that affiliation with a Judeo-Christian religion group had no effect on environmental attitudes when controlling for the effects of worship attendance and demographic variables. After surveying North Carolina Residents, Woodrum and Hoban (1994) discovered no significant relationships between religious measures (including biblical literalism, worship attendance, religious salience, and support for creationism in schools) and environmental attitudes. Additionally, while there was widespread acceptance of the dominion belief (that the Bible encourages humans to use nature for their own advantage) among respondents, there were no significant associations between the dominion variable and any of the other religious measures. The authors suggested that individuals with conservative religious views were not significantly more likely to subscribe to the dominion belief, which contradicts Hand and Van Liere s (1984) conclusion that mastery-over-nature beliefs were more common among

12 conservative Judeo-Christian denominations. The findings are also inconsistent with the later study by Wolkomir et al (1997), which revealed strong positive correlations between biblical literalism and dominion belief. Kanagy and Neslsen (1995) utilized national survey data from the Gallup Organization to investigate the impact of attendance and fundamentalist views on environmental attitudes. Although worship attendance and having a born again experience were significantly correlated with opposition to increased federal spending to protect the environment, those religious measures had no significant impact on support for the relaxation of environmental laws or selfidentification as an environmentalist. Opposition to increased federal spending to solve environmental problems may have represented conservative political beliefs regarding government spending in general, as opposed to lack of environmental concern. The authors did not control for political views, which could have helped clarify the federal spending issue. Although Guth and Green (1995) found that conservative eschatology had a negative effect on pro-environmental attitudes, other religious variables such as religious tradition and worship attendance had little significant impact. Boyd (1999) found a negative relationship between religious fundamentalism and environmental concern, but other religious measures (belief in God, images of God, biblical literalism, and church attendance) had no significant effect on environmental concern. Sherkat and Ellison (2007) used data from the 1993 General Social Survey and developed a more intricate conceptual model of the religion-environment connection that accounts for the sometimes conflicting relationships. For instance, worship attendance, biblical literalism, and affiliation with conservative Protestant sects were positively associated with conservative political identification and stewardship beliefs, yet conservative political identification and

13 stewardship beliefs have opposite effects on beliefs about the seriousness of environmental problems (conservative political identification has a negative effect while stewardship beliefs have a positive effect). These factors cancelled each other out, making the effects of religious factors insignificant. Djupe and Hunt (2009) noted that individuals religious beliefs are not static and are influenced by social interactions within congregations. Their survey of clergy and congregants from two mainline Protestant denominations found few significant relationships between religiosity measures and environmental attitudes, after controlling for congregational social effects such as the average view of the congregation, whether the church offered adult education classes on the environment, and how often clergy spoke about environmental issues. The authors concluded that individuals opinions are influenced by the information received from clergy members and other congregants, and individuals typically adjust their opinions to reflect the dominant views of the congregation. Pro-Environmental Some studies have revealed positive relationships between religious measures and environmental behavior. Shaiko (1987) was among the first to suggest the plausibility of a stewardship orientation among Judeo-Christians, which could promote pro-environmental attitudes. Although Kanagy and Willits (1993) found that religious service attendance was negatively associated with environmental attitudes, their analysis revealed a positive association between attendance and pro-environmental behaviors. The authors concluded that attendance has direct and indirect effects on environmental behavior, and that religious participation can promote stewardship over nature. Wolkomir et al. (1997) discovered a positive relationship between religious salience and environmental behavior, which also may reveal a stewardship effect. Boyd (1999) found that frequency of prayer was positively associated with pro-

14 environmental behaviors, and Sherkat and Ellison (2007) found that church attendance had a positive effect on pro-environmental behaviors. Purpose and Research Questions Based on the previous research it is clear that the relationship between religious beliefs and environmental attitudes is complex and at times inconsistent. This study attempts to provide further clarity by analyzing several measures of each and by examining the following questions: Do religious measures affect environmental concern and behaviors? Do religious measures have different effects on environmental attitudes vs. environmental behaviors? Based on the previous literature I expect that conservative religious beliefs will be associated with lower levels of environmental concern and behavior, though measures of religious commitment (e.g., frequency of prayer or attendance) may positively impact environmental concern and behavior. Data Much of the previous research has relied on outdated or non-nationally representative survey data. This study uses data from the General Social Survey (GSS), a national survey conducted regularly by the National Opinion Research Center, in an attempt to ameliorate problems of non-representativeness. The GSS has monitored social trends in America since 1972 and is among the most heavily relied on sources for information in the social sciences. The GSS is a multistage area probability sample to the segment or block level. At the block level, households are enumerated and a full probability sample is drawn. The survey is administered via face-to-face interviews.

15 This study analyzes data from the 2010 (N=2,044) GSS survey. The specific year was chosen because it contains a topical module on the environment and allows for a thorough examination of the relationship between religious and environmental beliefs/behaviors. Measures Religious Variables Key independent variables The independent variables used for this analysis measure the religious beliefs and behaviors of survey respondents and allow for a thorough examination of the relationship between religiosity and concern for the environment. The exact question wordings from the GSS questionnaire can be found in the appendix. Below are brief descriptions of the primary independent variables. This study uses two measures of religious behavior: how often individuals attend religious service (attend) and how often individuals pray (pray). Attend spans from 0 (never) to 8 (more than once a week). Pray spans from 1 (several times a day) to 6 (never), but the variable is recoded such that those who pray most often are coded as 5, while those who never pray are coded as 0. A few measures of religious belief are used: respondents attitudes towards the bible (bible), level of religious fundamentalism (fund), belief in God (god), and strength of religious affiliation (reliten). Bible is coded such that 1=word of God, 2=inspired word, 3=book of fables, 4=other, but the variable is dichotomized such that 1=word of god and 0=nonliteralists ( other is treated as missing). Fund is coded such that 1=fundamentalist, 2=moderate, 3= liberal, but the variable is dichotomized such that 1=fundamentalist, 0=non-fundamentalists. God spans from 1 (don t believe) to 6 (know god exists). Reliten is coded such that 1=strong, 2=not very strong, 3=somewhat strong, 4=no religion, but the variable is recoded such that 1=no religion, 2=somewhat/not very strong, and 3=strong.

16 Dummy variables for respondents specific religion are also included. A series of 0-1 variables were created such that relig1=protestant, relig2=catholic, relig3=jewish, relig4=none, and relig5=other. Environmental variables Dependent variables The outcome variables for this study fall under three different categories of environmental concern/behavior: (i) perceptions of problem seriousness, (ii) willingness to sacrifice for the environment, and (iii) environmental activism. Perceptions of problem seriousness A section of the GSS asks respondents how dangerous various problems are to the environment, including car pollution (carpollution), industrial air pollution (industrialpollution), water pollution (waterpollution), rising temperatures/greenhouse effect (temprise), and use of pesticides (pesticides). 1 The response codes are on a five-point scale, and are recoded such that 1=not dangerous and 5=extremely dangerous. Then these variables were combined and converted into a scale called env_concern (alpha of 0.81). To create the scale (and the scales for the other dependent variables), I standardized all the variables and added them together. See the appendix for additional details on how the scales were created. Willingness to sacrifice for the environment Three questions from the GSS serve as good proxies for respondents willingness to sacrifice for the environment: willingness to pay higher prices to help the environment (grnprice), willingness to pay higher taxes to help the environment (grntaxes), and willingness to accept cuts in living standards in order to protect the environment (grnsol). The response codes are one a five-point scale, and are recoded such that 1=not at all willing and 5=very willing. Then these variables were combined and converted into a scale called sacrifice (alpha of 0.83). 1 The GSS also asked about the dangers of nuclear power plants, but this variable was excluded from the analysis due to the belief that it did not measure the same concept s the other questions.

17 Environmental activism The GSS also asks four questions that serve as good proxies for environmental activism: whether or not respondents are members of an environmental group (grngroup), and whether or not respondents (in the last five years) have given money to an environmental group (grnmoney), signed a petition on an environmental issue (grnsign), or protested for an environmental issue (grndemo). Then these variables were combined and converted into a scale called environmental activism (alpha of 0.61). Control variables This study controls for a number of demographic factors, including age, race, gender, education, and political views. Previous studies have found that pro-environmental attitudes are more common among younger, better educated, and politically liberal individuals (Farrel, 2011; Kanagy and Nelsen 1995). Past research has also found women and nonwhites to be more concerned about environmental problems and to participate in green behaviors more frequently (Hartwig Boyd, 1999). Race is recoded such that 1=white and 0=nonwhite; the new variable is called white. Sex is recoded such that 0=male and 1=female; the new variable is called female. Educ is coded from 0 to 20 and represents the number of schooling years completed. Polviews ranges from 1 (extremely liberal) to 7 (extremely conservative). Descriptive Statistics The appendix provides a table of descriptive statistics for all of the individual independent and dependent variables. Below are descriptives for just the three environmental scales that will serve as dependent variables. Note that the individual variables used to construct the scales were standardized, with each standardized variable having a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. See the appendix for additional details.

18 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables Range Mean SD Environmental concern to Willingness to sacrifice to Environmental activism to Table 2 below shows the means of the dependent variables for all categories of the independent variables. Based on my hypotheses, I would expect the means to decrease as religious beliefs/behaviors get stronger, but it is difficult to detect any clear patterns from the data. A star on the mean indicates that the correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Thus belief in God and strength of religious affiliation are significantly correlated with perceptions of problem seriousness, all of the religious variables except for service attendance are significantly correlated with willingness to sacrifice, and all of the religious variables are significantly correlated with environmental activism. A table displaying the actual correlation coefficients is provided in the appendix. Table 2: Means of the Dependent Variables for all Categories of the Independent Variables Perceptions of problem seriousness Willingness to Sacrifice Environmental Activism Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Attend Never 0.12 (0.77) 0.02 (0.91) 0.08* (0.81) Less than once a year 0.02 (0.78) 0.01 (0.80) -0.01* (0.66) Once a year 0.02 (0.72) (0.86) 0.06* (0.68) Several times a year (0.72) 0.01 (0.81) 0.01* (0.66) Once a month 0.04 (0.72) 0.01 (0.86) -0.10* (0.61) 2-3x a month 0.04 (0.70) (0.87) 0.03* (0.71) Nearly every week (0.85) 0.11 (0.85) -0.11* (0.46) Every week (0.75) 0.05 (0.84) -0.05* (0.61) More than once a week 0.10 (0.83) (0.91) -0.14* (0.58) Pray Never 0.12 (0.71) 0.28* (0.81) 0.14* (0.83) Less than once a week (0.71) -0.02* (0.86) 0.01* (0.79) Once a week (0.77) -0.03* (0.84) -0.09* (0.61)

19 Several times a week (0.81) -0.05* (0.83) -0.05* (0.56) Once a day (0.73) 0.00* (0.82) 0.01* (0.66) Several times a day 0.08 (0.79) -0.07* (0.93) -0.04* (0.63) Bible Non-literalists 0.01 (0.75) 0.10* (0.83) 0.09* (0.76) Literalists 0.0 (0.77) -0.16* (0.90) -0.18* (0.42) Fund Non-fundamentalists 0.00 (0.76) 0.06* (0.84) 0.03* (0.71) Fundamentalists 0.03 (0.72) -0.15* (0.87) -0.14* (0.48) God No doubt 0.03* (0.75) 0.17* (0.83) 0.11* (0.81) Some doubt/don't believe 0.01* (0.76) -0.10* (0.87) -0.08* (0.57) Reliten No religion 0.14* (0.71) 0.24* (0.85) 0.14* (0.71) Somewhat/not very strong -0.03* (0.74) -0.06* (0.83) -0.03* (0.74) Strong -0.01* (0.78) -0.05* (0.87) -0.01* (0.78) Methods OLS regression equations were estimated to identify predictors of each measure of environmental concern. The models were also examined for multicollinearity, but this did not appear to be problematic. I obtained the variance inflation factors (VIFs) after estimating the regression models. The mean VIF was 2.10, and while a few variables had VIFs greater than 2.5 (strength of affiliation 3.55; Catholic 3.98; Protestant 5.60), this was not enough to cause concern. Results Multivariate Results Table 3 provides the unstandardized regression coefficients for separate OLS models predicting perceptions of environmental problem seriousness, willingness to sacrifice for the environment, and environmental activism. None of the religious variables are statistically significant (at the.05 level) for all three measures of environmental concern. Somewhat paradoxically, the religious behavioral variables are positively associated with some aspects of

20 environmental concern, while the religious belief variables are negatively associated with some aspects of environmental concern. For example, frequency of religious service attendance and praying are positively associated with willingness to sacrifice for the environment and environmental activism, respectively. But belief in God is negatively associated with willingness to sacrifice for the environment and environmental activism, and interpreting the Bible literally is negatively associated with environmental activism. Table 3: Unstandardized Coefficients for OLS Models Predicting Measures of Environmental Concern Religious Factors Perceptions of problem seriousness Willingness to sacrifice Environmental activism Religious service attendance *** Frequency of praying *** Belief in God *** ** Attitudes towards Bible * Fundamentalism Strength of religious affiliation Religious Tradition Protestant * Catholic * Jewish Other religion Demographic Factors Female 0.164*** Age White * * Education ** *** Political views *** *** *** constant 0.931*** 0.793*** R * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 The only statistically significant finding among the religious tradition variables is that being Protestant or Catholic is negatively associated with perceptions of problem seriousness

21 (relative to those with no religion). Looking at the demographic factors, conservative political views are negatively associated with all three measures of environmental concern, being female is positively associated with perceptions of problem seriousness, and while being white and having more education is negatively associated with perceptions of problem seriousness, both variables are positively associated with environmental activism. Overall, the three models have low predictive power, with R 2 ranging from 0.10 to Interaction Effects The contradictory effects of some of the religious variables prompted the need to examine interaction effects among the variables. Because interaction terms are difficult to interpret, I ran separate regressions for different subsets of the data - which is similar to interacting the binary variable of interest with all other variables in the model (Williams, 2012). I segmented the data by belief in God and attitudes towards the bible, because these were the statistically significant religious attitude variables in the OLS models above. Belief in God Table 4 details separate regression results for individuals who have doubt/don t believe in God and for those who have no doubt in God s existence. Being Protestant, Catholic, or other religion is negatively associated with perceptions of problem seriousness, but the relationships are only statistically significant among those who don t believe or have doubt in God s existence. Meanwhile, being white and having additional years of education is also negatively associated with perceptions of problem seriousness, but the relationships are only statistically significant among those who have no doubt in God s existence.

22 Religious Factors Religious service attendance Table 4: Unstandardized Coefficients for OLS Models Predicting Measures of Environmental Concern: By Belief in God Perceptions of Problem Seriousness Doubt/ Don't No Doubt Believe Willingness to Sacrifice Doubt/ Don't No Doubt Believe Environmental Activism Doubt/ Don't No Doubt Believe * 0.059*** Frequency of praying ** Attitudes towards Bible ** Fundamentalism Strength of religious affiliation Religious Tradition Protestant * Catholic ** Jewish Other religion * Demographic Factors Female 0.210** 0.135* ** Age White * Education * *** 0.023*** Political views *** *** *** *** *** Constant 0.652* 0.882*** * R * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Among individuals who have no doubt in God s existence, praying more often is associated with statistically significant higher levels of environmental activism, while interpreting the bible literally is associated with statistically significant lower levels of environmental activism (similar to the original model). However, neither the effects of praying or attitudes towards the bible are statistically significant among individuals who don t believe or have doubt in God s existence. In addition, the negative effect of conservative political views on environmental activism is only statistically significant among individuals who don t believe or

23 have doubt in God s existence, while the negative association between being female and environmental activism is only statistically significant among those who have no doubt in God s existence. Attitudes towards the Bible Table 5 details separate regression results for individuals who interpret the bible literally and for those who do not. The negative relationships between perceptions of problem seriousness and being Protestant, Catholic, or having conservative political views are only statistically significant among those who don t believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Meanwhile, the negative associations between perceptions of problem seriousness and being white or having additional years of education are only statistically significant among those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Table 5: Unstandardized Coefficients for OLS Models Predicting Measures of Environmental Concern: By Attitudes Towards the Bible Perceptions of Problem Willingness to Sacrifice Environmental Activism Seriousness Non-literalists Literalists Non-literalists Literalists Non-literalists Literalists Religious Factors Religious service attendance *** 0.041* Frequency of praying ** Belief in God ** * Fundamentalism Strength of religious affiliation Religious Tradition Protestant * * Catholic * Jewish Other religion * Demographic Factors Female 0.133* 0.206* * Age White ** * 0.147* Education * *** 0.01

24 Political views *** *** *** Constant 0.970*** 0.827* 0.996*** R * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 The negative relationship between belief in God and willingness to sacrifice for the environment is only statistically significant among those who don t believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. The same is true for conservative political views. Meanwhile, the negative associations between willingness to sacrifice for the environment and being white, Protestant, or other religion are only statistically significant among those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. The positive associations between environmental activism and frequency of prayer, being white, and additional years of education are only statistically significant among those who don t believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. The same is true for the negative associations between environmental activism and belief in God and conservative political views. Meanwhile, the negative relationship between environmental activism and being female is only statistically significant among those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Discussion Overall, the multivariate regression results showed that religious factors had some statistically significant effects on environmental concern measures, though the effects were not widespread. Religious service attendance, frequency of praying, and attitudes towards the bible each predicted just one of the three measures of environmental concern, while neither fundamentalism nor strength of religious affiliation had any significant effects. Belief in God stood out as the key religious factor, as it predicted lower willingness to sacrifice for the

25 environment and lower participation in environmental activism. Although most of the previous studies on religion and the environment did not include belief in God as a predictor variable, Greeley (1993) suggested that it is not the certainty or uncertainty in God s existence that matters, but rather it is one s image of God (e.g., viewing God as a Mother as opposed to a Father) that influences environmental concern. Unfortunately the 2010 GSS dataset did not contain an imagery variable, which makes it hard to confirm or reject that finding in this analysis. Regarding other limitations of this study, Shaiko (1987) states that the validity of White s (1967) thesis cannot be assessed with data from a single survey, but it would require collection and analysis of historical data. As such, future research should explore how the relationship between religious measures and environmental concern has changed over time. Another limitation was that the 2010 GSS survey did not contain a question asking about stewardship, which past researchers have shown to be a key measure linking religion to environmental concern. Furthermore, Djupe and Hunt (2009) suggest that it is important to consider not just individuals religious beliefs, but how people came to hold those beliefs. Deeper research on this issue could shed additional light on religion s relationship to environmental concern. Despite the above limitations, this analysis provides additional evidence that religion is not necessarily at odds with pro-environmental interests, as some of the religious variables showed positive relationships with measures of environmental concern. Frequency of religious service attendance was positively related to willingness to sacrifice for the environment, while frequency of praying was positively related to environmental activism. This is supportive of Boyd s (1999) finding that frequency of prayer was positively associated with frequency of proenvironmental behaviors, and it supports the findings by Kanagy and Willits (1993) and Sherkat

26 and Ellison (2007) that church attendance was positively associated with environmentally protective behaviors. Possible explanations are that religious service attendance might expose individuals to messages of environmental responsibility or to resources that support environmental behavior (e.g., adult education classes on the environment, recycling programs, and car pooling). In support of the above explanation, a growing number of scholars and theologists argue that religion has become a central voice in the environmental movement, with some religions sponsoring Earth Day prayers, criticizing the negative environmental effects of World Bank loans and genetic engineering, and incorporating environmentally responsible teachings into Sunday School lessons (Gottleb, 2006). In 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) produced a surprising position statement urging lawmakers to allocate greater resources towards fighting global warming and environmental degradation (Djupe and Gwiasda, 2010; Goodstein, 2005). In addition, religion and ecology has emerged as a growing field examining the relations between religion and the environment (Jenkins and Chapple, 2011). These examples support the idea that religious institutions and theologians are increasingly responding and encouraging solutions to environmental problems, and that religion should not necessarily be implicated as detrimental to environmental interests (Kanagy and Willits, 1993).

27 Appendix Original and Revised NEP Items Below are the original and revised NEP items used to measure human s relationship to the environment, published by Hawcroft and Milfont (2010):

28 General Social Survey Question Wordings Below are exact wordings from the GSS questionnaire for the variables included in this study: Attend How often do you attend religious services? Never Less than once a year About once or twice a year Several times a year About once a month 2-3 times a month Nearly every week Every week Several times a week Pray About how often do you pray? Several times a day Once a day Several times a week Once a week

29 Less than once a week Never Bible Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men Fund Fundamentalism/Liberalism of Respondent's Religion Fundamentalist Moderate Liberal God Please look at this card and tell me which statement comes closest to expressing what you believe about God. I don't believe in God I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it Reliten Would you call yourself a strong (PREFERENCE NAMED IN RELIG) or a not very strong (PREFERENCE NAMED IN RELIG)? Strong Not very strong Somewhat strong No religion Relig What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion? Protestant Catholic Jewish None Buddhism Hinduism Other Eastern Moslem/Islam Orthodox-Christian Christian Native American Inter-Nondenomenational

30 Carsgen In general, do you think that air pollution caused by cars is: Extremely dangerous for the environment Very dangerous Somewhat dangerous Not very dangerous Not dangerous at all for the environment Indusgen In general, do you think that air pollution caused by industry is: Extremely dangerous for the environment Very dangerous Somewhat dangerous Not very dangerous Not dangerous at all for the environment Chemgen In general, do you think that pesticides and chemicals used in farming are: Extremely dangerous for the environment Very dangerous Somewhat dangerous Not very dangerous Not dangerous at all for the environment Watergen In general, do you think that pollution of America's rivers, lakes, and streams is: Extremely dangerous for the environment Very dangerous Somewhat dangerous Not very dangerous Not dangerous at all for the environment Tempgen In general, do you think that a rise in the world's temperature caused by the `greenhouse effect', is: Extremely dangerous for the environment Very dangerous Somewhat dangerous Not very dangerous Not dangerous at all for the environment Grnprice How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment? Very willing Fairly willing Neither willing nor unwilling

31 Not very willing Not at all willing Grntaxes And how willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment? Very willing Fairly willing Neither willing nor unwilling Not very willing Not at all willing Grnsol And how willing would you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect the environment? Very willing Fairly willing Neither willing nor unwilling Not very willing Not at all willing Grngroup Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment? Yes No Grnsign In the last five years, have you signed a petition about an environmental issue? Yes No Grnmoney In the last five years, have you given money to an environmental group? Yes No Grndemo In the last five years, have you taken part in a protest or demonstration about an environmental issue? Yes No

32 Scale Creation To create scales for the dependent variables, I standardized the variables and added them together. As shown below, the standardized variables have means of about zero and a standard deviation of 1. Summary statistics and tabulations for each of the scales are also provided: Environmental Concern Scale egen stdtemprise=std(temprise) egen stdwaterpollution=std(waterpollution) egen stdindustrialpollution=std(industrialpollution) egen stdpesticides=std(pesticides) egen stdcarpollution=std(carpollution) gen env_concern=(stdtemprise + stdwaterpollution + stdindustrialpollution + stdpesticides + stdcarpollution)/5. sum stdtemprise stdwaterpollution stdindustrialpollution stdpesticides stdcarpollution Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max stdtemprise e stdwaterpo~n e stdindustr~n e stdpestici~s e stdcarpoll~n e sum env_concern Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max env_concern tab env_concern env_concern Freq. Percent Cum