Ekolojik Adil Dünya İnancı: Türkiye’deki Bir Örneklemde Bir Çapraz-Geçerleme Çalışması

Abstract

Çevresel adaletsizlik örnekleri çok yaygındır ve algılanan adaletsizlik çevre davranışının önemli bir yordayıcısıdır. Bu-nunla birlikte, eşitsizliklerin ne derecede adil ya da adaletsiz algılanacağı ve adaletsizlik algısına verilen tepkiler bireyler arasında farklılıklar göstermektedir. Lerner’a göre bireyler ne hak ediyorlarsa onu aldıkları ve ne alıyorlarsa onu hak ettikleri adil bir dünyaya inanmaya güdülenmişlerdir. Ekolojik adil dünya inancı (EADİ), genel adil dünya inancı ile aynı doğrultuda bir yapı olarak geliştirilmiştir. Bu inanç, ekolojik kaynaklar ve talepler söz konusu olduğunda, dünyanın insanların hak ettiklerini aldıkları temelde ekolojik olarak adil bir yer olduğuna ilişkin inancı tanımlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, EADİ’nin Türkiye’deki bir örneklemde çapraz geçerliğini gerçekleştirmektir. Bu çalışmanın bir diğer amacı ise, yazında yer alan ilişkili değişkenler ile birlikte EADİ’nin çevresel taahhütleri yordama gücünü test etmektir. Araş-tırmanın örneklemi yaşları 15 ile 69 arasında değişen (Ort. = 34.23; SS = 10.28) 245 katılımcıdan (Nkadın= 160, Nerkek= 83, Nbelirtilmemiş= 2) oluşmaktadır. Genel olarak, değişken örüntüsü ile çevre yanlısı ve çevreye zarar veren taahhütlerin karmaşık motivasyonel yapısı Türkiye örnekleminde doğrulanabilmiştir. Bulgular, EADİ’nin çevre yanlısı ve çevreye zarar veren taahhütlerin bir yordayıcısı olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu başarılı çapraz geçerlik bulguları, çevre psikolojisi alanında güçlü ve önemli bir yapı olarak EADİ üzerine daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerektiğinin altını çizmektedir. Adil dünya inancının çapraz geçerlik çalışmaları ile aynı doğrultuda, EADİ’nin d başka ülkelerde geçerlik çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmelidir. Ayrıca, EADİ oldukça yeni bir yapı olduğu için, çevre davranışıyla ilişkisindeki aracı ve düzenleyi-ci değişkenler keşfedilmeyi beklemektedir. Son olarak, EADİ’nin çevre psikolojisi yazınında öne çıkan, örneğin sosyal baskınlık yönelimi, değer yönelimleri, kişilik özellikleri ve yetkecilik gibi diğer değişkenler ile ilişkisi de incelenmelidir

Keywords

• Ekolojik adil dünya inancı
• adil dünya inancı
• çevresel adalet
• çevresel taahhütler
• çevre davranış

Ecological Belief in a Just World: A Cross-Validation Study in a Turkish Sample

Abstract

Examples of environmental injustice are widespread, and perceived injustice is an important predictor of environmental behaviour. However, the extent to which inequalities are perceived as just or unjust, as well as reactions towards the perception of injustice, vary among individuals. According to Lerner, individuals are motivated to believe in a just world in which people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) was developed as a construct that is in line with this general belief in a just world (BJW). This belief indicates that the world is basically an ecologically just place in which people get what they deserve as far as ecological resources and demands are concerned. The aim of the present study is to cross-validate EBJW in a Turkish sample. Another aim is to test the predictive power of EBJW on environmentally relevant commitments along with established other constructs. The sample consists of 245 participants (Nfemale= 160, Nmale= 83, Nmissing= 2) aged from 15 to 69 years (M = 34.23; SD = 10.28). Overall, the variable pattern and the complex motivation structure involved in pro-environmental as well as environmentally risky commitment can be confirmed in the Turkish sample. The results reveal that EBJW qualifies as a predictor of pro-environmental as well as environmentally risky behavioural commitment. This successful cross-validation underpins the need to further investigate EBJW as a powerful and important construct within the field of environmental psychology. In line with the cross-validation of BJW, further validation studies of EBJW should be conducted in other countries. Moreover, as EBJW is a rather new construct, the mediating and moderating variables in its relations with environmental behaviour are waiting to be explored. Finally, its relations with other prominent constructs in environmental psychology such as social dominance orientation, value orientations, personality traits, and authoritarianism should be examined.

Keywords

• Ecological belief in a just world
• belief in a just world
• environmental justice
• environmental commitments
• environmental behaviour

References

1. Acar, Y. G. (2018). Gezi’den sonra ne oldu? Güçlenmenin, politikleşmenin ve örgütlenmenin kolektif eylemlerdeki rolü [What happened after Gezi? The role of empowerment, politicization, and organizing in collective action]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 21, 62-78. google scholar
2. Baier, M., Kals, E., & Müller, M. (2013). Ecological belief in a just world. Social Justice Research, 26, 272-300. doi: 10.1007/s11211-013-0192-0 google scholar
3. Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 263-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00776.x google scholar
4. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203805534 google scholar
5. Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits, and rational choices in ecological behaviors: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003 google scholar
6. Clayton, S., Kals, E., & Feygina, I. (2016). Justice and environmental sustainability. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 369-386). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_20 google scholar
7. Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79-98. doi: 10.1023/A:1022091609047 google scholar
8. Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. Boston: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3383-9 google scholar

9. Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen [The belief in a just world as a motive: Validity correlates of two scales]. Psychologische Beitrage, 29, 596-615. google scholar
10. Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795-817. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00072-7 google scholar
11. Gezici-Yalçın, M., & Uluğ, Ö. M. (2017). “Gezi, bardağı taşıran son damlaydı”: Sosyal psikolojik bir perspektifle Gezi Parkı isyanını anlamak [“Gezi was the last drop!”: Understanding the Gezi Park protests from a social-psychological perspective]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 20, 96-109. google scholar
12. Göregenli, M. (2003). Şiddet, kötü muamele ve işkenceye ilişkin değerlendirmeler, tutumlar ve deneyimler [Assessments, attitudes, and experiences related to violence, maltreatment, and torture]. İzmir: İzmir Barosu Yayınları. google scholar
13. Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 165-173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.165 google scholar
14. Hafer, C. L., & Sutton, R. (2016). Belief in a just world. In K. Sabag, & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 145-160). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_8 google scholar
15. Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behavior: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005 google scholar
16. Hasta, D., & Sözen, A. I. (2017). Hidroelektrik santrallerine ilişkin tutumlar: Sistemi meşrulaştırma, kontrol odağı ve yükleme karmaşıklığı açısından bir değerlendirme [Attitudes towards Hydroelectric Power Plants: An evaluation in terms of system justification, locus of control, and attributional complexity]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 32(79), 36-47. google scholar
17. IBM Corporation (2016). SPSS for Windows, version 24.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp. google scholar
18. Jessani, Z., & Harris, P. B. (2018). Personality, politics, and denial: Tolerance of ambiguity, political orientation and disbelief in climate change. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 121-123. google scholar
19. Jylha, K. M., Cantal, C., Akrami, N., & Milfont, T. L. (2016). Denial of anthropogenic climate change: Social dominance orientation helps explain the conservative male effect in Brazil and Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 184-187. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.020 google scholar
20. Kals, E., & Maes, J. (2002). Sustainable development and emotions. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 97-122). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_6 google scholar
21. Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining pro-environmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 367-403. doi:10.1023/A:1014698528132 google scholar
22. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056 google scholar
23. Kemper, C. J., Beierlein, C., Bensch, D., Kovaleva, A., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Eine Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Gamma-Faktors sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens: Die Kurzskala Soziale Erwünschtheit-Gamma (KSE-G) (GESIS Working Papers 2012|25). Köln: GESIS. google scholar
24. Kıral Uçar, G. (2020). Değer yönelimleri ve çevre yanlısı davranışlar (Value orientations and pro-environmental behaviour). Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/ Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 21(39), 801-822. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.654035 google scholar
25. Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(3), 343-353. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990. tb00024.x google scholar
26. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x google scholar
27. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5 google scholar
28. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334710 google scholar
29. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2000). Political implications of psychological research on ecological justice and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 168-176. doi:10.1080/002075900399466 google scholar
30. Montada, L., Kals, E., & Becker, R. (2007). Willingness for continued social commitment: A new concept in environmental research. Environment & Behavior, 39(3), 287-316. doi:10.1177/0013916506290953 google scholar
31. Müller, M. M., Kals, E., & Pansa, R. (2009). Adolescents’ emotional affinity toward nature: A cross-societal study. Journal ofDevelopmental Processes, 4(1), 59-69. google scholar
32. Neufeind, M., Jiranek, P., & Wehner, T. (2014). Beyond skills and structure: Justice dispositions as antecedents of young citizens’ volunteering and political participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 278-295. doi: 10.1002/casp.2166 google scholar
33. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connections with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment & Behavior, 41(5), 715-740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748 google scholar
34. Odağ, Ö., Uluğ, Ö. M., & Solak, N. (2016). “Everyday I’m Çapuling”: Identity and collective action through social network sites in the Gezi Park protests in Turkey. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(3), 148-159. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000202 google scholar
35. Onur, A., Sahin, E., & Tekkaya, C. (2012). An investigation on value orientations, attitudes and concern towards the environment: The case of Turkish elementary school students. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 271-297. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.614690 google scholar
36. Our World in Data (n.d.). CO2 emissions per capita, 1800 to 2017. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata. org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&country=AZE+IND+TUR+ARM google scholar
37. Özkaynak, B., & Bogazici University EJOLT Team (December 9th, 2013). Turkey’s map of environmental injustices is now online! Retrieved from: http://www.ejolt.org/2013/12/turkeys-map-of-environmental-injustices-is-now-online/ google scholar
38. Paker, H. (2013). The involvement of the green movement in the political space. In U. Dufner, (Ed.). Perspectives - Political analyses and commentary from Turkey: The green movement in Turkey (pp. 12-15). Istanbul, Heinrich Böll Stiftung Turkey Representation. Retrieved from: https://www.boell. de/en/content/green-movement-turkey google scholar
39. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28(8), 641-651. doi:10.1037/h0035723 google scholar
40. Reese, G., & Jacob, L. (2015). Principles of environmental justice and pro-environmental action: A two-step process model of moral anger and responsibility to act. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 88-94. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.011 google scholar
41. Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & He, J. (2014). Toward an empirical analysis of justice in ecosystem governance. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 524-532. doi:10.1111/conl.12142 google scholar
42. Syme, G. (2011). Justice and environmental decision making. In E. Kals, & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts (pp. 283-295). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_17 google scholar
43. Steg, L., & De Groot J. (2010). Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 725-743. doi:10.1348/014466609x477745 google scholar
44. Stern, P. C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of SocialIssues, 56(3), 407-424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 google scholar
45. Turkish Statistical Institute (2014). Turkey in Statistics. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Matbaası. google scholar
46. Zuckerman, M., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1977). Belief in a just world and trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 306-317. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(77)90039-3 google scholar