DEĞER YÖNELİMLERİ VE ÇEVRE YANLISI DAVRANIŞLAR

Yıl 2020, , 801 - 822, 31.07.2020

Gözde Kıral Uçar

https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.654035

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Kısa Değerler Ölçeği’nin egoistik, altruistik ve biyosferik değer yönelimlerini içeren yapısı Türkiye’deki bir örneklemde incelenmiş ve bu değer yönelimlerinin bireylerin çevre yanlısı davranışlarıyla ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. Araştırmaya yaşları 17 ile 73 (Ort. = 39,70; SS = 12,33) arasında değişen 213 gönüllü katılmıştır. Katılımcıların 130’u (% 61) kadın, 83’ü (% 39) erkektir. Ölçeğin orijinal formundaki üç faktörlü yapı bu örneklemde de doğrulanmıştır. Ayrıca, altruistik ve biyosferik değer yönelimleri ile çevre yanlısı davranışlar arasında pozitif yönde; egoistik değer yönelimi ve çevre yanlısı davranışlar arasında ise negatif yönde anlamlı korelasyonlar olduğu görülmektedir. Son olarak, egoistik değer yöneliminin çevre yanlısı davranışları negatif yönde, biyosferik değer yöneliminin ise pozitif yönde yordadığı bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular alanyazın ışığında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

değerler, biyosferik değerler, altruistik değerler, egoistik değerler, çevre yanlısı davranışlar

Value Orientations and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Öz

The three-factor structure of the Short Value Scale consisting of egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations was examined in a Turkish sample. Moreover, it was aimed to examine the associations between the value orientations and pro-environmental behaviour. The sample consisted of 213 participants aged from 17 to 73 years old (M = 39.70, SD = 12.33; 61% women). The results revealed that the three-factor structure of the scale was confirmed. Pro-environmental behaviour was positively correlated with the altruistic and biospheric value orientations and negatively correlated with the egoistic value orientation. Finally, path analysis showed that pro-environmental behaviour was negatively predicted by the egoistic value orientation; however, it was positively predicted by the biospheric value orientation. Implications are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

values, biospheric values, altruistic values, egoistic values, pro-environmental behaviour

Kaynakça

• Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Text. Geneva: UNEP/WMO.
• Byrne, Barbara M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge.
• De Groot, Judith I. M. ve Linda Steg (2007). “Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, C. 38, s. 318-332.
• De Groot, Judith I. M. ve Linda Steg (2008). “Value Orientations to Explain Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations”. Environment and Behavior, C. 40, S. 3, s. 330-354.
• Demirutku, Kürşad ve Nebi Sümer (2010). “Temel Değerlerin Ölçümü: Portre Değerler Anketi’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması”. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, C. 13, S. 25, s. 17-25.
• Hardin, Garrett (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science, C. 162, s. 1243-1248.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2014). “Summary for Policymakers”. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed: Christopher B. Field vd., Cambridge: Cambridge University, s. 1-32.
• IBM Corporation (2016). SPSS for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp.
• Jylhä, Kirsti M. ve Nazar Akrami (2015). “Social Dominance Orientation and Climate Change Denial: The Role of Dominance and System Justification”. Personality and Individual Differences, S. 86, s. 108-111.
• Kıral Uçar, Gözde vd. (2016). “The Ecological Belief in a Just World and Environmental Behavior”. 31st International Congress of Psychology, Yokohama, Japan, 24-29th July 2016. International Journal of Psychology, C. 51, S. 1, s. 567.
• Kuşdil, Ersin M. ve Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı (2000). “Türk Öğretmenlerinin Değer Yönelimleri ve Schwartz Değer Kuramı”. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, C. 15, S. 45, s. 59-76.
• Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik vd. (2011). “Personal Values Before and After Migration: A Longitudinal Case Study on Value Change in Ingriane Finnish Migrants”. Social Psychology and Personality Science, C. 2, S. 6, s. 584-591.
• Martin, Christian ve Sandor Czellar (2017). “Where Do Biospheric Values Come From? A Connectedness to Nature Perspective”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, C. 52, s. 56-68.
• Montada, Leo vd. (2007). “Willingness for Continued Social Commitment: A New Concept in Environmental Research”. Environment and Behavior, C. 39, S. 3, s. 287- 316.
• Rokeach, Milton (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
• Sayraç, Neslihan vd. (2016). “The Mediating Role of Values on Environmentally Responsible Consumption Awareness”. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, C. 2, S. 5, s. 442-449.
• Schultz, Wesley P. (2001). “The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other People, and the Biosphere”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, C. 21, s. 327-339.
• Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992). “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Ed: Mark Zanna, Orlando: Academic Press, s. 1-65.
• Schwartz, Shalom H. (2003). “A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations Across Nations”. Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey. s. 259-319.
• Steg, Linda (2016). “Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, C. 41, s. 277-292.
• Steg, Linda ve Judith I. M. De Groot (2012). “Environmental Values”. The Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, Ed: Susan D. Clayton, New York: Oxford University Press, s. 81-92.
• Steg, Linda vd. (2011). “General Antecedents of Personal Norms, Policy Acceptability, and Intentions: The Role of Values, Worldviews, and Environmental Concern”. Society and Natural Resources, C. 24, S. 4, s. 349-367.
• Steg, Linda vd. (2014). “The Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant Attitudes, Preferences, and Actions”. Environment and Behavior, C. 46, S. 2, s. 163-192.
• Stern, Paul C. (2000). “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior”. Journal of Social Issues, C. 56, S. 3, s. 407-424.
• Stern, Paul C. and Thomas Dietz (1994). “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern”. Journal of Social Issues, C. 56, S. 3, s. 65-84.
• Şener, Arzu ve Oya Hazer (2008). “Values and Sustainable Consumption Behavior of Women: A Turkish Sample”. Sustainable Development, C. 16, S. 5, s. 291-300.
• Van der Werff, Ellen vd. (2013). “The Value of Environmental Self- Identity: The Relationship between Biospheric Values, Environmental Self-Identity and Pro-Environmental Preferences, Intentions and Behaviour”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, C. 34, s. 55-63.
• Vecchione, Michele vd. (2016). “Stability and Change of Basic Personal Values in Early Adulthood: An 8-year Longitudinal Study”. Journal of Research in Personality, C. 63, s. 111-122.