A New Concept in Psychology: Development of the Ecopsychological Sensitivity Scale and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to develop the Ecopsychological Sensitivity Scale (ESS) and analyse its psychometric properties. The data for the study was collected in four different stages. A total of 1070 individuals participated in the study. For the first stage, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), data was collected from a total of 416 people: 270 women and 146 men (Mage=31.51; SD=10.11). For the second stage, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), data was collected from a total of 499 participants: 321 women and 178 men (Mage=27.59; SD=10.77). In the third stage, in order to test criterion-related validity, data was collected from a total of 110 people: 75 women and 35 men (Mage=26.39; SD=10.17). In the fourth stage, data was collected from a total of 45 people, 33 women and 12 men, in order to measure test-retest reliability (Mage=24.19; SD=9.17). As a result of EFA, a structure consisting of 14 items and two sub-dimensions was obtained. CFA results performed to verify the obtained structure showed that the fit indices of the scale were at an acceptable level. In criterion validity analyses, significant relationships were found between the ESS and similar scales. In the reliability analysis, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of the developed ESS was calculated as .94, the environmental sensitivity sub-dimension was .88, and the environmental integration sub-dimension was calculated as .91. In this study, it was concluded that the ESS, which was developed to measure the ecopsychological sensitivity levels of adult individuals, is a valid and reliable measurement tool. It is thought that it will be useful to researchers in terms of using it in future studies on ecopsychology.

Keywords

• Ecopsychology
• Ecopsychological Sensitivity
• Scale Development

References

1. Akkuzu, N. (2016). Towards a profound ecological understanding: Statistical attempts to measure our ecological intelligence. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 6(2), 198-216.
2. Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of ıtem response theory. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458219
3. Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research methods, techniques and principles in social sciences]. Pegem Academy.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Manual of data analysis for social sciences]. Pegem Academy.
5. Caillaud, S., Bonnot, V., Ratiu, E., & Krauth‐Gruber, S. (2016). How groups cope with collective responsibility for ecological problems: Symbolic coping and collective emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(2), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12126
6. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
7. Çapık, C. (2014). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı [Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies]. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(3), 196-205.
8. Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project work]. Celepler Printing.

9. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [SPSS and LISREL applications of multivariate statistics for social sciences]. Pegem Academy.
10. DeVellis R. (2014). Scale development. (T. Totan, Trans. Ed.) Nobel Academic Publishing.
11. Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J. A., & Cadogan, J. W. (2000). Export performance: The impact of crosscountry export market orientation. In J. P. Workman Jr., & W. D. Perreault Jr. (Ed.), Marketing theory and application. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter Conference (s. 177-178). American Marketing Association.
12. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
13. Elemo, A. S., Satici, S. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2023). The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Psychometric Properties of the Ethiopian Amharic Version. International journal of mental health and addiction, 21(2), 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00448-0
14. Gül, F. (2013). İnsan-doğa ilişkisi bağlamında çevre sorunları ve felsefe [Environmental Problems and Philosopy in the Context of Human-Nature Relationship]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14, 17-21.
15. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
16. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
17. Jordan, M. (2015). Nature and therapy: Understanding counselling and psychotherapy in outdoor spaces. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
18. Kahn P. H., Ruckert, J.H., & Hasbach, P. H. (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, Totems, and the Technological Species. The MIT Press.
19. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Keith, T. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling. Taylor & Francis Group.
21. Kline, R.B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
22. Koçyiğit, B., Ceco, G., Deniz, M. E., & Satici, S. A. (2024). Turkish adaptation of Oxford positive self scale: Association with psychological distress, subjective vitality and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 224, 112629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112629
23. Kul, Ü., Aksu, Z., & Satici, S. A. (2024). Adaptation of the modified abbreviated math anxiety scale: its relationship with mathematics self-efficacy and academic buoyancy. Current Psychology, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05908-7
24. Kuvaç, M. (2018). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (stem) temelli çevre eğitimine yönelik öğretim tasarımının etkililiği [Unpublished master's thesis]. İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul.
25. Kütük, H. (2023). Yaratıcılık temelli doğa terapisi uygulamalarının ekopsikolojik duyarlılık ve bilişsel esnekliğe etkisi. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Marmara University.
26. Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research. Design and interpretation. Sage Publication Inc.
27. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
28. Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M., (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-11.
29. Roszak, T. (1992). The Voice of Earth: An Exploration of Ecopsychology. Simon & Schuster.
30. Satıcı, S. A., Okur, S., Deniz, M. E., Karaağaç, Z. G., Yılmaz, F. B., Kütük, H., Satıcı, B., & Kaya, Y. (2024). The development and initial validation of the Earthquake Fear Scale: Its links to personality traits, psychological distress, harmony in life, and mental wellbeing. Stress and Health, 40(2), e3306. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3306
31. Sarıçam, H., Şahin, S. H., & Soyuçok, E. (2015). Doğayla ilişkili olma ile depresyon, anksiyete ve stres arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [The examination of the relationship between nature relatedness, depression, anxiety and stress]. Uluslararası Hakemli Psikiyatri ve Psikoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4, 38-57.
32. Scull, J. (2008). Ecopsychology: Where does it fit in psychology in 2009? The Trumpeter, 24(3), 68–85. Suganthi, L. (2019). Ecospirituality: A scale to measure an individual's reverential respect for the environment. Ecopsychology, 11(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0065
33. St. John, D., & MacDonald, D. A. (2007). Development and initial validation of a measure of ecopsychological self. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 39(1), 48–67.
34. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş (Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları) [Introduction to structural equation modeling (Basic principles and LISREL applications)]. Ekinoks Publishing.
35. Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424.
36. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Ally And Bacon.
37. Ulrich, R. (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420–421.
38. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus. John Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118356258
39. Weaver, S. (2015). Nature-based therapeutic service: The power of love in helping and healing. Journal of Sustainability Education, 9, 1-14.
40. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: the human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Woodbury, Z., & Chalquist, C. (2012). Quantum ecopsychology: Collapsing the wave of future possibilities. Ecopsychology, 18