Delft University of Technology
A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how
they relate to climate change
De Witt, Annick; de Boer, Joop; Hedlund, Nicholas; Osseweijer, Patricia
DOI
10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.012
Publication date
2016
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Environmental Science & Policy
Citation (APA)
De Witt, A., de Boer, J., Hedlund, N., & Osseweijer, P. (2016). A new tool to map the major worldviews in
the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy,
63, 101-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.012
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.
A
new
tool
to
map
the
major
worldviews
in
the
Netherlands
and
USA,
and
explore
how
they
relate
to
climate
change
Annick
De
Witt
a,*
,
Joop
de
Boer
b,
Nicholas
Hedlund
c,
Patricia
Osseweijer
aa
DelftUniversityofTechnology,DepartmentofBiotechnology,SectionBiotechnology&Society,Julianalaan67,2628BCDelft,TheNetherlands
b
VUUniversityAmsterdam,InstituteforEnvironmentalStudies,DeBoelelaan1087,1081HVAmsterdam,TheNetherlands
c
UCLInstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon,DepartmentofSocialScience,20BedfordWay,LondonWC1H0AL,UnitedKingdom
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received10November2015 Receivedinrevisedform4May2016 Accepted9May2016
Availableonline2June2016
Keywords: Worldviews Climatechange Sustainablelifestyles Environmentalbehaviors Traditional Modern Postmodern Integrativeworldviews Integrativeworldviewframework
ABSTRACT
Foraddressingclimatechange, publicsupport forchangesin policyis needed,aswell changesin individual lifestyles. Both of these appear to be intimately related with people’s worldviews. Understanding theseworldviews is therefore essential. In order toresearch and ‘map’ them,we translated the theoretical ‘Integrative Worldview Framework’(IWF) into an empirical, quantitative approach.Weconstructedaworldview-scaleaimingtodistinguishbetweenfourmajorworldviews– labeledtraditional,modern,postmodern,andintegrative–andexploredtheirinterfacewithopinions andbehaviorswithrespecttoclimatechange.Thesurveywasconductedwithrepresentativesamplesof citizensintheNetherlandsandtheUSA(n=527andn=556).Thehypothesizedworldviewswerefound in thedatawithareasonabledegree ofreliability,especiallyintheDutch sample.Wealso found consistentrelationshipsbetweentheseworldview-clustersandarangeofopinions,politicalpriorities, andbehaviors.Inbothcountriespostmodernsandintegrativesdisplayedsignificantlymoreconcern aboutclimatechangeaswellasmoresustainablebehaviors,comparedwithmodernsandtraditionals. Theimplicationsofthesefindingsforenvironmentalpolicyandsocialsciencearenoteworthy.
ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.Introduction
Inordertoaddressclimatechange,widespreadpublicsupport for changes in policy is needed, next to changes in individual behaviorsandlifestyles.Bothsuchpublicsupportaswellassuch (changesin)lifestylesappeartobeintimatelyrelatedwith,andan expressionof,people’sworldviews.Worldviewscanbedefinedas “theinescapable,overarchingsystemsofmeaningand meaning-makingthatinformhowhumansinterpret,enact,andco-create reality”(Hedlund-deWitt,2013b,p.156).Theyarethe fundamen-tal‘lenses’throughwhichhumansseeandfilterreality,andthey interfacewithpeople’sperceptions ofglobalissues likeclimate change in ways that are profound, persistent, and frequently overlooked.Worldviewsnotonlytendtoshapehowindividuals perceiveparticularissuesandtheirpotentialsolutions,theyalso tend to influence theirwillingness topartake in, or politically support, such solutions. Moreover, since worldviews are a
fundamental part of individuals’ identities, people may react defensively, or even with hostility, when their underlying assumptions andbeliefs aboutrealityarecalledintoquestion— reactingasiftheythemselveswerethreatened(Brownetal.,2008). One can see such psychological dynamics in the highly polarized and deeply entrenched societal debate on whether anthropogenicclimatechangeisreal,itsseverity,andwhatmaybe viable solutions to addressing the issue (e.g., consider the controversiesaroundgeneticmodificationoffood,nuclearenergy, and geo-engineering).Thesedebates arenotasrational, instru-mental,orpragmaticastheymayseem,buttendtoreflectpeople’s deeperemotionalidentificationsandworldviews.WorkofKahan etal.(2012)showedthat,contrarytopopularbelief,individuals withthehighestdegreeofscienceliteracyandtechnicalreasoning capacity werenotthemostconcernedaboutclimatechange.In fact,theyweretheonesamongwhomculturalpolarizationwas greatest.Theauthorsconcludethatpublicdivisionsoverclimate changedonotstemfrompublic’sincomprehensionofsciencebut from a conflict of interest that can be best explained by fundamental differences in worldview. Hence, rather than understanding these polarized debates as resulting from mere disagreementsover thefacts,they canbebetterunderstoodas resulting from clashes over values, over worldviews (De Witt,
* Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:A.dewitt@tudelft.nl,annick@annickdewitt.com(A.DeWitt),
joop.de.boer@vu.nl(J.deBoer),nhedlund@ioe.ac.uk(N.Hedlund),
P.Osseweijer@tudelft.nl(P.Osseweijer).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.012
1462-9011/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
2015; Sarewitz, 2004). Researching the role and dynamics of worldviews is therefore crucial for understanding ‘why we disagreeaboutclimatechange’,asHulme(2009)argued.
However, not any opinion or behavior is necessarily a manifestation of these more fundamental worldviews. Yet in mattersofmoralimportance,whichevokewhatTaylor(1989)calls “strong evaluations,” even seemingly trivial choices may be understoodasreflectingworldviews.Thatis,whileforexample buyinga packageof coffeemaynotexpressa deep worldview-commitment,oncecoffeeisavailablethatclaimstobe‘organic’or “fairtrade,”evenpurchasingcoffeebecomesamoralactvoicing how individuals understandthe worldand their own role and responsibilitywithinit.Itisalsoimportanttonotethat,asmany philosophershaveunderscored,theseworldviewsarenotoptional (see e.g., Hedlund-de Witt, 2013b). As Taylor (1989) argues, humansunavoidablyhavemoralresponsestolife:welikecertain thingsanddislikeothers,weaspireforcertaingoalsand ignore others,we valuecertainqualities whiledisapprovingof others. These frameworks of meaning and meaning-making therefore providethe(frequentlyimplicit)backgroundforourjudgments, intuitions,or reactions tolife. This means that although these
worldviews may have not been reflected upon, and thus may remainsubconscious,theystillshape–toagreatextent–howthe worldisviewedaswellasone’sownroleandpositionwithinit. Obviously,researchingtheseworldviews,whichinmanycases existsubstantiallyoutsideofpeople’sconsciousawareness,isnot aneasytask.However,inthecontextofgeneratingsupportforthe sweeping policy and lifestyle changes needed for addressing climate change, ‘mapping’ these worldviews and how they interfacewithissuessuchasclimatechange,hasbecomeessential (seee.g.,Hedlund-deWitt,2012;O’Brien,2009;O’BrienandWolf, 2010). Unfortunately, currently social science contributions to climatechangeresearchlagbehind,revealinganimportantgap thatneedstobeaddressed(Hulme,2011,2013;Nisbetetal.,2010). Moreover, while the social sciences have been attempting to measureworldview-relatedaspectsforseveraldecades,mostof theseapproacheshavesignificantlimitations(seee.g.,Hedlund-de Witt,2012).Forexample,whileCulturalCognitionTheory(Kahan etal.,2010;Kahanetal.,2012),arguablyoneofthemostprominent approaches,isempiricallysuccessfulincertainways,itfallsshort inothers.Asweargueelsewhere(DeWittetal.,2015),thismaybe so because this approach is based on the central binary of Table1
TheIWFideal-typicallydelineatestraditional,modern,postmodern,andintegrativeworldviewsinthecontemporaryWest,usingthefiveworldview-aspectsasorganizing scheme(DeWittandHedlund,inpress;Hedlund-deWitt,2013a).
Traditionalworldview Modernworldview Postmodernworldview Integrativeworldview Ontology Religious/metaphysicalmonism.Reality
assingular,transcendent. Universeaspurposivelyconstructed whole.God-createduniverseexnihilo. TranscendentGod/Creatorisseparate fromprofaneworld;dualism. Natureasembodimentofmeaningful, imposedorder(e.g.God’screation).
Secularmaterialism.Reality assingular,immanent. Mechanisticuniverse broughtaboutbyrandom selection.
Materialrealitydevoidof meaning,intentionality, consciousness;dualism, disenchantment. Natureasinstrumental, devoidofintrinsicmeaning andpurpose.Resourcefor exploitation. Post-materialism.Realityas pluralistic,perspectival, constructed. Multiplecosmogonies/cosmogony associalconstruct
Realityasdiscontinuousand fragmented,meaningassocial construct;anti-essentialism. Natureasconstructedthrougha pluralityofculturalvalues, meanings,andinterests.
Holism/integralism(unityindiversity). Realityastranscendentandimmanent. Universeasevolving,creative manifestationofSource/Spirit. Outerandinnerrealityco-arising, interdependent;
re-enchantment.
Natureasintrinsicallyvaluable. Frequentlyseenasdivineforcethat humanityispartandexpressionof.
Epistemology Naïverealism;emphasison concrete-literalinterpretationsofreligious doctrine(literalism,dogmatism). Religious/conventionalauthority (scripture,divinerevelation,tradition). Implicitmethodology Substantiverationality (Post-)positivism;emphasis onrealityasobjectively knowable, (empiricism,reductionism, scientism).
Secularauthority(science, thestate).
Quantitativemethods; methodologicalmonism. Proceduralrationality
Socialconstructivism;emphasison realityasconstructed(pluralism, relativism).
Internalizationofauthority(e.g. moral,emotional,intuitive,artistic knowing)
Qualitativemethods; methodologicalpluralism Skepticalrationality?
Criticalrealism,pragmatism;emphasis onrealityasapproachablethrough integrationofsourcesofknowledge Triangulationofauthority(scientific, spiritual/religious/philosophical,and subjectiveknowing)
Mixedmethods;integrativepluralism Syntheticrationality?
Axiology Traditionalvalues(e.g.security, tradition,conformity,obedience, humility)
Emphasisoncommunity,family Pre-conventionalmorality?
Rational-secular,materialist values(e.g.power, achievement,hedonism, stimulation) Emphasisonindependent individuality Conventionalmorality? Self-expression,post-materialist values(e.g.opennesstochange, self-direction)
Emphasisonuniqueindividuality Postconventionalmorality?
Self-expression/self-transcendence values(e.g.universalism, self-actualization)?
Emphasisonembedded,relational individuality
Universalmorality?
Anthropology Humanityinmanagerialstewardship rolevis-à-visnature
Primepurposesdeterminedbylarger orderandsocialroles.Humanbeingas sinful/fallenfromgrace.Dependenton religious/metaphysicalauthoritiesfor salvation.
Ethnocentricidentity?
Humanityinpromethean controlovernature Primepurposesofamaterial, hedonisticnature.Human beingasself-optimizing, independentbeing.Homo economicus.
Sociocentricidentity?
Humanityincautiousrelationship tonature
Primepurposesarefoundwithin, intrinsic.Humanbeingas self-expressing,uniqueindividual. Worldcentricidentity?
Humanityinunityandsynergywith nature
Primepurposesfoundwithin,serving thelargerwhole(‘servicethrough self-actualization’).Humanbeingas evolutionaryco-creator,withavast— thoughgenerallyunrealized—potential. Planetcentricidentity?
Societal vision
Traditionalsocieties,emphasison (subsistence)farming.
Traditionalandreligiousauthoritiesand valuesassourceofsolutionstosocietal andenvironmentalproblems.
Industrialsocieties, emphasisonmechanized modesofproduction(e.g. industrial/conventional agriculture).
Technologicaloptimism: scienceandtechnologyas solutionstosocietaland environmentalproblems.
Post-industrialsocieties,emphasis onserviceeconomyandcreative industries.
Scepticismofstatusquo,idealism: mobilizationofthepublicthrough revealinginjusticesasprime solutiontosocietaland environmentalproblems.
Increasingemphasisonservices, creativeindustries,andsocial/ sustainableentrepreneurship. Integrativevision:emancipationofthe publicthroughconsciousnessgrowth andasynthesisofinterestsand perspectivesassolutionstosocietaland environmentalproblems
egalitarian-collectivist versus individualistic-hierarchical world-views,whileamoredynamicanddevelopmentalapproachmayin factbeinbetteralignmentwiththehistoricalthrustofevolving worldviewsintheWest,asnumerousphilosophersand sociolo-gists have described it (e.g. Giddens, 2009; Habermas, 1976; Inglehart,1997;InglehartandWelzel,2005;Tarnas,1991;Taylor, 1989). Moreover, Cultural Cognition Theory does not seem to measureworldviewsintheirfullcomplexityandbreadth,asitdoes notincorporateitemsaddressingtheentirespectrumof world-view-related questions (De Witt et al., 2015). And while for exampletheWorldValuesSurveyapproach(e.g.,Inglehart,2008; InglehartandWelzel,2005),thelargestempiricalandlongitudinal databaseexploringglobalchangesinbeliefsandvalues,ismuch morecomprehensiveandbasedonadialecticalunderstandingof humandevelopment,it doesnotseem toaccount orprobe for newlyemerging worldviews,noris it focused onadvancingan understandingofissuessuchasclimatechange.
Inorderto addressand overcomethese limitations, wehave attemptedtodevelopamorecomprehensive,effective,anddynamic approachtoresearchingandmappingtheseworldviewsandhow theyinterfacewitharangeofenvironmentalissuessuchasclimate change. First, we have explored a range of philosophical and sociological sources and their understanding of worldviews (Hedlund-de Witt,2013b), whilealso includingmore empirical, psychologicalapproaches(Hedlund-deWitt,2012).Thisresultedin aninterdisciplinaryframework thatsynthesizes researchfroma number of fields, called the Integrative Worldview Framework, abbreviatedasIWF(DeWittandHedlund,inpress;Hedlund-de Witt,2013a,2014b).Oneofthestrengthsofthisframeworkisthatit isgroundedinaqualitativeunderstandingofthegeneralthrustof the historical-developmental trajectory of cultural epochs and worldviewsintheWest(asdescribedbyhistorians,philosophersof Westernthought,andsociologists),whilesimultaneouslybridging tomorequantitative,psychologicalapproaches—allinserviceof understanding societal responses to climate change and other planetaryconcerns.
TheIWF delineates and operationalizes worldviewsinto five major aspects, namely ontology,epistemology,axiology,anthropology, andsocietal vision, and offersa synopticoverviewof themajor worldviews in the West, referred to as traditional, modern, postmodern,andintegrativeworldviews.Foraschematicoverview ofthisframework,seeTable1.Earlierresearchhasdemonstratedits usefulnessforunderstandingtherelationshipbetweenworldviews andthesustainabilityofindividuals’lifestyles,bothconceptually (Hedlund-deWitt,2012)andempirically(Hedlund-deWittetal., 2014), as well as for understanding the relationship between worldviewsandperceptionsofbiotechnology(DeWittetal.,2015), although inthese studiesthe newer(and still somewhatmore speculative)integrativeworldviewwasnotincluded.
Inthecurrentstudywehavetranslatedthisframeworkintoa new,empiricalapproachbyconstructingaworldview-scalethat aims to quantitatively distinguish between these four major worldviews,while exploring theirinterfaceswith basicchoices andcommitmentsregardingclimatechangeandthecontribution oflifestylechangestoitsmitigation.Theaimofthisstudy,thus,is tocontributetothedevelopmentofascientific,yetphilosophically informed,approachtomappingworldviews,andtheirinterface with individual and societal responses to climate change. Simultaneously,thisstudyallowsusto‘test’themoretheoretical approachoftheIWF,byrevealingtowhatextenttheseworldviews show up empirically and display significant correlations with opinionsandbehaviors.Sincewearehopingtoprovideinsights intothegeneralizabilityofourwork,anddevelopamethodthat can beapplied internationally, the survey was conducted with representativesamplesofcitizensintheNetherlandsandtheUSA (n=527andn=556).
2.Methodology
2.1.Developmentoftheworldview-scale
We used the Integrative Worldview Framework (De Witt & Hedlund,inpress;Hedlund-deWitt,2013a;Hedlund-deWittetal., 2014)astheoreticalbackgroundandblueprintfordevelopingthe worldview-scale. TheIWFoperationalizestheconceptof world-view through distinguishing between five different aspects of worldviews(ontology,epistemology,axiology,anthropology,and societalvision),aswellasfourdifferentcategoriesofworldviews (traditional,modern,postmodern,andintegrative).
Usingthesefiveaspectsandfourcategoriesofworldviews,we systematically developed nineteen different sets of four state-ments.Everysetformulatesfourqualitativelydifferent perspec-tives, thereby representing thefour differentworldviews, ona differenttopic,witheachtopicrelatedtooneofthefiveaspectsof worldviews.Forexample,forthetopicofmetaphysics,which is partoftheaspectofontology,wedevelopedthefollowingfour statements:
1. Godstandsfarabovelifeonearth(traditional)
2. Theuniverseisgovernedbymechanical,naturallaws(modern) 3. Peoplelookattheworldfromdifferentperspectives,whichare
allequallyvalid(postmodern)
4. Realityiscomplex:itisbothscientificandspiritualatthesame time(integrative)
The first statement formulates an ideal-typically traditional perspective onthistopic,thesecond anideal-typically modern view,thethirdapostmodern,andthefourthanintegrativeview.In asimilarfashion,wedevelopedsetsofstatementsforothertopics withintheaspectofontology,aswellaswithineachoftheother aspects.Inthisway,weattemptedtodevelopafour-dimensional scale thatis comprehensive in rangeand overcomesthe short-comingsofexistingapproachesattemptingtomeasureworldviews asdiscussedinSection1.
The development of the scale was a process with many intermediatestages.Togeneratethe19setsof4statementswehad toformulate76meaningfulstatements.Inordertogeneratethe differenttopicsandstatements,weusedTable1aswellasexisting survey-research such as the World Values Survey (2010–2012 wave),ourownearlierresearch(Hedlund-deWitt,2012; Hedlund-deWittetal.,2014),CulturalTheory(Thompsonetal.,1990),and the “Global warming’s six Americas” report(Leiserowitz et al., 2013).Then(inDecember2013),thestatementswerepre-testedin a representative sample (n=150) of the Dutch population. Studying the results of this sample allowed us to refine our formulationofthefourworldview-perspectivesandimprovethe scale.Inthefinalquestionnaire,thesetsaswellasthestatements withinthesetswerepresentedinrandomizedorder.
Respondentswereaskedtoselecttheitemtheymostagreed withaswellastheitemtheyleastagreedwith.Thismethod,also calledthebest–worstscalingapproach(Leeetal.,2008),canbeused tomeasuretherelativeimportanceorperceivedtrade-offsamong choicealternatives.Importantadvantagesofthisapproacharethat itoffersmorediscriminationthanconventionalratingscalesand that itis betterfitfor cross-culturalresearch.In a studyofthe Schwartz Value Survey, this approach was found to take significantlyless respondent time than the approach in which respondentsare askedtorankeachof theitemsper set,while beingabletoreproducesimilarresults andrelationshipsasthe ones generated withthe more traditional approach (Lee et al., 2008). With this approach the predominant worldview of the participants can be identified by comparing their number of
choicesinfavourofeachofthefourworldviews,aftersubtracting thenumberofchoicesmadeagainsteachofthem.
Nexttothenineteenworldview-sets,wealsodevelopedahost ofquestionsthatinquireintoopinionsandbehaviorswithrespect toclimate change and energy. In Section 2.3 we discuss these criterionvariablesindetail.
2.2.Participantsandprocedures
ThequestionnairewasconductedbetweenApril15thandMay 7th2014byMotivaction,a Dutchresearchagency, whichhasa panelof researchrespondents of about 100,000 people in the Netherlands,andyearsofexperiencewithonlinesurveys.Because online panel research is self-selective (as respondents decide whetherornottoparticipateintheresearch),Motivactionuses propensityscores(RosenbaumandRubin,1983)inordertocorrect forthenon-responsegeneratedbythistypeofresearch.Propensity scores allow the researcher to model the sample on specific referencevariables,notonlyincludingsocio-demographic varia-blesbutalsoincorporatingvariablessuchasopinion,lifestyle,and values.Forthecorrelationalanalysesappliedinthisstudy,sample sizesofabout500areconsideredsufficient(Hogartyetal.,2005). IntheNetherlands,thequestionnairewasconductedwith527 participants.The response rate of the questionnaire(25%) was deliberatelybroughtdownasrespondentsofsubgroupsthatare knowntorespondslowlyareapproachedmorefrequently,aiming tocreatea morerepresentative sample.Afterthefieldworkwas finished, the gathered data were weighted as to correct any obliquityofthesampleincomparisonwiththeDutchpublic.In thisway,thesamplewasmaderepresentativefortheDutchpublic on the variables of gender, age, education, region, and value orientation(mentality-environment).1Aweightingfactorof0.89
wasused,meaningthattheefficiencyoftheweightingwas89%. Theeffectivesampleafterweightingthusconsistedof478Dutch respondents.Therespondentsconsistedof49.9%menand50.1% women.IntheUSA,thequestionnairewas conductedwith556 participants.Herethesamplewasmaderepresentativeusingthe variablesofgender,age,andeducation.Aweightingfactorof0.90 wasused(efficiencyoftheweighting90%).Theeffectivesample afterweightingconsistedof500Americanrespondents.
Theageoftherespondentsinbothsampleswasminimum18 yearsandmaximum70yearsold.Participantsinthisstudythus consisted of two representative sample of residents of the Netherlands and of the USA, who were invited via email for participation in the research. In order to prevent a selective response, the topic of the research was not mentioned. The respondentsfilledinthequestionnaireonline.Weexpectthatthis onlineapproachdoesnotsubstantiallylimittherepresentativityof thesample, as both the Netherlandsand theUSA havea high degreeofinternetpenetration.IntheNetherlands,in201194%of thehouseholdsinthepopulationunder75yearsofagehadaccess to internet at home (CBS, 2012). In the USA, the internet penetrationwasestimatedtobearound86.7%( www.internetlive-stats.com/internet-users-by-country).Forfilling inthecomplete questionnaire,respondentsreceivedamodestcompensation.
2.3.Criterionvariables
Asmallsetofcriterionvariableswaschoseninordertoexamine the interfaces of the four worldviews with basic choices and
commitmentsregardingclimatechangeandthecontributionof lifestylechangestoitsmitigation.
Politicalprioritiesweremeasuredbythequestion“Whenyou are considering your vote for the next elections, which three themesplaythemostimportantroleinyourchoiceofapolitical party?”Therandomizedthemesincludedeconomyand employ-ment; fair distribution of incomes; animal rights; traditional values;environment, sustainability,and climatechange; health care; integration of immigrants; education; emancipation of women;safetyandterrorism.
Thetopicofclimatechangewasaddressedbyitemsthatasked fortheperceivedrelevanceofclimatechangetotheparticipants, andtheirwillingnesstopersonallymakeenergy-saving lifestyle-changes.Theperceivedrelevancewasmeasuredbytheitem:“How importantistheissueofclimatechangetoyoupersonally?”(1Not at all important—4 Very important). For a number of lifestyle changestheparticipantswereaskedwhethertheywerewillingto personallymakethatlifestyle-change(1Certainlynotwilling—4 Certainlywilling).Theoptionswere:willingnesstosaveenergyat home;installsolarpanelsonmyhouse;driveless;flyless;andbuy (moreof)myclothesandfurnituresecond-hand(eachpresented withthenote“ifyouarealreadydoingit,youarewilling”).We includedthesmallnumbersofdon'tknowresponsesasamiddle category(2.5).Thefive4-pointscaleitemswereusedtoforma scale. A separate item askedthe participantsto indicate“How manydaysaweekdoyoueatmeat(includingchicken)withyour mainmeal,onaverage?”
2.4.Analysis
Amultiplestepapproachwasappliedtoidentifythe predomi-nantworldviewoftheparticipantsinbothsamples.First,itwas necessarytotransformeachofthe19setsof4statementsintoa 3-pointscale,with1meaning“statementchosenasbestoption,”0 “notchosen,”and 1“chosenasworstoption.” Basedonthese data,itwaspossibletoassessforeachparticipantthenumberof choices infavourand againsteach of thefourworldviews.The measurementmodelassumedthattheywereabletomaketheir choices in a relatively consistent way and that their positive choices of a worldview statement could be summed and the negativeonessubtracted.
The consistency of the choices was tested by a reliability analysis of the choices regarding each of the worldviews separately.Cronbach’s coefficientalphaisthemostwidelyused estimatorofthereliabilityofscales.Thedesirablelevelofalphais between0.70 and 0.90, whereas for newly developed scales,a lower alphavaluesuchas 0.6 is allowable (Peterson,1994).In addition,multidimensionalscaling(PROXSCALalgorithm imple-mentedwithinSPSS)wasappliedtovisualizethepositionsofthe 76itemsin a multidimensionalspace(notshowndue tospace limitations). Next, the scores of each participant on the four resultingworldviewscales werecompared toidentifythescale with the largest number of positive choices. The latter was consideredtheparticipant’spredominantworldview.Forthisstep ofourapproach,thefourworldview-scaleswereusedinacluster analysis to classify clusters of participants with the same predominantworldview(clustering istheunsupervisedclassi fi-cationofobservationsintogroups(seeJainetal.,1999).
Todeterminethedesirednumberofclusters,weemployedthe hierarchical Ward approach with a squared Euclidian distance measure(Jainetal.,1999).Althoughtherearenohardrulesfor determiningthenumberofclusters,inspectionofthe agglomera-tionschedulerevealedasuddenjumpinthedistancecoefficient betweenfiveandfourclusters,whichindicatedthatfiveclustersis thebestchoicefortheDutchsample(whilealsobeingacceptable fortheUSsample).Inaddition,K-meansclusteranalysis(Jainetal., 1
Motivaction developed its own model for describingthe different value orientationswithintheNetherlands,whichtheycall“mentality-environments.” Seewww.motivaction.nlformoreinformation;thissitehasanEnglishsection.
Table2
Overviewoftheworldviewstatements:itemmean(M)andstandarddeviation(SD)inbothsamples. Itemsa Dutch sample USAsample M SD M SD Ontology1:Metaphysics
O1tGodstandsfarabovelifeonearth 0.35 0.78 0.04 0.74
O1mTheuniverseisgovernedbymechanical,naturallaws 0.04 0.65 0.24 0.68 O1pPeoplelookattheworldfromdifferentperspectives,whichareallequallyvalid 0.31 0.66 0.01 0.68 O1iRealityiscomplex:itisbothscientificandspiritualatthesametime 0.08 0.58 0.18 0.66 Ontology2:Valuesofnature
O2tNatureiscreatedbyGodandisthereforevaluable 0.29 0.83 0.16 0.77 O2mNaturehasvaluebecausehumansareabletouseandenjoyit 0.16 0.62 0.04 0.62 O2pPeopleascribedifferentvaluestonature,andallofthemareimportant 0.03 0.57 0.02 0.68 O2iNaturehasvalueinandofitself,evenifithasnovalueforhumanswhatsoever 0.17 0.69 0.10 0.73 Ontology3:Originoflife
O3tLifewasmiraculouslycreatedbyahigherpower 0.20 0.81 0.20 0.77 O3mLifewasbroughtaboutthroughbiologicalevolution(soNOTsteeredbyahigherpower) 0.12 0.77 0.21 0.71 O3pHowlifeoriginatedisstillunclear,despitewhatscienceandreligionsayaboutit 0.26 0.60 0.09 0.67 O3iIseetheuniverseasacreativeexpressionofanevolvingconsciousnessor‘Spirit’ 0.18 0.49 0.07 0.61 Ontology4:Viewsonnature(excluded)
O4tNaturecanbeharshandunpredictable,buthumanscancorrectlystewardit 0.23 0.67 0.19 0.63 O4mNatureisadaptableandrobust,soitwillreadilyrecoverfromthedamagecausedbyus 0.22 0.69 0.30 0.65 O4pNatureisfragile,sohumanscaneasilydestroyitsdelicatebalance 0.20 0.64 0.21 0.71 O4iNatureismorecomplexandmysteriousthananysingleperspectivecancapture 0.24 0.68 0.28 0.65 Epistemology1:Roleofscience
E1tWedependtoomuchonscienceandnotenoughonfaith 0.20 0.77 0.05 0.78 E1mScienceistheultimatesourceoftrustworthyknowledge 0.10 0.75 0.19 0.74 E1pMorality,art,andintuitionarejustasimportantasscienceforgainingknowledgeabouttheworld 0.08 0.60 0.02 0.58 E1iInordertocometoarealunderstandingoftheworld,scienceneedstobeintegratedwithotherformsofknowledge,suchasspiritual
insight
0.01 0.66 0.22 0.65
Epistemology2:Impactsofscienceandtechnology
E2tOneofthenegativeeffectsofscienceandtechnologyisthatitbreaksdownpeople’sideasofrightandwrong 0.42 0.66 0.29 0.69 E2mScienceandtechnologyaredefinitelymakingourliveshealthier,easier,andmorecomfortable 0.07 0.74 0.16 0.70 E2pScienceisoftencorruptedbyspecialinterests,suchasbigcorporations 0.18 0.65 0.05 0.73 E2iScienceandtechnologycanmakebeneficialcontributionswhensocietyisactivelyengagedwiththeimplicationsoftechnological
developments
0.17 0.59 0.07 0.62
Epistemology3:Authority—“WhenI’mforminganopiniononanissue...”
E3t ...Itendtotrusttraditionalorreligiousleaders 0.63 0.59 0.35 0.67 E3m ...Itendtotrustscientistsandotherexperts 0.03 0.56 0.21 0.61 E3p ...Itendtotrustmyownjudgment,feelings,andintuition 0.51 0.60 0.40 0.67 E3i ...Itrytohonorallperspectivesandcombinethemintoalargerwhole 0.14 0.56 0.16 0.62 Axiology1:Centralvalues—“Themostimportantthinginmylifeis...”
X1t ...tobeofservicetomyfamilyandcommunity/country 0.14 0.63 0.30 0.67 X1m ...tobesuccessfulandhavepeoplerecognizemyachievements 0.30 0.59 0.27 0.69 X1p ...todothingsmyownwayandforgemyownpathinlife 0.51 0.63 0.09 0.71 X1i ...toactualizemyinnerpotentialandtherebyservethe(cultural)evolutionofhumanity 0.35 0.60 0.13 0.63 Axiology2:Centralvalues—“Itisveryimportanttome...”
X2t ...toadaptmyselftoothersandbehaveappropriatelyandsocially 0.08 0.73 0.13 0.71 X2m ...tohaveenoughmoneytohaveanddonicethings 0.05 0.72 0.10 0.77 X2p ...tobeimaginativeandexpressmyselfinthewayIthinkandlive 0.17 0.64 0.19 0.64 X2i ...toexploremyinnerworldsoIcanlivefrommy‘true’or‘deeper’self 0.14 0.70 0.04 0.66 Axiology3:Centralethics—“Forme,toliveagoodlifeis ...”
X3t ...torespectthetraditionandhonormycommunity 0.22 0.66 0.06 0.66 X3m ...tobeindependentanddowhateverIenjoy 0.26 0.81 0.01 0.79 X3p ...tosupportthosewhoareoppressedanddominated 0.05 0.56 0.07 0.66 X3i ...tooffermyunique‘gifts’tothelargerwholeIampartof 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.70 Axiology4:Preferredlifestyle—“Istrivefor...”
X4t ...asober,simple,andhumblelifestyle 0.34 0.70 0.05 0.74 X4m ...acomfortableandfunlifestyle 0.41 0.71 0.20 0.69 X4p ...adiverseandexpressivelifestyle 0.10 0.64 0.21 0.72 X4i ...amorewholesomeandnaturallifestyle 0.03 0.56 0.06 0.60 Anthropology1:Self-identity
A1tWhoIamisdefinedbymyreligionandupbringing 0.07 0.74 0.01 0.79 A1mWhoIamisdefinedbymysocialpositionand/ormyachievements 0.09 0.73 0.19 0.70 A1pIfeeltobemoreacitizenoftheworldthanacitizenofacountry 0.04 0.65 0.02 0.63 A1iIfeelpartofthevastinterconnectedwholethatislifeandtheuniverse 0.02 0.70 0.18 0.66 Anthropology2:Thehumanbeing(excluded)
A2tThehumanbeingistheonlybeingonearthwithconsciousness 0.44 0.66 0.26 0.66 A2mHumanbehaviortendstoberationalandfunctional 0.03 0.59 0.18 0.61 A2pHumanbeingsthinkmostlyofthemselves 0.53 0.64 0.22 0.74 A2iIthinkhumanshaveanunlimitedpotential 0.06 0.57 0.22 0.67 Anthropology3:Thehuman-naturerelationship
A3tHumansshouldbehaveasprotectorsofcreation 0.06 0.71 0.23 0.67 A3mBymasteringnature,thehumanbeingcanfindfreedom 0.23 0.64 0.33 0.65 A3pThingsinnaturearegenerallymoreperfectthanthosemadebyhumans 0.45 0.65 0.24 0.68 A3iOnadeeplevel,Ifeeltobeonewithnature 0.28 0.57 0.14 0.66 Anthropology4:Interferenceinnature
1999)wasusedtosegmentparticipantsintofivedistinctclusters. Differencesbetweenclustersweresubstantiatedbydiscriminant analysis.
The criterion variables includedthree attitude scales, which werecheckedbyareliabilityanalysisandcorrelationanalysis.For reasonsofpresentation,themulti-itemscalesweretransformed intoz-scores(M=0, SD=1)sothat resultscouldbereportedin standarddeviationunits.Tofindouthowthefiveclusters were relatedtothecriterionvariablesthedifferencesinthemeanscores of the clusters on the criterion variables were compared for significantdifferences.One-wayANOVAswithBonferroni’spost hoctestwereusedforintervaldata;chisquarefordichotomous data(TabachnickandFidell,2007).
The same procedure was applied to examine differences between the clusters in the descriptive variables gender, age, andlevelofeducation.AllanalyseswereconductedwithSPSS21 forWindows.
3.Results
3.1.Theworldviewitemsandtheworldview-scales
Table2presentsanoverviewofalltheworldviewstatements (perset),andthemeanandstandarddeviationforeachitem,in bothsamples.Duetothetransformationoftheitemsintoa3-point scale,apositivemeanindicatesthattheitemwaschosenmore oftenasbest,ratherthanasworstitem.
Thereliabilityanalysisshowedthattwoofthenineteensetsof itemshadanegativeeffectonthewhole.Thesewerethe‘ontology 40 set, which described different views on nature (inspiredby CulturalTheory),aswellasthe‘anthropology20 set,whichgives differentperspectivesonthenatureofthehumanbeing.In our furtheranalysiswehaveexcludedthesetwosets.Then,wecreated
Tables3and4,whichshowthecorrelationsbetweeneachitemand therestofitsworldview-scaletakentogether,aswellasthealpha, mean,andstandarddeviationofthescaleasawhole,fortheDutch andtheAmericansample.
AswecanseeinTable3,whichportraystheresultsoftheDutch sample, the Cronbach’s alpha’s of the traditional and modern worldview-scales were fairlyhigh (0.88 and 0.80 respectively), whilethepostmodernandintegrativewereabitweaker(0.53and 0.62).However,consideringthebreadthoftheseworldviewsand thegreatvarietyintopicstheyarticulate,itisnotsurprisingthat correlationswerenotthathighingeneral,especiallywithrespect tothenewer,lesswell-knownandless-researchedworldviews.As
Table 4 shows, in theUS sample theCronbach’s alpha’s of the traditionalandmodernworldview-scaleswerealsodecentlyhigh (0.80and0.68respectively),whilethepostmodernandintegrative weresubstantiallyweaker (0.39and 0.45).Inboth samplesthe postmodernworldviewappearedtobetheleastdistinctiveand reliableofthefourworldviews.
Theresultsofthereliabilityanalysesagreedwiththeresultsof the multi-dimensional scale analysis (not shown here). This analysisvisualizedthepositionsofthe76itemsina multidimen-sionalspace;itseparatedthetraditionalandthemodernitemsin two homogeneous sets of items and the postmodern and the integrativeitemsintwolesshomogeneoussets.
AsalsoshowninTable3,thepostmodernworldviewhadthe highest mean, and thus was scored the highest by the Dutch population,whilethetraditionalworldviewhadthelowestmean, and thus was scored the lowest. The mean scoresof the four worldview-scales were substantially different in the American sample,wherethetraditionalworldviewscoredmuchhigherthan intheNetherlands,andthemodernworldviewscoredlower. 3.2.Cluster-analysis
Theresultsof thehierarchicalclusteranalysiswiththefour worldview-scalesasclusteringvariablessuggesteda five-cluster-solutionthatwastheoreticallymeaningful.Ineachcountry,four clusterscontainedparticipantswithapredominantworldviewas revealedbyhighscoresononeoftheworldview-scalesandlow scoresonatleastoneof theothers(see Tables5and 6,which Table2(Continued) Itemsa Dutch sample USAsample M SD M SD A4tWhenitcomestointerferingwithnature,mankindhasnorighttoplayGod 0.14 0.75 0.13 0.74
A4mHumanscanimproveonnature 0.14 0.74 0.24 0.67
A4pInterferingwithnatureisriskybecauseitmaybetoocomplexforustounderstand 0.07 0.65 0.04 0.66 A4iAwareoftheirdeepconnectedness,humansandnaturecanworktogetherinmutuallyenhancingways. 0.21 0.63 0.15 0.68 Anthropology5:Natureandroleofsuffering
A5tThesufferingthathappenstopeopleisthewillofGod 0.68 0.57 0.28 0.68 A5mThesufferingthathappenstopeopledoesnothavemeaningbutisrandom 0.21 0.65 0.13 0.66 A5pThesufferingintheworldiscreatedandmaintainedbyexistingpowerstructures 0.35 0.62 0.07 0.66 A5iIusethepainandsufferinginmylifeasopportunitiesforgrowthanddevelopment 0.11 0.49 0.34 0.68 Anthropology6:Natureofdeath
A6tInanafterlifewewillbepunishedorrewardedforouractionsinthislife 0.23 0.77 0.13 0.75 A6mIdon’tbelieveinanafterlifeofanyform 0.08 0.69 0.30 0.63 A6pIdon’tknowwhathappenstousafterwedie 0.42 0.58 0.23 0.67 A6iIbelieveinreincarnation—thatistosaythatwewillbebornagaininthisworldafterourdeath 0.11 0.60 0.06 0.65 Societalvision1:Relationshipindividual—society
S1tEachindividualneedstosacrificehis/herdesirestoservethecommunityandsocietyatlarge 0.39 0.62 0.32 0.64 S1mEverybodyneedstotakecareof,andstandupfor,oneself 0.14 0.71 0.14 0.71 S1pSocietyshouldofferdecentcareforeveryindividualinsociety 0.40 0.61 0.13 0.69 S1iWhenindividualsthriveandblossom,theynaturallystartworkingforabetterworldforall 0.12 0.63 0.05 0.68 Societalvision2:Societalaims—“Insociety...”
S2t ...weshouldhavegreaterrespectforreligiousauthorityandtradition 0.24 0.78 0.05 0.80 S2m ...weshouldplacemoreemphasisonscienceandtechnology 0.01 0.63 0.11 0.68 S2p ...weshouldplacemoreemphasisonart,culture,andmoraldevelopment 0.00 0.64 0.06 0.65 S2i ...weshouldplacemoreemphasisoninnergrowthandself-actualization 0.25 0.68 0.10 0.68
a
present the sizesof the different clustersand show how each clusterscoredonthefourworldview-scalesinbothsamples).
That is, the traditionalists scored high on the traditional worldviewand remarkablylow onthe modernworldview.The modernsscoredhighonthemodernworldview,andlowonthe traditionalone.Thepostmodernsscoredhighonthepostmodern worldview,andlowonthetraditionalone.Theintegrativesscored highontheintegrativeworldviewandlowonboththetraditional andthemodernone.Thefifthclustercontainedparticipantswith mixedscores:theystandoutbynotconsistentlyscoringhighor lowon anyof the fourworldview-scales.A linear discriminant functionthat wasused toclassify theparticipantsintothefive clustersshowedthatoverall97.2%oftheDutchsampleand97.5%of theAmericansamplewerecorrectlyclassified.
IntheDutchsample,themixedgroupscoredhighestonthe postmodernscale,witha meanscoreof2.14.Thismean islow
compared totheotherclusters,which allscoredatleast6.9on their‘own’(mostpopular)worldview—thatis,theworldviewwe namedtheclusterafter.Themixedclusterthusappearstoconsist ofindividualswhocannotbesatisfyinglycategorisedinthecurrent worldview-conceptualizationoftheIWF.Thisgroupisquitebigin both samples,with27%in theDutchand 28%in theAmerican sample.However,takingthem‘out’byascribingthemtothemixed cluster, rather than holding on to a categorization in four worldviews,resultsinamore‘pure’pictureofthefourworldviews, andthereforeamoreadequateresultoverall.
The cluster-analysis with results of the American sample showed thatathree-clustersolutionwould empiricallygivethe bestresults(with49%inatraditionalcluster,20%ina postmodern-integrativecluster,and 31%inamodern-mix cluster).However, becausewewantedtobeabletocomparetheresults,wechoosea five-cluster-solutionheretoo.Theoverallprofileislessdistinctive Table3
Scaledescriptors:correlationsbetweeneachitemandtherestofitsworldview-scale,alpha,MandSD,Dutchsample. Settowhichtheitembelongs Scales
Traditional Modern Postmodern Integrative
Ontology1:Metaphysics 0.69 0.37 0.25 0.21
Ontology2:Valuesofnature 0.77 0.32 0.19 0.17
Ontology3:Originoflife 0.72 0.52 0.10 0.13
Epistemology1:Howtoknow/roleofscience 0.62 0.61 0.20 0.32 Epistemology2:Impactsofscienceandtechnology 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.12
Epistemology3:Whathasauthority 0.57 0.32 0.15 0.19
Axiology1:Mostimportantinmylife 0.38 0.27 0.24 0.30
Axiology2:Centralvalues 0.20 0.41 0.21 0.26
Axiology3:Centralethics 0.48 0.52 0.01 0.33
Axiology4:Preferredlifestyle 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.27
Anthropology1:Self-identity 0.42 0.37 0.18 0.31
Anthropology3:Thehuman-naturerelationship 0.44 0.33 0.28 0.18 Anthropology4:Interferenceinnature 0.48 0.34 0.16 0.23 Anthropology5:Natureandroleofsuffering 0.38 0.31 0.16 0.10
Anthropology6:Natureofdeath 0.70 0.38 0.30 0.28
Societalvision1:Relationshipindividual—society 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.19
Societalvision2:societalaims 0.66 0.51 0.31 0.24
Alphaofthe17items 0.88 0.80 0.53 0.62
Scalemean 4.13 0.33 3.59 0.22
Standarddeviationofthescale 7.03 5.75 3.61 3.93
Boldvaluesaretheaggregatealpha’s,thealphaofthetotalofitems(sogivesmoreofanoverview).
Table4
Scaledescriptors:correlationsbetweeneachitemandtherestofitsworldview-scale,alpha,MandSD,USAsample. Settowhichtheitembelongs Scales
Traditional Modern Postmodern Integrative
Ontology1:Metaphysics 0.64 0.35 0.08 0.13
Ontology2:Valuesofnature 0.60 0.17 0.13 0.04
Ontology3:Originoflife 0.62 0.38 0.09 0.10
Epistemology1:Howtoknow/roleofscience 0.54 0.48 0.15 0.17 Epistemology2:Impactsofscienceandtechnology 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.20
Epistemology3:Whathasauthority 0.46 0.34 0.06 0.15
Axiology1:Mostimportantinmylife 0.34 0.25 0.19 0.22
Axiology2:Centralvalues 0.15 0.28 0.18 0.21
Axiology3:Centralethics 0.24 0.32 0.08 0.15
Axiology4:Preferredlifestyle 0.17 0.23 0.11 0.01
Anthropology1:Self-identity 0.52 0.31 0.15 0.16
Anthropology3:Thehuman-naturerelationship 0.11 0.26 0.05 0.13
Anthropology4:Interferenceinnature 0.35 0.21 0.14 0.18
Anthropology5:Natureandroleofsuffering 0.34 0.19 0.15 0.12
Anthropology6:Natureofdeath 0.47 0.24 0.17 0.16
Societalvision1:Relationshipindividual—society 0.17 0.05 0.10 0.12
Societalvision2:societalaims 0.60 0.42 0.14 0.18
Alphaofthe17items 0.80 0.68 0.39 0.45
Scalemean 0.26 2.04 1.25 1.06
Standarddeviationofthescale 5.97 4.76 3.47 3.57
duetotheweakpostmodernand integrativescales.Themixed clusterscoreshighestonthetraditionalscale,thoughstilllowwith ameanof0.71.Noteworthyisalsothattheintegrativeclusterdoes not score much higher on the integrative scale than on the postmodernone(4.61comparedwith2.47);however,likeinthe Dutchsample,theintegrativesdistinguishthemselvesbytheirlow scoreonthemodernscale(5.97).
InTables5and6wealsoshowsomeofthenotabledifferences betweenthe clustersin terms of descriptive variables, suchas genderandeducation.Intermsofgenderweseeinbothsamples thatmenappeartobemoreoftenfoundin themoderncluster, whilewomenaremoreoftenfoundinthetraditional,postmodern, andintegrativeclusters.Intermsofeducationwefind,alsoinboth samples,thathighlyeducatedindividualsaremoreoftenfoundin the modern, postmodern, and integrative clusters, while low educatedindividualsaremoreoftenfoundinthetraditionaland mixedclusters.However,notallofthesedifferenceswerefoundto besignificant.
3.3.Thefiveclustersandtheirrelationshipswithopinionsand behaviors
Thenweanalysedhowthedifferentclustersscoreondifferent variables, such as with respect to their political preferences, opinions,and environmental behaviors. The criterion variables includedoneattitudescale,namelythewillingnesstosaveenergy (5items,alpha=0.65intheDutchsampleand0.62intheAmerican sample).
Withrespecttopoliticalpriorities,wefindsubstantial differ-encesbetweenthefiveclusters(see Tables7 and8below).For example,while‘animalrights’wasintheDutchsamplechosenby
11%asatoppoliticalpriority,only1%ofthetraditionalistschose thisone,whilealmost24%oftheintegrativesdid.Notsurprisingly, moderns valued ‘economy and employment’ disproportionally high(66% mentioned it, compared withthe sample averageof 47%),whiletraditionalsfrequentlychose‘traditionalvalues’(52% comparedwiththesampleaverageof20%).Particularly integra-tives, but postmoderns as well, scored high on environment, sustainability,andclimatechange(52%and38%,comparedwith the sample average of 18%). In the American sample, these differencesareabitlesssharp,2thoughthegeneraltendenciesare
similar.Forexample,postmodernsandintegrativesscoredhighon environment, sustainability, and climate change(45% and 33%, compared with the American sample average of 22%), while traditionalsscoredhighontraditionalvalues(27%,incomparison withthesampleaverageof16%).
Severalvariableswereusedtomeasureopinionsandbehaviors regardingclimatechangeandenergysaving.Theclustersshowed different means with respect to the measure of the personal importanceofclimatechange:thelowestmeanwasfoundamong themoderns(Dutchsample)andthetraditionals(USAsample),the highest mean among the integratives (Dutch sample) and the postmodernsandintegratives(USAsample).Theitemsonclimate relatedbehaviorshowedthesamepatternsofresults.IntheDutch sample,thereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenthemoderns, whohadahighnumberof‘meatdays’(averageamountofdaysa weekofeatingmeat,whichisahigh-impactbehaviorintermsof climatechange) anda low levelof willingness tomake energy Table5
Differencesbetweentheclustersfortheclusteringvariables(worldviews)andthedescriptive(demographic)variables,Dutchsample. Traditional(n=80) Modern (n=116) Mixed (n=142) Postmodern (n=129) Integrative (n=59) Total (n=527)
Clustersize(in%) 15% 22% 27% 24% 11% 99%
Clusteringvariables
Meantraditionalscale 8.28 9.25 0.78 10.45 5.11 4.13 F=759,p<0.001 Meanmodernscale 7.02 7.67 0.08 1.66 6.09 0.33 F=420,p<0.001 Meanpostmodernscale 0.32 3.60 2.14 6.90 4.23 3.59 F=80,p<0.001 Meanintegrativescale 1.58a 2.02a 1.28a 1.90 6.98 0.22 F=141,p<0.001
Descriptivevariables
%female 56%a,b 37%b 48%a,b 55%a 56%a,b 50% Chi2=11.5,p<0.05
Meanage(years) 43a 41a 42a 43a 46a 42 F=1.4,p>0.05
%withhighereducation 24%a 31%a 18%a 31%a 32%a 32% Chi2=12.7,p>0.05
Note:Eachsubscriptletterdenotesasubsetofclusterswhosemeansorcolumnproportionsdonotdiffersignificantlyfromeachother(Bonferroni,p<0.05).Thetestresults areaffectedbythesizeoftheclusters.
Boldvaluesemphasizepercluster(traditional,modern,mixed,postmodern,integrative),theworldview-scaletheyscorehigheston,onaverage.
Table6
Differencesbetweentheclustersfortheclusteringvariablesandthedescriptivevariables,USAsample.
Traditional(n=154) Modern(n=78) Mixed(n=157) Postmodern(n=64) Integrative(n=103) Total(n=556)
Clustersize(in%) 28% 14% 28% 12% 19% 101%
Clusteringvariables
Meantraditionalscale 6.63 7.06 0.71 9.49 1.11 0.26 F=713,p<0.001 Meanmodernscale 5.84a 4.80 0.39 0.92 5.97a 2.04 F=283,p<0.001
Meanpostmodernscale 0.21a 2.15b 0.57a 6.12 2.47b 1.25 F=87,p<0.001
Meanintegrativescale 0.57a 0.11a 0.54a 4.29b 4.61b 1.06 F=93,p<0.001
Descriptivevariables
%female 56%a 37%a 45%a 54%a 54%a 50% Chi2=10.4,p<0.05
Meanage(years) 44a 38b,c 38b,c 41a,c 42a,c 40 F=5.9,p<0.001
%withhighereducation 49%a 62%a,b 51%a 75%b 71%b 58% Chi2=25.2,p<0.01
Note:Eachsubscriptletterdenotesasubsetofclusterswhosemeansorcolumnproportionsdonotdiffersignificantlyfromeachother(Bonferroni,p<0.05).Thetestresults areaffectedbythesizeoftheclusters.
Boldvaluesemphasizepercluster(traditional,modern,mixed,postmodern,integrative),theworldview-scaletheyscorehigheston,onaverage.
2
Forexample, in all clusters ‘economy and employment’ gotscored most frequentlyasoneofthreetoppoliticalpriorities(incontrastwiththeDutchsample, wherethesehighpercentageswereonlyfoundinthemoderncluster).
saving lifestyle changes, and the integratives, who had a low number of meat days and a highlevel of willingnessto make energy saving lifestyle changes. In the USA sample the main differencewas thatbetweenthetraditionalsor themixed(low levelofwillingnesstomakeenergysavinglifestylechanges),on theone hand,and thepostmoderns or theintegratives, onthe other(highlevel).
4.Discussion
In this section we provide a concise summary of the main results,afterwhichwewillreflectonthemeaningoftheseresults intermsof ourunderstandingofworldviews,aswellasonthe methodologicalshortcomingsofourapproach.Weconcludewith offeringsomesuggestionsforfutureresearch.
One of the main results of this study is that the four hypothesizedworldviews–thetraditional,modern,postmodern, andintegrativeworldview–wererecognizableinthedatawitha reasonabledegree of reliability,especially in theDutchsample (withalpha’srangingfrom0.88to0.53),andtoasomewhatlesser extentintheUSsample(withalpha’srangingfrom0.80to0.39).If weconsiderthebreadthoftopicsincludedintheseworldviews– fromviewsonnaturetoideasabout deathandsuffering, from personalvaluestoideasaboutscience–thesealpha’sarearguably asatisfyingoutcome,suggestiveofthegeneralconstructvalidityof theIWF.Moreover,thesignificanceoftheseresultsisstrengthened by the finding of fairly consistent relationships between the worldviewclustersandarangeofopinions,politicalpriorities,and environmentalbehaviors,inbothsamples.
Thatis, we found significantly more concern about climate changeandmorepoliticalsupportforaddressingit,aswellasmore sustainable behaviors, among postmoderns and integratives, compared with moderns and traditionals. For example, post-modernsandintegrativesreportedtoconsumesignificantlyless meat in the Dutch sample and showed significantly more willingnesstosaveenergyinbothsamples.IntheDutchsample, particularlytheintegrativesscoredhighonthedifferent environ-mentalmeasures:morethanhalfofthemchoose‘environment,
climate change, and sustainability’ as one of their three top politicalpriorities,theyhadthelowestmeannumberofmeatdays per week,thehighest ratingof personalimportance ofclimate change,andthehighestwillingnesstosaveenergy.3Thus,bothin
termsoftheneedforpublicsupportforpolicychanges,aswellas forchangesinindividualbehaviors,thesetwoworldviewsseemto bekey.However,inbothcountriestherearemoretraditionalsand modernscombined(37%intheNetherlands,42%intheUSA)than there are postmoderns and integratives combined (35% in the Netherlands, 31%in theUSA), potentiallyexplainingwhy there currentlyisinsufficientsupportforfar-reachingactiononclimate change. Concluding,we argue that thestudy hassucceeded in advancing ouraimofdeveloping acomprehensive worldviews-scale,abletoquantitativelydistinguishbetweenthesefourmajor, theorizedworldviews,andilluminatetheirinterfacewiththeissue ofclimatechange.Ofcourse,thisworldview-scalecanbefurther improvedinfutureresearch,whichwewilldiscussbelow.
Interestingly,in bothsamplesthetraditional worldviewwas (statistically) most reliable and the postmodern least reliable. Conceptuallythat makes sense,as the traditional worldview is fairlyclearandpredefined,asittendstosubscribetoasetofbeliefs generallyprescribedbytraditionalauthorities,inwhichindividual reflection and critical thinking are frequently discouraged. In contrast,thepostmodernworldviewismoreambiguous,complex, and fragmented in its nature, often rejecting imposed belief-structuresaltogetherandreplacingthemwithhighlyindividuated, varied, and idiosyncratic constructions of meaning. Think of
Lyotard’s (1984) definition of postmodernism as ‘incredulity towardsmetanarratives.’Someauthorsalsospeakofatendency towardsanincreasing“internalizationofauthority”(Inglehartand Welzel,2005).Furthermore,historicallyspeakingthetraditional worldviewistheoldestandthereforeprobablymoreconsolidated and sedimented (perhaps due to long-term structuration and institutionalization processes), while the newer worldviews, havingmorerecentlyemerged,tendtohaveamoredifferential, dynamicexpression(Esbjörn-HargensandWilber,2006).
In the Dutch sample, the postmodern worldview had the highestmean(3.59),andthuswasscoredthehighest,whilethe Table7
Differencesbetweentheclustersforthecriterionvariables,Dutchsample. Traditional (n=80) Modern (n=116) Mixed (n=142) Postmodern (n=129) Integrative (n=59) Total (n=527) Chosenasoneofthreepoliticalpriorities
Economy,employment 38%a 66%b 34%a 51%a,b 42%a 47% Chi2=30.7,
p<0.001 Education 20%a 45%b 24%a 37%a,b 25%a,b 31% Chi2=21.0,
p<0.001 Environment,climatechange 18%a 13%a 10%a 38%b 52%b 18% Chi2=66.5,
p<0.001 Traditionalvalues 52%a 10%b 25%c 5%b 15%b,c 20% Chi2=79.6,
p<0.001 Animalrights 1%a 11%a,b 9%a,b 12%b 24%b 11% Chi2=18.6,
p<0.01 Meannumberofmeatdays(perweek) 4.8a,b 5.3b 5.0a,b 4.5a 3.6c 4.7 F=9.9,p<0.001
Meanratingpersonalimportanceofclimate change(z-score)
0.13a 0.30b,c 0.10b,c 0.12a,b 0.41a 0.00 F=6.7,p<0.001
Meanwillingnesstosaveenergy(z-score) 0.02a 0.38b 0.20a,b 0.26a,c 0.62c 0.00 F=14.7,p<0.001
Note:Eachsubscriptletterdenotesasubsetofclusterswhosemeansorcolumnproportionsdonotdiffersignificantlyfromeachother(Bonferroni,p<0.05).Thetestresults areaffectedbythesizeoftheclusters.
3Thisisanotablefindingthatshouldbeexploredfurther,especiallysinceseveral
scholars have made the argument that this worldview may be particularly importantinaddressingourenvironmentalchallenges(e.g.,Brown,2012a,b;De Witt,2015;Esbjörn-HargensandZimmerman,2009;Hedlund-deWitt,2014a;Van EgmondandDeVries,2011).
traditionalworldviewhadthelowestmean(4.13),andthuswas scoredthelowest.Thisisnotsurprisinginanon-traditional, post-secular,progressive,andegalitariancountryliketheNetherlands (seee.g.,Hofstede,1984;Inglehart,2008;Inglehartand Welzel, 2005).This finding mayalso contributeto explaining whythe postmodernworldviewhadthelowestreliability,asthis world-viewin general finds much responsiveness in theNetherlands, thereforemakingitlessdistinctive.Thatis,theitemsrepresenting this worldview mayreflectopinions that manypeople tend to agreewith–eveniftheydonotreflecttheirdeeper worldview-commitments–becausetheyarepartoftheculturalnormand conventionalstandard.4
Themeanscoresof thefourworldview-scaleswere substan-tially different in the American sample, where the traditional worldviewscoredmuchhigherthanintheNetherlands(0.26), andthemodernworldviewscoredlower(2.04).Alsothisfinding isnotsurprisingastheinfluenceoftraditionalismandtraditional religionintheUSAiswidelyreportedtobemuchstrongerthanin most other Western societies (Aldridge, 2002; Inglehart and Welzel, 2005). However, also in the USA the postmodern worldview is the “most popular one,” that is, gets scored the highestonaverage (1.25),even though stillsubstantially lower thanintheNetherlands.
Themean oftheintegrativescaleintheUSAwasquite high (1.06),whichwealsoseeinanunexpectedlylargeclustersize(19%, comparedwith11%intheNetherlands)oftheintegrativecluster. However,thismaybeascribedtomethodologicalshortcomingsof theparticular formulationof theitemsofthis worldview-scale. That is, the American ‘integratives’ may in fact be a mix of integratives,traditionals,andparticularlypostmoderns,thescale thusbeingunabletoadequatelydistinguishbetweenthesegroups. Thisseemslikelyastheintegrativescalewasnotthatstronginthe USA(alphaof0.45),andtheintegrativeclusterdidnotscoremuch higherontheintegrativescalethanonthepostmodernone.This less distinctive nature of the American integrative cluster compared with the Dutch one may be partially explained by historical-cultural differences between the two countries. For example,inarelativelymorereligiouscountryliketheUSAterms as“spiritual”and“Spirit”arelikelytohaveamuchbroaderappeal amongdifferentworldview-groups,astheyarepartofacommon
culture, rhetoric, and narrative. In contrast, in a secularized countryliketheNetherlandssuchterminology is abletospeak morepreciselytoaparticularworldview-group(i.e.,anintegrative one).Thatis, whereastraditionalsandpostmoderns intheUSA may also tend to identify with such terminology, in the Netherlands it tends to be associated with a rather specific post-secular, spiritual subculture that traditionalists and post-moderns are less likely to identify with, and may even have aversionto.
Inaddition,wefound,inbothsamples,asubstantial‘mixed’ cluster,consistingofindividualsthatcouldnotbeclassifiedinto oneofthefourworldviews.These‘mixed’individualsmaynotbe asconsistentintheirthinkingaboutlife,theworld,nature,and society,andthereforenoteasytoclassifyinoneoftheworldviews. Theymayalsobegenerallylessself-reflexive,andthereforeless aware of, and thus less able to adequately articulate, their worldview-assumptions. Alternatively, it is possible that they maysubscribetoanentirelydifferentworldview-structurethatwe havenotadequatelyprobedfor.Thisraisesquestionsforfurther research,suchasabouthowtoincludenon-theorizedworldviews. Simultaneously, results out of step with the parsimonious categoriesofpredefinedworldview-structuresaretobeexpected, especiallywhenquantitativelymeasured,astheseworldviewsare ofanideal-typicalnature,referringto‘puretypes’thatassuchare notexpectedtoexistinsocialreality.
A close inspection of the different worldviews, their mean scores,andtherelativesizesofthedifferentclusters,revealsthe sensitivity of the exact languaging of the different worldview-items.Thisraisesalargermethodologicalconcern.Thatis,evenif we are able to develop a worldview-instrument that is cross-culturaltoacertaindegree,moreworkisneededtocalibratethe preciselanguageusedindifferentcountries.Thisisduetothefact thatthesamewords(orsignifiers)andtheirstandardtranslations often have very different meanings (or referents) in different culturalmilieus.Thus,infuturestudiespilotresearchwillneedto beconductedinordertocalibratethelanguageandframingofthe items so as to achieve a high degree of “referential overlap” (Bhaskar,1979/[Bhaskar, 1979]2015). This point of attention is underscoredbythesubstantialdifferenceinthereliabilityscores betweenthetwosamples,whichmaybeexplainedinpartbythe factthatapre-testwasdoneintheNetherlands.Thisallowedusto refine our language and reformulate the statements in direct response to the answers of the Dutch participants, while this calibrationprocedurewasomittedintheUSA.
Table8
Differencesbetweentheclustersforthecriterionvariables,USAsample. Traditional (n=154) Modern (n=78) Mixed (n=157) Postmodern (n=64) Integrative (n=103) Total (n=556) Chosenasoneofthreepoliticalpriorities
Economy,employment 54%a,b 59%a,b 51%b 48%a,b 70%a 56% Chi2=11.4,
p<0.05 Education 22%a 40%a,b 26%a,b 42%b 39%b 31% Chi2=16.8,
p<0.01 Environment,climatechange 9%a 24%b,c 18%a,c 45%b 33%b 22% Chi2=43.7,
p<0.001 Traditionalvalues 27%a 6%b 13%b 6%b 16%a,b 16% Chi2=24.1,
p<0.001 Animalrights 9%a 13%a 11%a 14%a 10%a 11% Chi2=1.7,
p>0.05 Meannumberofmeatdays(perweek) 5.0a 5.0a 4.6a 4.6a 4.5a 4.7 F=1.6,p>0.05
Meanratingpersonalimportanceofclimate change(z-score)
0.21a 0.02a,b 0.03a,b 0.19a,b 0.25b 0.00 F=3.6,p<0.01
Meanwillingnesstosaveenergy(z-score) 0.10a 0.02a,b 0.22a 0.25a,b 0.33b 0.00 F=6.4,p<0.001
Note:Eachsubscriptletterdenotesasubsetofclusterswhosemeansorcolumnproportionsdonotdiffersignificantlyfromeachother(Bonferroni,p<0.05).Thetestresults areaffectedbythesizeoftheclusters.
4
Thedominantworldviewinagiventimeandplacewilllikelyfunctionasthe normorconventionalstandard,resultinginotherworldview-structurespotentially adoptingsurfacefeaturesofthisdominantworldview.
Anotherlimitationisthesamplesize.Althoughsamplesizesof 500 are acceptable for the statistical analyses reported here (Hogartyetal.,2005),broaderhypothesistestingrequiresalarger samplesize.
5.Conclusion
Inthisstudy,weendeavoredtoadvancethedevelopmentofan empirical measure of worldviews and their ecological implica-tions,usingthetheoreticalIntegrativeWorldviewFramework(IWF). While there are several avenues for improvement in future research, including pilot researchaimed at culturally sensitive language-testingandrefinement,theresultsshowthatwehave takenanimportantsteptowardthedevelopmentofavalid,reliable worldview-instrument.TheIWF’sfourworldviewswerefoundin thedatawithareasonabledegreeofreliability,especiallyinthe Dutch sample, as were consistent relationships between these worldview-clustersandarangeofopinions,politicalpriorities,and behaviors. In both countries postmoderns and integratives displayedsubstantially moreconcernaboutclimatechangeand moresustainablebehaviors,comparedwithmodernsand tradi-tionals.
Theimplicationsofthedevelopmentofthis(relativelysimple and easy-to-use) worldview tool for social scienceat largeare marked, as differences in worldviews are a crucial social phenomenonundergirdingmanykeysocietaldebates,including those on global environmental challenges like climate change. Thus,byprovidingempiricalsubstantiationandvalidationofthese worldviews, we can more precisely understand the clash of perspectivesinpublicdebates,includinghowvarioustensionsand allianceswithinsociety(e.g.,theso-called‘culturewars’)function. Based on such understanding,the conditions for more mutual understandingacrossworldviewscan becreated through com-munications and policiesthat findcommon ground and aspire win–winsynergies(seeDeWittandHedlund,inpress).
Lastly,thesefindingsarealsorelevantforpolicyandleadership. Thepostmodern and integrativeworldviewsstandout, in both samples,asbeingmoreconcernedaboutclimatechange,andmore willing to make, and politically support, changes. This study therefore suggests that these worldview-groups are important allies in addressing climatechange. Various strategies may be employedtoemboldenthem intheirsocio-politicalagencyand abilitytoinfluencedominantstructuresthatreinforceunmitigated climatechange.Policy-makers and social changeagents should therefore paycareful attention totheseworldviews, using this knowledgetospeaktothem,drawsupportfromthem,marketto them,andhelpcreatetheconditionsfortheirgrowth.However,as traditional and modern worldviewsare currentlysupportedby largerpercentagesinbothcountries,policy-makersandleadersin thefieldofclimatechangemaysimultaneouslyneedtolearnto speakinmoreeffectivewaystosegmentsofthepopulationthat hold worldviews that are inherently less motivated to behave climate-friendlyorvoteforaddressingclimatechange,aswellas developandsupportprogramsandpoliciesthatfacilitatechanges inworldview(seeforexampleClarke-Habibi,2005;Nagata,2004; Schlitzetal.,2010).
Acknowledgements
ThisresearchhasbeensupportedbyBE-BASIC.The BE-Basic Foundation is an international public-private partnership that develops industrial biobased solutions to build a sustainable society (http://www.be-basic.org). This projectwas carried out undertheFlagship“EmbeddingBiobasedEconomyinSociety”of the BE-Basic program, funded by the Dutch Government FES
program. We acknowledge the BE-Basic Foundation for its generoussupportofthisresearch.
References
Aldridge,A.,2002.ReligionintheContemporaryWorld.ASociologicalIntroduction. PolityPress,Cambridge.
Bhaskar,Roy,(1979/2015).ThePossibilityofNaturalism:AphilosophicalCritiqueof theContemporaryHumanSciences.Routledge,London.
Brown,BarrettC.,2012a.ConsciousLeadershipforSustainability:HowLeaderswith Late-stageAction-logicsDesignandEngageinSustainbility-initiatives(Ph.D. Dissertation).FieldingGraduateUniversity,SantaBarbara.
BrownBarrett,BarrettC.,2012b.Leadingcomplexchangewithpost-conventional consciousness.J.Organiz.ChangeManage.25(4),560–575.
Brown,KirkWarren,Ryan,RichardM.,Creswell,J.David,Christopher,P.,2008. Beyondme:mindfulresponsestosocialthreat.In:Wayment,H.A.,Bauer,J.J. (Eds.),TranscendingSelf-Interest:PsychologicalExplorationsoftheQuietEgo. AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C,pp.75–84.
CBS,2012.ICT,kenniseneconomie2012DenHaag.
Clarke-Habibi,Sara,2005.Transformingworldviews:thecaseofeducationfor peaceinBosniaandHerzegovina.J.Transform.Edu.3(1),33–56.
DeWitt,Annick,2015.Climatechangeandtheclashofworldviews.Anexploration ofhowtomoveforwardinapolarizeddebate.Zygon:J.Relig.Sci.50(4),906– 921.
DeWitt,Annick,Hedlund,Nicholas,H.,(inpress).Towardsanintegralecologyof worldviews:Reflexivecommunicationsforclimatesolutions.Integral ecologies:Culture,nature,knowledge,andourplanetaryfuture.SUNYPress. NewYork.
DeWitt,Annick,Patricia,Osseweijer,Robin,Pierce,2015.Understandingpublic perceptionsofbiotechnologythroughthe‘IntegrativeWorldviewFramework’. PublicUnderst.Sci.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592364.
Esbjörn-Hargens,Sean,Wilber,Ken,2006.Towardsacomprehensiveintegrationof scienceandreligion:apost-metaphysicalapproach.In:Clayton,P.,Simpson,Z. (Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofReligionandScience.OxfordUniversityPress, NewYork.
Esbjörn-Hargens,Sean,Zimmerman,MichaelE.,2009.IntegralEcology:Uniting MultiplePerspectivesontheNaturalWorld.IntegralBooks,Boston.
Giddens,A.,2009.Sociology,sixthed.PolityPress,Cambridge.
Habermas,Jürgen,1976.CommunicationandtheEvolutionofSociety.Translated andwithanIntroductionbyThomasMcCarthy.BeaconPress,Boston.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,2012.Exploringworldviewsandtheirrelationshipsto sustainablelifestyles:towardsanewconceptualandmethodologicalapproach. Ecol.Econ.84,74–83.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,2013a.WorldviewsandtheTransformationto SustainableSocieties:AnExplorationoftheCulturalandPsychological DimensionsofOurGlobalEnvironmentalChallenges(Ph.D.).VUUnivesitty.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,2013b.Worldviewsandtheirsignificancefortheglobal sustainabledevelopmentdebate.Environ.Ethics35(2),133–162.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,2014a.Theintegrativeworldviewanditspotentialfor sustainablesocieties:aqualitativeexplorationoftheviewsandvaluesof environmentalleaders.Worldviews:GlobalRelig.Cult.Ecol.18,191–229.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,2014b.Rethinkingsustainabledevelopment:considering howdifferentworldviewsenvisiondevelopmentandqualityoflife. Sustainability6(11),8310–8328.
Hedlund-deWitt,Annick,DeBoer,Joop,Boersema,JanJ.,2014.Exploringinnerand outerworlds:aquantitativestudyofworldviews,environmentalattitudes,and sustainablelifestyles.J.Environ.Psychol.37,40–54.
Hofstede,Geert,1984.Culture’sConsequences.Sage,NewburyPark.
Hogarty,K.Y.,Hines,C.V.,Kromrey,J.D.,Ferron,J.M.,Mumford,K.R.,2005.The qualityoffactorsolutionsinexploratoryfactoranalysis:theinfluenceofsample size,communality,andoverdetermination.Educ.Psychol.Meas.65(2),202– 226.
Hulme,Mike,2009.WhyWeDisagreeAboutClimateChange:Understanding Controversy,InactionandOpportunity.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Hulme,Mike,2011.Commentary:meetthehumanities.Nat.Clim.Change1,177– 179.
Hulme,Mike,2013.ExploringClimateChangeThroughScienceandinSociety. Routledge,NewYork.
Inglehart,RonaldF.,1997.ModernizationandPostmodernization:Cultural, Economic,andPoliticalChangein43Societies.PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton.
Inglehart,RonaldF.,2008.ChangingvaluesamongWesternpublicsfrom1970to 2006.WestEur.Polit.31(1–2),130–146.
Inglehart,RonaldF.,Welzel,Christian,2005.Modernization,CulturalChange,and Democracy:TheHumanDevelopmentSequence.CambridgeUniversityPress, NewYork.
Jain,A.K.,Murty,M.N.,Flynn,P.J., 1999.Dataclustering:areview.ACMComput.Surv. (CSUR)31(3),264–323.
Kahan,DanM.,Braman,Donald,Cohen,GeoffreyL.,Gastil,John,Slovic,Paul,2010. WhofearstheHPVvaccine,whodoesn’t,andwhy?Anexperimentalstudyof themechanismsofculturalcognition.LawHum.Behav.34(6),501–516.
Kahan,DanM.,Peters,E.,Wittlin,M.,Slovic,Paul,LarrimoreOulette,L.,Braman,D., Mandel,G.,2012.Thepolarizingimpactofscienceliteracyandnumeracyon
perceivedclimatechangerisks.Nat.Clim.Change2(732–735) doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1547.
Lyotard,Francois,1984.ThePostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge. UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.
Lee,JulieAnne,Geoffrey,Soutar,Louviere,Jordan,2008.Thebest–worstscaling approach:analternativetoSchwartz'svaluessurvey.J.Pers.Assess.90(4),335– 347.
Leiserowitz,Anthony,Maibach,E.,RoserRenouf,C.,2013.GlobalWarming’sSix Americas.YaleUniversityandGeorgeMasonUniversity,NewHaven,CT.
Nagata,AdairLinn,2004.Promotingself-Reflexivityininterculturaleducation.J. Intercult.Commun.8,139–167.
Nisbet,M.C.,Hixon,M.A.,Mooew,K.D.,Nelson,M.,2010.Fourcultures:new synergiesforengagingsocietyonclimatechange.Front.Ecol.Environ.8(6), 329–331.
O’Brien,KarenL.,2009.Dovaluessubjectivelydefinethelimitstoclimatechange adaptation?In:Adger,W.N.,Lorenzoni,I.,O’Brien,K.L.(Eds.),Adaptingto ClimateChange:Thresholds,Values,Governance.CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
O’Brien,KarenL.,Wolf,Johanna,2010.Avalues-basedapproachtovulnerabilityand adaptationtoclimatechange.WIREsClim.Change1,232–242.
Peterson,R.A.,1994.Ameta-analysisofCronbach'scoefficientalpha.J.Consum.Res. 21,381–391.
Rosenbaum,P.R.,Rubin,P.D.,1983.Thecentralroleofthepropensityscorein observationalstudiesforcausaleffects.Biometrika70,41–55.
Sarewitz,Daniel,2004.Howsciencemakesenvironmentalcontroversiesworse. Environ.Sci.Policy7,385–403.
Schlitz,MarilynMandala,Vieten,Cassandra,Miller,ElizabethM.,2010.Worldview transformationandthedevelopmentofsocialconsciousness.J.Conscious.Stud. 17(7–8),18–36.
Tabachnick,B.G.,Fidell,L.S.,2007.UsingMultivariateStatistics,5thed.Pearson/ AllynandBacon,Boston,MA.
Tarnas,Richard,1991.Thepassionofthewesternmind.UnderstandingtheIdeas ThatHaveShapedOurWorldView.BallantineBooks,NewYork.
Taylor,Charles,1989.SourcesoftheSelf.TheMakingoftheModernIdentity. HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Thompson,M.,Ellis,R.J.,Wildavsky,A.,1990.CulturalTheory.WestviewPress, Oxford.
VanEgmond,Klaas,DeVries,BertJ.M.,2011.Sustainability:thesearchforthe integralworldview.Futures43,853–867.