MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056240825 · doi:10.1108/07363760510605317

Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro‐environmental behaviors

2005· article· en· W2056240825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Marketing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlGeneralizability theoryPsychologyStructural equation modelingPersonalitySocial psychologyAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Big Five personality traitsEnvironmental designMarketingDevelopmental psychologyBusinessEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this research was to examine the impact of various attitudes and personality characteristics on environmentally‐friendly behaviors, from a locus of control (LOC) perspective. Specifically, we developed and tested a model linking a related construct, environmental locus of control (ELOC), to a series of pro‐environmental behaviors. Design/methodology/approach The context related to various personal and household behaviors vis‐à‐vis the environment, and the subject pool consisted of a diverse group of urban consumers. A survey was employed to measure various attitudinal and personality variables corresponding to internal/external locus of control, as well as a battery of pro‐environmental behaviors. The research propositions were tested using a structural equation modeling approach. Findings We found four distinct dimensions of ELOC, two of which relate to an external LOC (“biospheric‐altruism” and “corporate skepticism”) and the other two relate to an internal LOC (“economic motivation” and “individual recycling efforts”). We then linked these four dimensions to a variety of pro‐environmental behaviors. Highly variable patterns were obtained, with different dimensions assuming a greater or lesser impact, or no role at all, depending on the specific behavior under analysis. Research limitations/implications Generalizability of the findings is limited due to the sample (urban consumers from one major city), and the method employed (validity of self‐report measures and the non‐experimental nature of the field study). Practical implications Our findings highlight the importance of considering the specificity of pro‐environmental behaviors, when assessing the antecedent roles of pro‐environmental attitudes/dispositions, which are in‐and‐of‐themselves, complex and multidimensional. Originality/value In this era of environmental degradation, researchers, managers, and public policy makers alike need to consider that pro‐environmental attitudes are composed of multiple dispositional facets, and that the role of these facets is highly context‐specific.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it