environmentalism feminism and_gender

Environmentalism, Feminism, and Gender

D. Clayton Smith, Western Kentucky Universiw

Although social scientists have written much recently about environmentalism, feminism, and gender, insufficient systematic examination of their interrelations has been done. The lack of adequate research on links among these three concepts limits their usefulness for both grassroots mobilization efforts and general theory development. The present exploratory study surveys a college student sample (N = 393) clarifying the relationships between liberal environmentalism, gender, and feminism. Relationship between feminism and attitudes toward human use of the environment and between gender and environmental regulation are found suppressed by a relationship between feminism and environmentalism. Although tentative, these findings suggest new directions for the study of ecofeminism.

Interest in the relationships among gender, feminism, and environmentalism is at an all-time high, yet research examining the interconnections of these three concepts is split into two distinct intellectual traditions. One body of work, developed within feminist philosophy, details the theoretical relationship between feminism and environmentalism but has done little research concerning individual understanding and acceptance of this link. The other research tradition, employed by environmental social scientists, addresses the relationship between gender and environmentalism but has habitually slighted the association between feminism and environmentalism. This exploratory study strives to bridge the gap between these research streams by attending to the interrelationships among environmentalism, gender, and feminism.

The first of the two intellectual traditions, called ecological feminism or ecofeminism, is a philosophy that connects the patriarchal domination of women with the patriarchal domination of nature (Merchant 1992; Warren 1990). Since the original conceptualization of ecofeminism in the 1970s, major emphasis has been placed on delineating the interconnections between these two forms of domination. To this en4 feminists have created several variants of ecofeminism, each with its own perspective on how and why these dominations occur and what measures are necessary to achieve a more feminist and environmentally oriented society (Lahar 199 1 ; Merchant 1992; Sturgeon 1997). Ecofeminists believe that by describing these ecofeminist variants they provide a better understanding of

SociologicalInquiry, Vol. 71, No. 3, Summer 2001, 314-34 02001 by the University of Texas Press, PO. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

ENVIRONMENTALISM, FEMINISM, AND GENDER 3 15

the current forms of domination and a foundation on which individuals can build a deeper environmental and feminist ethic (Davion 1994).

Connecting ecofeminist critiques to political action has been another major emphasis for ecofeminists (Sturgeon 1997). For instance, some ecofeminists have attempted to use ecofeminism to account for social movement participation (Bantjes and Trussler 1999; Lahar 1991; Peterson and Merchant 1986; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997; Sturgeon 1997). The idea that ecofeminism aids in movement mobilization, however, is not accepted universally. Many activists and scholars argue that the union of environmentalism and feminism actually serves to weaken both movements and to continue patriarchal domination (Biehl 1991; Cameron 1989; King 1981). These scholars note that environmental activists, especially female activists, fear the public’s perception of feminist and ecofeminist labels (Jacobson 1979, 1981; Merchant 1992).’ Other activists argue that waiting for ecofeminist scholars to elaborate theoretical positions can inhibit social movement action (Alldred and Dennison 2000).

From a social movement perspective, the success of ecofeminist perspectives in social movement mobilization hinges, in part, on whether actors make a connection between their attitudes toward the environment and their attitudes toward women and women’s roles in society. If individuals do perceive a connection between environmentalism and feminism, the use of ecofeminist rhetoric and symbols by social movement organizations should work to align potential participant’s frames with those of the social movement organization and increase movement mobilization (Eyerman and Jamison 1991 ; Snow, Rochford, Worden, Benford 1986). Unfortunately, while ecofeminist scholars have worked to understand and document their paradigms historically, experientially, symbolically, and theoretically, their research has not empirically linked individuals’ environmental attitudes with their attitudes toward feminism.

The other main research tradition, the gender differences literature, developed from environmental social scientists, attempts to discover the social bases for environmental concern. The gender differences literature consists of a body of empirical research concerning the relationship between gender and environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. While the gender differences literature complements the ecofeminist tradition by focusing on empirical relationships, the research in this tradition examining general environmental concern among American adults has not consistently supported a gender difference.2

Looking at the studies of gender differences on general environmental concern in America, three studies of general environmental attitudes have found men more environmentally concerned than women (Arcury 1990; Arcury, Scollay, and Johnson 1987; MacDonald and Hara 1994; McEvoy 1972), while a number of other researchers conclude that at least modest support exists for the hypothesis that women are more concerned than men (Blocker and Eckberg

316 D. CLAYTON SMITH

1989, 1997; Borden and Schettino 1979; Cornwell 1988; Flynn, Slovic, and Mertz 1994; Gifford, Hay, and Boros 1982; Hamilton 1985; Hausbeck, Milbrath, and Enright 1992; Lowe, Pinhey, and Grimes 1980; Lowe and Pinhey 1982; McStay and Dunlap 1983; Mitchell 1979; Ozanne, Humphrey, and Smith 1999; Schahn and Holzer 1990; Shapiro and Mahajan 1986; Steger and Witt 1988; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993). However, the finding of no relationship between gender and environmental attitudes is nearly as prevalent in the literature as the fhding of a gender difference. In the first review of the literature concerning gender differences in environmentalism, Van Liere and Dunlap (1 980) tentatively conclude gender is not associated with general environmental concern. Since their initial review of the literature, several other studies have also shown no significant gender differences regarding environmental concern among American adults (Arcury and Christianson 1993; Austin and Woolever 1994; Blum 1987; Dunlap and Mertig 1997; Kanagy, Humphrey, and Firebaugh 1994; McCallum 1991 ; Mohai 199 1 ; Scott and Willits 1993; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997; Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano 1995; Thompson and Gasteiger 1985).

Moreover, in their attempts to understand the seemingly fickle relationship between gender and environmentalism, environmental social scientists have ne- glected the study of the relationships between feminism and environmentalism. To date, only one published study has examined this link.3 In their study using items from the American National Election Study of 1992, Somma and Tolleson- Rinehart (1997) find that feminism, not sex, was the significant influence on American environmental attitudes. While these results tentatively support the use of ecofeminism as a tool for movement mobilization, the small number of items measuring feminism and environmental concern and the low reliability (a = .49) of the environmentalism scale encourage further inquiries (Somma and Tolleson- Rinehart 1997, p. 164).

To summarize, feminist scholars have striven to delineate the relationship between gender, feminism, and the environment at a theoretical level; however, their work sheds little empirical light on whether individuals perceive a relationship between attitudes toward feminism and attitudes toward environmentalism. Over the same period environmental researchers have failed to find a consistent relationship between gender and general environmentalism. Moreover, little research has been done to empirically examine interconnections between gender, environmentalism, and feminism. This is, in part, due to the fact that environmental social scientists have been preoccupied with the relationship between gender and environmentalism. The researchers working within the gender differences tradition have consistently failed to note that being female is not a suffi- cient condition for holding environmental, feminist, or ecofeminist value orientations. Although women are probably more likely to have ecofeminist beliefs and attitudes (i.e., more likely to link environmental and female domination)


because they are more likely to perceive sexual discrimination, social scientists should expect no one-to-one correspondence to exist between gender and environmentalism, just as no one-to-one correspondence exists between gender and feminism (Smith 1993; S o m a and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). Instead of focusing on the essentialist relationship between gender and environmental concern, environmental social scientists need to spend more time examining the interrelationships among environmentalism, feminism, and gender if they want to advance their understanding of the social bases of environment concern and explore the effectiveness of ecofeminism (Mellor 1997; Sturgeon 1997, p. 179).

Methods

Data for this exploratory study were collected via a self-administered questionnaire. The survey was administered to a convenience sample consisting of three introductory social psychology classes, a social problems class, and one class on sex roles at a large state university. These sources provided 393 usable responses with 254 respondents (64.6%) being female and 139 (35.9%) being male.4

Instead of attempting to create a new index to measure ecofeminism as an ideology, the current exploratory research explored the interrelationships among gender and existing measures of environmentalism and feminism. The survey instrument included six indices of environmentalism and one index of attitudes toward feminism. Each of these indices were constructed through factor analysis by standardizing and summing the items relevant to each scale weighted by their factor score coefficients.

As previously noted, scholars have developed many variants of ecofeminism. Scholars have often grouped these different variants of feminism and environmentalism into four main paradigms (liberal, Marxist, culturalhadical, and socialist), although some theorists question the continued usefulness of this cat- egorization (Jaggar and Rothenberg 1984; Merchant 1992; Ozanne and Humphrey 1994; Sturgeon 1997; Warren 1987). While each paradigm is a viable ecofeminist perspective worthy of study, this study focuses on the liberal ~aradigm.~

The liberal paradigm stems from liberal political theory, which takes an atomistic view of society and nature (Merchant 1992). Liberal theorists assume that humans are rational agents pursuing their own interests under capitalism- the best form of government for such activity. While women and men do differ biologically, they do not differ in rationality, and any differences between the sexes are due to educational and economic inequalities created by the current patriarchal framework of American society. Likewise, liberal theorists hypothesize environmental degradation is caused by existing societal arrangements. In the liberal paradigm the solution to both these problems lies in better education, law,

3 18 D. CLAYTON SMITH

and research. Such activity allows humans to monitor and manage environmental pollution and degradation while also allowing women to “transcend the social stigma of their biology and join men in the cultural project of environmental conservation” (Merchant 1992, p. 189). Liberal feminists hypothesize that if they eliminate these inequalities through education and legislation, gender differences, especially those involving social mobility and power, will disappear (Warren 1987).

The measures of liberal environmentalism included the New Environmental/ Human Exemptionalist Paradigm (NEP/HEP) measures and three scales of environmental concern (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 198 1). Previous research questioned whether the NEP/HEP scale was unidimensional (Albrecht, Bultena, Hoiberg, and Nowak 1982; Geller and Lasley 1985; Noe and Snow 1990; Smith 1991). In this study the NEP/HEP items were divided into three subdimensions suggested by previous factor analyses of the data (Albrecht et al. 1982; Smith 1992). These factors were labeled Limits to Growth, Humanity and Nature, and Balance of Nature. On each of these dimensions a high score indicated an agreement with that subdimension of the NEP/HEP.

Three environmental concern scales originally developed by Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) were also used as dependent variables. Van Liere and Dunlap’s analysis led them to conclude that environmental concern in the United States re- ferred mainly to concern about pollution and natural resource depletion. Van Liere and Dunlap’s original Natural Resources scale was included along with modified versions of the Pollution Control and Environmental Regulations scales.6 These three scales were recoded so that a high score on any of these environmental concern scales suggests higher levels of environmental concern.

To measure feminism a ten-item version of the FEM scale was used (Kirkpatrick 1936; Smith, Ferree, and Miller 1975).7 This scale, one of the old- est in existence, was reworked in the 1970s and again in the 1990s (Basow and Campanile 1990; Branscombe and Deaux 199 1 ; Dempewolff 1974; Singleton and Christiansen 1977). Researchers using the FEM scale perceived it as primarily tapping attitudes toward gendered roles and anti-feminine stereotypes (Fassinger 1994; Singleton and Christiansen 1977). The data were coded so that a high score on the FEM scale suggested a more feminist attitude toward gender roles.

In the analysis gender was coded 0 for male and 1 for female. A positive correlation between gender and any of the environmental indices meant women were more environmentally concerned on that index,

Finally, other independent variables suggested by previous literature were also included as control variables. Self-reported political ideology was included to examine the possibility that the relationship between feminism and


environmentalism was in reality a relationship between political ideology and environmentalism (Butte1 and Flinn 1976; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). In this study political ideology was measured using one item with six response categories running from very conserv- ative (1) to very liberal (6). The number of days the respondent watched television news broadcasts in the preceding week was also included. This measure of information access had previously shown promise in examinations of gender differences in environmental concern (Arcury et al. 1987; Ostman and Parker 1987). The variable was measured by a five-point scale running from none (0) to every day (4).

Two obvious control variables omitted were age and education. According to Blaikie (1 992), age consistently displayed the strongest association with environmental concern. Indeed, in their study of environmental concern over the past twenty years, Kanagy et al. (1994) found that while period effects increased environmental concern among all birth cohorts during the 1980s, younger cohorts were more environmentally concerned than their elders were. Due to the college student sample on which this study relies, the variability of both age and education was deemed too small to provide useful information. A proxy of these variables, class standing in school, was included in the models. Class standing was measured on a six-point scale running from nondegree student (1) to graduate student (6).

To examine the relationship between environmentalism, feminism, and gender, factor score scales were created for the environmental and feminist indices. Next, a bivariate correlation matrix was calculated for all the variables in the analysis. Then the relationships among gender, the FEM scale, and each of the six environmental indices were modeled using multiple regression. After these three variable relationships were estimated, control variables were added to each of the models. Finally, the sample was divided by gender, and the environmental indices were regressed upon the FEM scale and the control variables to test for the possibility that the observed relationships among gender, feminism, and environmentalism are artifacts of political ideology.

Results

The list-wise correlations between gender, feminism, the environmental indices, and the other variables being modeled are presented in Table 1. As in previous research, gender is not significantly correlated with any measure of environmentalism used in this study. However, feminism, as measured by the FEM scale, is positively correlated with four of the six environmental indices. This finding is especially interesting given that gender and feminism are moder- ately positively correlated, indicating that women are more likely to be feminist.*

Examination of the items comprising the environmental indices suggests two reasons the feminism measure relates to certain environmental measures and

Tabl

e 1

List

-Wise

Cor

rela

tions

of D

epen

dent

and

Inde

pend

ent V

aria

bles

Lim

its to

Hum

anity

Bal

ance

of

Nat

ural

En

v. G

row

th

andN

atur

e N

atur

e R

esou

rces

Pol

lutio

n R

egs

Fem

inis

m

Cla

ss

Polit

ical

Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e G

ende

r Sc

ale

Ran

k Id

eolo

gy

Hum

anity

and

Nat

ure

Scal

e .3

0***

B

alan

ce o

f Nat

ure

Scal

e .7

0***

N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Sca

le

.43*

**

Pollu

tion

Scal

e .3

8***

En

v. Re

gs S

cale

.4

4***

G

ende

r .0

5 Fe

min

ism S

cale

.l

l C

lass

Ran

k -.

14*

Polit

ical

Ideo

logy

.1

8**

TV N

ews W

atch

ing

Per W

eek

-.07

.36*

**

.41*

**

.45*

**

.40***

.05

.26*

**

.03

.23*

**

.02

SO**

* .4

6***

.59***

.49*

**

,62*

**

.70*

**

.09

.30*

**

.36*

**

.30*

**

.43*

**

.17*

* .0

7 .1

7**

.21*

**

.13*

.2

2***

-

.oo

.03

.OO

-.04

-.15*

* -.

04

-.02

-.12*

-.0

7 .oo

-.12*

.0

3 -.0

5 -.1

5**

-.lo

-.

11

-.12*

.2

0***

-.1

4*

*p <

.05; **

p <

.01;

*** p

< .0

01; a

ll te

sts

of s

igni

fican

ce w

ere

two-

taile

d. N

= 2

91.

ENVIRONMENTALISM, FEMINISM, AND GENDER 321

not others. Ecofeminism’s emphasis on the dominance of patriarchy over women and the environment is reflected in the correlation between the feminism measure and the Humanity and Nature scale that consists of questions concerning human use of the environment. Neither the Limits to Growth nor the Balance of Nature scales focuses specifically on human use of the environment, which may partially explain why those indices are not correlated with feminism.

In addition, liberal ecofeminism argues that political action and government intervention are key to ending environmental degradation. Because most of the items comprising the Natural Resources, Pollution, and Environmental Regulations indices focus on political action and government intervention, understanding why these environmental measures correlate with the FEM scale is easy. Again, the Limits to Growth and the Balance of Nature indices involve neither an action orientation nor a concern about human use of the environment, which helps explain their insignificant relationship to the feminism measure.

Looking at the correlation matrix, few of the control variables suggested by previous research are more than weakly correlated with some of the environmental indices. The exception is self-reported political ideology, which is positively correlated with most forms of environmentalism examined and with the feminism scale.

In summary, the list-wise correlations show that gender is not directly related to any environmental index, while attitudes toward feminism are significantly and directly related to environmentalism when government policy and human use of the environment are involved. However, the question remains about whether the relationship between the feminism and environmentalism indices is caused by underlying relationships with other variables, such as political ideology.

Beta coefficients and coefficients of determination for the relationship between environmentalism, feminism, and gender are presented in Table 2. Looking across the environmental indices, the relationship between feminism and environmentalism did not significantly change when gender was controlled. When feminism was controlled, both main and interactional gender effects were discovered on the environmental concern scales. In the main effects, men were statistically more likely to be environmentally concerned than were women on the Pollution and the Environmental Regulations indices. Significant interaction effects (described in the footnotes to Table 2) between gender and feminism on the Pollution and Environmental Regulations scales suggest that being both female and feminist increases environmental concern regarding those environmental measures to levels greater than or equal to male environmental concern.

Why is gender significant only on these environmental scales and not on the others when feminism is controlled? If men were more environmentally concerned than were women on all the environmental indices controlling for

Tabl

e 2

Bet

as a

nd C

oeff

icie

nts

of D

eter

min

atio

n fo

r NEP

/HEP

Dim

ensi

ons a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal

Con

cern

Sca

les

Reg

ress

ed o

n G

ende

r and

the

Fem

inis

m In

dex"

Lim

its

Hum

anity

B

alan

ce

Gro

wth

N

atur

e N

atur

e R

esou

rces

Po

llutio

n En

v. Re

gs

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

eb

Scal

e"

to

and

of

Nat

ural

Gen

der p

.0

5 - .0

4 - .0

3 -.

lo

-.19*

**

-.17*

*

R2

.02

0.7

0.1

.10

.17

.09

F 3.

70*

14.2

1 ***

1.

80**

20

.66*

**

37.1

8***

16

.53*

**

N

3 72

372

372

377

377

327

FEM

Sca

le p

.11*

.2

8***

.l

l .3

5***

.4

5***

.3

3***

*p <

.05;

**p

< .0

1; *

**p <

.001

. "A

dditi

onal

regr

essi

on m

odel

s te

sted

for a

n in

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n ge

nder

and

fem

inis

m. S

igni

fican

t int

erac

tion

term

s fo

r the

Pol

lutio

n an

d

addi

tion

to th

e m

ain

effe

cts,

a si

gnifi

cant

inte

ract

ion

of .2

7 (p

< .0

5) b

etw

een

the

FEM

sca

le a

nd G

ende

r was

dis

cove

red,

indi

catin

g

"In

addi

tion t

o th

e m

ain

effe

cts,

sign

ifica

nt in

tera

ctio

n of .

37 (p

< .0

1) b

etw

een

the

FEM

sca

le an

d G

ende

r was

disc

over

ed, i

ndic

atin

g fe

m-

Envi

ronm

enta

l Reg

ulat

ions

scal

es a

re d

iscu

ssed

in s

ubse

quen

t foo

tnot

es.

fem

inism

has a

gre

ater

eff

ect f

or w

omen

with

rega

rd to

the

Pollu

tion

scal

e.

inism

has

a gr

eate

r eff

ect f

or w

omen

with

rega

rd to

the

Envi

ronm

enta

l Reg

ulat

ions

scal

e.


feminism, one could argue that such a relationship was the effect of the zero- order correlation between gender and feminism. Because being female is correlated with holding liberal feminist attitudes and being a liberal feminist is correlated with almost every environmental measure, controlling for liberal feminism would constrain the relationship between women and the environment and make men appear more environmentally concerned. Because men are not more environmentally concerned on all the environmental indices once feminism is controlled, gender must be related to specific environmental concerns rather than environmentalism overall.

As mentioned earlier, one possibility is that the environmental concern scales focus on direct political action and government regulation, while the NEP/HEP dimensions focus on more general environmental beliefs. Therefore, the results obtained in Table 2 display a suppression effect. Women have been found less likely to favor direct political action (Mohai 1991; Shapiro and Mahajan 1986; Welch 1977; Welch and Secret 1981).9 However, women are also more likely to hold liberal feminist attitudes, and liberal feminists favor political action and government intervention, canceling the direct effect (Shapiro and Mahajan 1986). The hypothesized connection between women and feminism on environmentalism is also supported by the significant interaction terms present for both the Pollution scale and the Environmental Regulations scale. In both cases a woman with a liberal feminist viewpoint is more likely to score higher on these environmental scales than either a woman or a liberal feminist would separately.

When control variables are added to the models, the observed relationships persist (see Table 3). Feminism remains positively related to environmentalism even when gender, class rank, political ideology, and amount of TV news watched are controlled. In fact, feminism is the best predictor of environmentalism in all of the regression models in which it is significant. The gender effects also continue to be present for the environmental concern scales when feminism and the other variables are controlled.

It is mildly surprising that the inclusion of political ideology did not affect the relationship between feminism and environmentalism. Feminism and environmentalism are often considered as subsets of liberal political orientation, and referring to Table 1, these items are significantly correlated (Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). However, controlling for the other variables, feminism and self-reported political ideology maintain significant independent effects on environmentalism, demonstrating that while feminism and political ideology are similar in their influence on environmental attitudes and are correlated with one another, neither variable is entirely inclusive of the other.

In a further test to examine for the possibility of three-way interactions among gender, feminism, and political ideology, the respondents were divided by

Tab

le 3

Bet

as a

nd C

oeff

icie

nts o

f Det

erm

inat

ion f

or N

EP/H

EP D

imen

sion

s and

Env

ironm

enta

l Con

cern

Sca

les

Reg

ress

ed o

n G

ende

r and

the

FEM

Sca

le w

ith C

ontro

l Var

iabl

es"

Lim

its

Hum

anity

B

alan

ce

Gro

wth

N

atur

e N

atur

e R

esou

rces

Po

llutio

n En

v. R

egs

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

eb

Scal

e"

to

and

of

Nat

ural

Gen

der p

FE

M S

cale

p C

lass

Ran

k f3

Polit

ical

Ideo

logy

p TV

New

s p

R2

F N

.04

.ll

-.11 .1

2*

- .0

3 .0

6 4.

01**

34

5

-.05 .28*

**

. 00

.17*

* .0

6 .1

2 9.

20**

* 34

5

- .0

4 .1

1 -.1

3*

.11*

- .0

6 .0

6 4.

23**

* 34

5

-.11*

-.lo

- .0

2 .0

4 .1

2

.37*

**

8.93

***

350

-.21*

**

.44*

**

- .0

5 .1

2*

.01

.19

16.5

5***

35

1

- .2

0**

.35*

**

-.11*

.1

3*

-.I0

.1

6 11

.58*

**

308

* P <

.05;

**p

< -0

1; **

*p <

.001

. "A

dditi

onal

reg

ress

ion

mod

els

test

ed fo

r an

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

gend

er a

nd f

emin

ism

. Sig

nific

ant i

nter

actio

n te

rms

for t

he P

ollu

tion

and

addi

tion t

o th

e main e

ffec

ts, a

sig

nific

ant in

tera

ctio

n of

.28

(p <

.Ol)

betw

een

the

FEM

sca

le an

d G

ende

r was

dis

cove

red i

ndic

atin

g fe

m-

"In

addi

tion t

o th

e m

ain

effe

cts,

a sig

nific

ant i

nter

actio

n of

.35

(p <

.01)

bet

wee

n th

e FE

M s

cale

and

Gen

der w

as d

isco

vere

d in

dica

ting

fem

-

Envi

ronm

enta

l Reg

ulat

ions

scal

es a

re d

iscu

ssed

in s

ubse

quen

t foo

tnot

es.

inism

has

a g

reat

er e

ffec

t for

wom

en w

ith r

egar

d to

the

Pollu

tion

scal

e.

inism

has

a g

reat

er e

ffect

for

wom

en w

ith re

gard

to th

e En

viro

nmen

tal R

egul

atio

ns sc

ale.


gender, and the environmental indices were regressed upon the feminism scale and the control variables. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 4, show that controlling for the other variables in the model, women’s attitudes toward feminism continue to mirror the pattern of feminism found in the previous ta- bles, while men’s attitudes toward feminism are significantly related only to the Humanity and Nature dimension of the NEP/HEP, the Natural Resources scale, and the Pollution scale.

Table 4 reminds us of Blaikie’s (1992) observation that ecological world views contain a complex set of views and dimensions. Again, it appears that the relationship between feminism and political action is at the heart of the relation- ‘ ship between feminism and the environmental concern scales for both men and women in this sample. However, the relationship of the Humanity and Nature dimension of the NEP/HEP and feminism cannot be explained by support for government intervention. Instead, as previously mentioned, the Humanity and Nature scale focuses on attitudes toward human use of the environment, which is of main concern to ecofeminists.

The items on the Humanity and Nature index argue against human mastery of nature while the other NEP/HEP scales are concerned with beliefs of ecological balance and limits to growth. The data suggest that individuals who do not believe in human mastery over nature are more likely to have challenged the dominant world view. If an individual is socialized to hold a set of beliefs, attitudes, and/or values that challenge a particular facet of the traditional world view (here, attitudes toward society’s use of the environment), the individual is more likely to be receptive to other challenges to the traditional world view as well (for instance, attitudes toward women’s roles in society), especially when both sets of beliefs are themselves embedded in a larger, more complex ecofeminist world view. Conversely, males socialized to prefer feminist ideals also would be more likely to accept a discourse concerning domination of the environment.

Additional support for the relationship between gender, feminism, and political action is demonstrated by the significant interaction effects for the Pollution scale and the Environmental Regulations scale. By creating separate models for men and women a significant interaction effect between feminism and political ideology is found, but only for women. The separate models also add credence to the earlier discussion of feminism as a politicizing force for women.

Finally, in looking at the beta coefficients one notices that the strongest predictor of environmentalism is not the same for men and women. For men self-reported political ideology is usually the most important predictor of environmentalism. For women feminism is always the most important predictor while self-reported political ideology is rarely a significant predictor of environmentalism.

Tab

le 4

B

etas

and

Coe

ffic

ient

s of D

eter

min

atio

n fo

r NEP

/HEP

Dim

ensi

ons a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal C

once

rn S

cale

s Spl

it by

Sex

and

R

egre

ssed

on

Gen

der a

nd th

e FE

M S

cale

with

Con

trol V

aria

bles

"

Lim

its

Hum

anity

B

alan

ce

Gro

wth

N

atur

e N

atur

e R

esou

rces

Po

llutio

n En

v. R

egs

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

Scal

e Sc

ale

to

and

of

Nat

ural

Mal

e Fe

mal

e M

ale

Fem

ale

Mal

e Fe

mal

e M

ale

Fem

ale

Mal

e Fe

mal

eb

Mal

e Fe

mal

e"

FEM

Sca

le p

.0

1 -.1

5*

.29*

**

.24*

**

.13

.10

.23*

* .4

0***

.2

1*

.49*

**

.08

.42*

**

Cla

ss Ra

nk p

.O

O -.1

6*

.1 I

- .0

7 -.1

3 -.1

6*

.01

-.17*

* .0

1 -.08

.03

-.17*

* Po

litic

al Id

eolo

gy p

.I3

. 1 0

.29*

**

.10

.23*

.0

3 .1

3 -.1

4*

.22*

.0

6 .2

3*

.05

TV N

ews p

-.0

3 -.

04

-.04

.09

-.04

-.09

.I0

- .0

2 .0

2 -.0

2 -.

lo

-.13*

R2

.0

2 .0

8 .2

1

.09

.09

.05

.09

.17

.ll

.26

.08

.24

F .5

3 4.

54**

7.

96**

* 5.

24**

* 3.

03*

3.03

* 2.

92*

11.1

7***

3.

67**

19

.59*

**

2.22

15

.20*

**

N

123

222

123

223

123

223

124

226

125

226

112

197

*p <

.05;

**p

< .0

1; *

**p <

,001

. "A

dditi

onal

regr

essi

on m

odel

s tes

ted

for a

n in

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n po

litic

al id

eolo

gy a

nd f

emin

ism

. Sig

nific

ant i

nter

actio

n te

rms

for w

omen

on

the

Pollu

tion

addi

tion

to th

e m

ain

effe

cts,

a si

gnifi

cant

inte

ract

ion

of .1

7 (p

< ,0

01) b

etw

een

the

FEM

sca

le an

d Po

litic

al Id

eolo

gy w

as d

iscov

ered

, ind

icat

ing t

hat f

em-

'In a

dditi

on to

the

mai

n ef

fect

s, a

sign

ifica

nt in

tera

ctio

n of

.08

(p <

.05)

betw

een

the

FEM

sca

le a

nd P

oliti

cal I

deol

ogy

was

dis

cove

red,

indi

catin

g tha

t fem

-

and

the

Envi

ronm

enta

l Reg

ulat

ions

scal

es a

re d

iscu

ssed

in s

ubse

quen

t foo

tnot

es.

inis

m h

as a

gre

ater

eff

ect f

or li

bera

ls a

nd v

ice

vers

a with

rega

rd to

wom

en o

n th

e Po

llutio

n sc

ale.

inis

m has

a gr

eate

r eff

ect f

or li

bera

ls an

d vi

ce v

ersa

with

rega

rd to

wom

en o

n th

e En

viro

nmen

tal R

egul

atio

ns sc

ale.


Conclusion

This research examined the relationship between attitudes toward the environment, attitudes toward women, and gender. The findings of this exploratory college student survey, a significant positive relationship between feminism and environmentalism and a relationship between gender and politically active environmentalism mediated by feminism, highlight the complexity of the relationships between gender, feminism, and environmentalism. Moreover, these findings have implications for the future of ecofeminist activism and for environmental social scientists working on gender differences.

First, as discussed earlier, feminist scholars hypothesize a relationship between feminism and environmentalism; however, there has been little in the way of empirical evidence to support their theories. While the current research is exploratory, the findings of the current study are consistent with those of S o m a and Tolleson-Rinhart’s (1 997) work. These two studies, taken together, support the view that individuals make a connection between feminism and environmentalism. To a certain extent, this finding supports the hypothesis that ecofeminism may aid in social movement mobilization; however, further research is required. Still, given the finding that liberal environmentalism is related to liberal feminism and to gender through liberal feminism, the use of liberal ecofeminist ideology as a mobilization tool tentatively appears not to harm feminist and environmental causes.

As for environmental social scientists, they have seldom studied the connection of feminism to environmentalism, preferring to focus instead on the relationship between gender and environmentalism. This oversight appears to parallel ongoing debates with social movements research between grievance and resource mobilization theorists. Ecofeminist ideology is inherently based on grievance (i.e., concern). While environmental sociology must consider some grievances, environmental research has been drawn toward a resource mobilization perspective that favors using demographic and structural factors to explain attitudes and behaviors. This emphasis is perhaps rooted in the relative difficulty of collecting reliable, valid, and theoretically interesting attitudinal measures compared with the relative ease of demographic data that are, for the most part, assumed to be reliable, valid, and interesting. It is hoped that the present findings will move environmental research away from demographic studies of environmentalism and toward more complex sociological approaches.

While the present research has detailed interesting findings concerning environmentalism, feminism, and gender, it should be noted that these results are preliminary. The convenience sample of college students surveyed by this study, while useful in establishing a tentative relationship, is not representative of any population other than itself. In addition, only the liberal environmental and


liberal feminist paradigms have been measured in this study; little is known about other variants of environmentalism and feminism because no measures of these paradigms exist. Future research should attempt to verify the proposed relationships between other variants of environmentalism and feminism using a more representative sample. Also, the relationship among variants of environmentalism and feminism and other facets of social equity (e.g., race and class) that challenge the traditional dominant world views should be examined. Future scholarship in this area must begin to consider these relationships if this research stream is to progress.

APPENDIX

Environmental Indices

Limits to Growth Scale (a = 30) We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

0 The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources. 0 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.

To maintain a healthy economy, we have to develop a “steady state” economy where industrial growth is controlled.

Humanity and Nature Scale (a = .79) Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. (Reverse-coded) Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. (Reverse-coded)

0 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. (Reverse-coded) Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can make it to suit their needs. (Reverse-coded)

Balance of Nature Scale (a = .?4) The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. When humans interfere with nature, there are often disastrous consequences. Humans must live in harmony in nature in order to survive.

0 Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

Government must take stronger steps to conserve our nation’s resources. 0 There has been too much emphasis on conserving natural resources and not enough on utilizing

Where natural resources are privately owned, society should have no control over what the owner

0 Natural resources must be preserved for the future, even if people must do without. 0 We must take stronger measures to conserve our nation’s resources.

0 Pollution laws have gotten too strict in recent years. (Reverse-coded) 0 We should think of jobs first and pollution second. (Reverse-coded) 0 Anti-pollution laws should be enforced more strongly. 0 If an industry cannot control its pollution, it should be shut down. 0 Pollution control measures have created unfair burdens on industry. (Reverse-coded)

Natural Resources Scale (a = .70)

them in recent years. (Reverse-coded)

does with them. (Reverse-coded)

Pollution Scale (a = .75)


Environmental Regulations Scale (a = .85) Unlike the rest of the indices included on the questionnaire, the following items were measured on a six-category Likert format, from strongly favor to strongly oppose with no neutral category. The policy items employed were: 0 Banning nonreturnable containers 0 Restricting heavy industry in the state

Stiff h e s for littering 0 Restricting production of large cars 0 Setting aside land as wilderness areas 0 Higher taxes on gasoline 0 Heavy penalties for industrial pollution

Regulations on land use 0 Establishing more recycling centers 0 Prohibiting billboards on highways

Regulation of water use Revised FEM Scale (a = 34) 0 Women have the right to participate along with men in every sphere of activity. 0 As head of the household, the father should have final authority over his children. (Reverse-

0 Men and women should be paid the same for the same work regardless of whether or not they

It is absurd to regard obedience as a wifely virtue. 0 When women are appointed to police forces, they should be given the same duties as men. 0 It is all right for women to work, but men should be the basic breadwinners. (Reverse-coded) 0 A woman should not expect to go the same places or have the same freedom of action as a man.

0 Parental responsibility for the discipline of children should be divided equally between husband

0 Men should contribute to housework, but it is primarily a woman’s responsibility. (Reverse-

Women are not capable of holding political offices that involve great responsibility. (Reverse-

coded)

have a family to support.

(Reverse-coded)

and wife.

coded)

coded)

ENDNOTES

‘For example, one Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes publication on women and toxics organizing refers to the female leaders discussed as “women activists in the environmental jus- tice movement” instead of ecofeminists, although a major theme of the publication was ways of deal- ing with the “constant put-downs from men-whether they were friends or foes.” (Gibbs 1989, p. 38; Zeff, Love, and Stults 1989, p. 1).

’While it is the case that there is no consistent sex difference in general environmental concern, it should be noted that a recent meta-analysis suggests that women are more environmentally concerned than men where health and safety issues are involved (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996).

3The survey research reported in this paper was collected in 1991. At that time no data set ex- isted that examined gender, feminism, and environmentalism. In the year after this study was


completed, the American National Election Study (ANES) of 1992 included items that could be used to measure gender, environmentalism, and feminism. Unbeknownst to each other, both Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart and the author first presented their results in 1993; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart were able to publish their results of their study using ANES data first.

41t is recognized that a sample of this type is not representative of the population as a whole or of the domain of university students specifically. However, given the exploratory nature of this paper, the sampling from classes in which students are likely to have heterogeneous goals and backgrounds, such as introductory sociology courses, is one way to obtain diverse student opinions for testing the central hypothesis that a relationship exists between feminism and environmentalism. To determine if certain classes, such as the sex roles class, were significantly different from the rest of the sample, class means were examined. While the sex roles class did have the highest mean score on the FEM scale, analysis demonstrated that the sex roles class mean was not significantly different from the overall mean.

It is certain that a review of the ecofeminist literature would show that liberal ecofeminism is neither the most widely discussed variant of ecofeminism nor the most interesting world view to ecofeminist scholars. The liberal paradigm is used because all existing attitude scales used to examine environmentalism and feminism are measures of the liberal world view. Few, if any, feminists and ecofeminists have attempted to examine Marxist, cultural/radical, and/or socialist feminism or environmentalism quantitatively. An examination of the UnCoverWeb database (available at http://uncweb.carl.org/) and the SocioAbs database (available through Firstsearch) failed to identify any quantitative study of Marxist, radical, cultural, or socialist feminism. Up to the publication of this article, the researcher knows of only one study that quantitatively examined different types of feminism, but only in the context of validating a feminism scale (Poff and Michalos 1988). As for environmentalism, Kowalewski (1996) quantitatively examines deep ecology, which may fall under the heading of radical environmentalism, in his recent study on the effects of social structure on environmental attitudes.

6Previous factor and reliability analyses of Van Liere and Dunlap’s Environmental Concern scales led to the removal of one double-barreled item from the Pollution Control scale and one item from the Environmental Regulations scale (Smith 1991). For more information about the items included on the indices of environmentalism and feminism, please refer to the appendix to this article.

’To remove dated and gender-biased language, the FEM scale was revised from twenty items down to ten. The author wishes to thank Vincent C. Fem for his work on this revision. Without Vincent’s previous work revising question wording and order on the scale, this research would not have been possible.

‘If the FEM scale were trichotomized into three equal parts (nonliberal feminist, middle ground, and liberal feminist), 46.8% of the women would fall into the liberal feminist category compared to just 8.7% of the men.

’Additional empirical evidence can be found in Steger and Win’s (1988) study of Canadian and American environmental concern among members of the general public and environmental activists. This study found only 21% of Canadian and 28% of American environmental activists sampled were female.

5 .

REFERENCES

Albrecht, Don, Gordon Bultena, Eric Hoiberg, and Peter Now&. 1982. “The New Environmental

Alldred, Pam, and Sarah Dennison. 2000. “Eco-activism and Feminism: Do Eco-warriors and Paradigm Scale.” Journal of Environmental Education 13:3943.

Goddesses Need It?” Feminist Review 64: 12&27.


Arcury, Thomas A. 1990. “Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Organization 49(4):30&304.

Arcury, Thomas A,, and Eric H. Christianson. 1993. “Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Knowledge and Actions.” Journal of Environmental Education 25(1): 19-25.

Arcury, Thomas A., Susan J. Scollay, and Timothy I? Johnson. 1987. “Sex Differences in Environmental Concern and Knowledge: The Case of Acid Rain.” Sex Roles 16(9/10):

Austin, D. Mark, and Cynthia Woolever. 1994. “Economic and Environmental Concerns as Influences on Growth Attitudes: A Research Note.” Sociological Spectrum 14:87-99.

Bantjes, Rod, and Tanya Trussler. 1999. “Feminism and the Grass Roots: Women and Environ- mentalism in Nova Scotia, 198&1983.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology

Basow, Susan A., and Florence Campanile. 1990. “Attitudes toward Prostitution as a Function of Attitudes toward Feminism in College Students: An Exploratory Study.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 14:13541.

463-72.

36(2): 179-97.

Biehl, Janet. 1991. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press. Blaikie, Norman W. H. 1992. “The Nature and Origins of Ecological World Views: An Australian

Study.” Social Science Quarterly 73(1):14445. Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1997. “Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the

1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78(4):841-58. . 1989. “Environmental Issues as Women’s Issues: General Concerns and Local Hazards.”

Social Science Quarterly 70(3):586-93. Blum, Abraham. 1987. “Students’ Knowledge and Beliefs Concerning Environmental Issues in Four

Countries.” Journal of Environmental Education 18(3):7-13. Borden, Richard J., and Andrew I? Schettino. 1979. “Determinants of Environmentally Responsible

Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Education 10(4):35-39. Branscombe, Nyla R., and Kay Deaux. 1991. “Feminist Attitude Accessibility and Behavioral

Intentions.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 15:411-18. Buttel, Frederick H., and William L. Flinn. 1976. “Environmental Politics: the Structuring of Partisan

and Ideological Cleavages in Mass Environmental Attitudes.” The Sociological Quarterly

Cameron, Anne. 1989. “First Mother and the Rainbow Children.” Pp. 54-66 in Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism. edited by Judith Plant. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.

Cornwell, Martha L. 1988. Gender Gap: Male/Female Differences in Environmental Concern. State University of New York at Buffalo: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

Davidson, Debra J., and William R. Freudenburg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior 28(3):302-39.

Davion, Victoria. 1994. “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?” Pp. 8-28 in Ecological Feminism, edited by Karen Warren. New York Routeledge.

Dempewolff, J. A. 1974. “Development and Validation of a Feminism Scale.” Psychological Reports

Dunlap, Riley E., and Angela G. Mertig. 1997. “The Nature and Social Bases of Public Concern for the Environment: Cross-National Comparisons.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9(4): 1 & 19.

Eyerman, Ron, and Andrew Jamison. 1991. Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. University Park, PA The Pennsylvania State University Press.

17:477-90.

34:651-57.


Fassinger, Ruth E. 1994. “Development and Testing of the Attitudes toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement (FWM) Scale.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 18:389402.

Flynn, James, Paul Slovic, and C. K. Mertz. 1994. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” RiskAnalysis 14(6):1101-8.

Geller, Jack M., and Paul Lasley. 1985. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: A Reexamination.” Journal of Environmental Education 17( 1):9-12.

Gibbs, Lois Marie. 1989. “Some Thoughts on Women Who Move from Being Local Grassroots Leaders to Full-Time Organizers.” Pp. 37-41 in Empowering Ourselves: Women and Toxics Organizing, edited by R.L. Zeff, M. Love, and K. Stults. Arlington, VA Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste.

Gifford, Robert, Robert Hay, and Karen Boros. 1982. “Individual Differences in Environmental Attitudes.” Journal of Environmental Education 14(2): 19-23.

Hamilton, Lawrence C. 1985. “Concern about Toxic Wastes: Three Demographic Predictors.” Sociological Perspectives 28(4):463-86.

Hausbeck, Kathryn W., Lester W. Milbrath, and Sean M. Enright. 1992. “Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, and Concern among 11th-Grade Students: New York State.” Journal of Environmental Education 24( 1):27-34.

Jacobson, Marsha. 1981. “You Say Potato and I Say Potahto: Attitudes toward Feminism as a Function of Its Subject-Selected Label.” Sex Roles 7(4):349-54.

. 1979. “A Rose by Any Other Name: Attitudes toward Feminism as a Function of Its Label.” Sex Roles 5(3):365-71.

Jaggar, Alison M., and Paula S. Rothenberg. 1984. “Introduction: Feminist Theory and Feminist Practice.” Pp. 1-10 in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men, edited by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kanagy, Conrad L., Craig R. Humphrey, and Glenn Firebaugh. 1994. “Surging Environmentalism: Changing Public Opinion or Changing Publics?“ Social Science Quarterly 75(4):804-19.

King, Ynestra. 1981. “Feminism and the Revolt of Nature.” Heresies 4:12-16. Kirkpatrick, Clifford. 1936. “The Construction of a Belief-Pattern Scale for Measuring Attitudes to-

ward Feminism.” Journal of Social Psychology 7:42 1-37. Kowalewski, David. 1996. “The Social Structuring of Postindustrial Conflict: Citizen Positions on

Environmental Dimensions.” Mid-American Review of Sociology 19( 1-2):33-55. Lahar, Stephanie. 1991. “Ecofeminist Theory and Grassroots Politics.” Hypatia 6( 1 ) : 2 8 4 . Lowe, George D., and Thomas K. Pinhey. 1982. “Rural-Urban Differences in Support for

Environmental Protection.” Rural Sociology 47(1):114-28. Lowe, George D., Thomas K. Pinhey, and Michael D. Grimes. 1980. “Public Support for

Environmental Protection: New Evidence from National Surveys.” Pacific Sociological Review 23(4):423-45.

MacDonald, William L., and Naoto Hara. 1994. “Gender Differences in Environmental Concern among College Students.” Sex Roles 3 1(5/6):369-74.

McCallum, Lynda G. 1991. Gender Diferences in an Aggrieved Population Confronted with a Waste- to-Energy Plant. Unpublished master’s thesis. Pennsylvania State University.

McEvoy, James. 1972. “The American Concern with Environment.” Pp. 21&36 in Social Behaviol; Natural Resources and the Environment, edited by William R. Burch, Neil H. Cheek, and Lee Taylor. New York, Ny: Harper and Row.

McStay, Jan R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1983. “Male-Female Differences in Concern for Environmental Quality.” International Journal of Women k Studies 6:291-301.

Mellor, Mary. 1997. “Gender and the Environment.” Pp. 195-201 in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by Michael Redclift and Graham Woodgate. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.


Merchant, Carolyn. 1992. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York Routledge. Mitchell, Robert C. 1979. “Silent SpringEolid Majorities.” Public Opinion 2:16-20, 55. Mohai, Paul. 1991. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An Examination of the Gender Gap in

Environmental Concern and Activism.” Society and Natuml Resources 5: 1-19. Noe, Francis P., and Rob Snow. 1990. “The New Environmental Paradigm and Further Scale

Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education 21(4):20-26. Ostman, Ronald E., and Jill L. Parker. 1987. “Impact of Education, Age, Newspapers, and Television

on Environmental Knowledge, Concerns, and Behaviors.” Journal of Environmental Education

Ozanne, Lucie K., and Craig R. Humphrey. 1994. “Gender and Environmentalism: Competing Ecofeminist Paradigms.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Ozanne, Lucie K., Craig R. Humphrey, and Paul M. Smith. 1999. “Gender, Environmentalism, and Interest in Forest Certification: Mohai’s Paradox Revisited.” Society & Natural Resources

Peterson, Abby, and Carolyn Merchant. 1986. “ ‘Peace with the Earth:’ Women and the Environmental Movement in Sweden.” Women b Studies International Forum 9(5):465-79.

Poff, Deborah C., and Alex C. Michalos. 1988. “Feminism and the Quality of Life.” Social Indicators Research 20:445-72.

Schahn, Joachim, and Erwin Holzer. 1990. “Studies of Individual Environmental Concern: The Role of Knowledge, Gender, and Background Variables.” Environment and Behavior 22(6):767-86.

Scott, David, and Fern K. Willits. 1993. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania Survey.” Environment and Behavior 26(2):239-60.

Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50:42-61.

Singleton, Royce, and John B. Christiansen. 1977. “The Construct Validation of a Short Form Attitudes toward Feminism Scale.” Sociology and Social Research 61:294-303.

Smith, D. Clayton. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Myth or Reality?” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Orlando, FL.

. 1992. “Functional Constraints Theory, Needs Theory and Environmental Attitudes.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.

. 199 1. Theoretical and Methodological Issues Concerning Environmental Paradigms and Value Shifr. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University.

Smith, Eliot R., Myra M. Ferree, and Frederick D. Miller. 1975. “A Short Scale of Attitudes toward Feminism.” Representative Research in Social Psychology 6:5 1-56.

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 5 1 :4648 1.

Somma, Mark, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1997. “Tracking the Elusive Green Women: Sex, Environmentalism, and Feminism in the United States and Europe.” Political Research Quarter& 50(1):153-69.

Steger, Mary Ann E., and Stephanie L. Witt. 1988. “Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S.” Western Political Quarter& 42(4):62749.

Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. “The New Ecological Paradigm in Social-Psychological Context.” Environment and Behavior 27(6):723-43.

Stem, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior; 25(3):32248.

Sturgeon, Noel. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender; Feminist TheoT, and Political Action. New York Routledge.

19( 1):3-9.

12~613-22.


Thompson, John C., and Edgar L. Gasteiger. 1985. “Environmental Attitude Survey of University

Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1981. “Environmental Concern: Does It Make a Difference

. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses,

Warren, Karen .I. 1990. “The Promise and Power of Ecofeminism.” Environmental Ethics 12:125-46. . 1987. “Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections.” Environmental Ethics 9:3-20.

Welch, Susan. 1977. “Women as Political Animals? A Test of Some Explanations for Male-Female

Welch, Susan, and Philip Secret. 1981. “Sex, Race, and Political Participation.” The Western Political

Zeff, Robbin L., Marsha Love, and Karen Stults, eds. 1989. Empowering Ourselves: Women and

Students: 1971 vs. 1981 .” Journal of Environmental Education 17(1):13-22.

How It’s Measured?” Environment and Behavior 13:65 1-76.

Explanations, and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 181-97.

Political Participation Differences.” American Journal of Political Science 2 1:711-30.

Quarterly 34:5-16.

Toxics Organizing. Arlington, VA: Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc.