Attitudes-Behaviour Framework

Part of the aim of this study is to examine the knowledge, attitudes and practices – and the extent to which environmental education was provided to the rural community – with respect to forest resource conservation. The attitudes-behaviour framework from social psychology provides a perspective from which to examine and illustrate individual reasoning and the formation of particular attitudes and behaviours towards forest resource conservation. Thus, the study combines an approach from social psychology with the political ecology framework to increase the understanding of how preferences concerning forest resource conservation are formed. This section examines the distinctions and connections between knowledge, attitudes and beliefs within the domain of social psychology.

Social psychologists and other social scientists have long been interested in the relationship between attitudes and knowledge, and their influence on people’s actions and concerns (Ajzen, 2002; Allen et al., 2005). Numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the variables influencing attitude formation, change and the effect of attitudes on individual behaviour. A number of factors have been identified which interact and thereby affect the levels of concern of individuals (or groups of individuals) about any particular issues. These variables include knowledge, values, ethics, and experiences. Other sources of influence are attitude, the internal control centre, individual responsibility, social norms, gender roles and the intention to act (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Boershig & De Young, 1993).

For a clearer perspective, it is necessary to clarify several of the concepts central to this study – namely, knowledge, attitudes and values, and their pertinence to environmental education and forest resource conservation.

2.2.1 Knowledge and Belief

Since this thesis examines how knowledge and attitudes are connected to the formation of behaviour towards forest resource conservation, it is important to clarify the concept of

‘knowledge’. Knowledge is the capacity to acquire, retain and use information; a mixture of comprehension, experience, discernment and skill. Knowledge can influence an individual person’s concern about the environment in more than one way. A general assumption (in majority of the literature) is that an increase in knowledge about local environmental issues can be expected to contribute to the development of an environmental ethic, which is then manifested in proactive environmental behaviour. Such claims about the importance of increasing knowledge assume that because individuals possessed more knowledge on environmental issues, this would lead to greater awareness and in turn the greater awareness would lead to the adoption of more favourable attitudes towards the environment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). However, while increased knowledge may be necessary, it is not sufficient to guarantee that individuals will adopt environmentally responsible behaviour. This is because other acquired attitudes may exert more influence and because familiar attitudes do not necessarily change in relation to increased knowledge. Kuhlemeier et al. (1999:5) argued that “…knowledge of environmental problems, attitudes toward the environment, willingness to make sacrifices and environmentally responsible behaviour in everyday life should be positively related…”

In any case, the development of knowledge may be impeded by deeply held systems of belief.

Belief is the acceptance of the truth or actuality of anything without certain proof. It is a mental conviction that is believed; an opinion held. Beliefs are “…psychologically held understandings, premises or propositions about the world that are felt to be true…” (Richardson, 1996^:103).

2.2.2 Attitude

Central to the social psychological studies (since the mid-1970s) is ‘attitude’. Indeed, evidence suggests that attitude and attitudinal change or attitude-behaviour connections have received more attention than other topics in social psychology and environmental education (Hines et al., 1987;

Kraus, 1995). Yet scholars are still far from establishing a conclusive link between attitude and behaviour. The problem perhaps lies not in conceptualising but in operationalising it. Among the early research into attitude-behaviour are the reports of Bogardu (1925), Thurstone (1928), Likert (1932) and Allport (1935). There are many definitions of attitude presented by different scholars.

One of the earliest definitions was given by Allport (1935:810) “…attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness organised through experience, and exerting a directive influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situation with which it is related.” From this definition, attitudes are perceived as individual attributes that have been formed and organised from experience; implying that attitudes are acquired and they exert some degree of influence on behaviour. Eagly and Chaiken (1993:1) defined attitude as “…a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour…”. To Ajzen (1988:4), “…attitude is a disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person or institution or event.” He opined that a distinctive attribute of attitude is that it is “…evaluative in nature, that is of passing judgment of positive or negative.” Recent findings, from Upham, Whitmash et al (2009:12), suggest that attitudes “…are hypothetical constructs that refer to an

individual’s evaluation of or orientation towards and attitude object…” (things, idea, person, group, action, self etc.).

On the theory of attitude many scholars (Ajzen 1988; Jaspars, 1989; Dovidio, Kawakami & Beach, 2001; Hale, Householder & Greene, 2003; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004) have identified three components that guide action. These are: cognitive (knowledge/belief); affective (emotional – the individual’s feeling of liking or disliking of the attitude object); and conative (the individual’s behavioural tendencies regarding the attitudes object). These three categories of response provide the opportunity to better understand and appreciate the cognitive (knowledge) component or dimension of the human behaviour that influences every decision. However, their impact and effects are mediated by non-cognitive elements – such as socio-economic status and external environment – several will be reflected or revealed as the discussion in this section progresses and also in the discussion of the empirical findings. Cognitive responses are responses that reflect the perception of and knowledge about the attitude object. Relating this to the study, it implies that the knowledge that rural people have about forest resources and forest conservation reflects much of their beliefs. Thus, we can say that the more knowledge an individual, or a group of individuals, possesses on the object of attitude goes a long way towards shaping the attitude of such individual, or group, towards the object. Affective responses, on the other hand, relate to the evaluation of, and feelings towards, the attitude object. For instance, people who think that forest resource conservation increases their livelihood sustainability and that conserving the forest is their responsibility will hold a more favourable attitude towards forest resource conservation than those who think it is the responsibility of other agencies.

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) distinguished between general attitude, which is global in character, and the specific attitudes that focus on particular aspects of a subject, such as forest resource use and conservation. Understanding public attitudes to, and the related perceptions about, the environment is one component of conservation. Attitude surveys are one effective means of determining how people perceive the natural world and their degree of environmental concern (Parry & Campbell, 1992). It has been argued that attitude is one of the most important factors influencing human behaviour and, in particular, on developing environmentally responsible behaviour (Newhouse, 1990; Hanna, 1995). An individual’s attitude is defined as the body of favourable or unfavourable feelings toward specific aspects on one’s environment (Newhouse, 1990; Hungerford & Volk, 1990).

2.2.3 Value

‘Value’ is a polymorphous concept; its meanings are as numerous as those who have attempted to defining it (Brown, 1984; Audi, 1999; Haralambos, Holborn & Heald, 2000). In many definitions, the common elements lie in the recognition of ‘values’ as an expression of the ultimate ends, goals or purpose of social action. For instance, Haralambos, Holborn and Heald (2000:5) defined value as “…a belief that something is good and desirable. It defines what is important, worthwhile and worth striving for…” While Brown (1984:233) defined value as “…the expressed relative importance or worth of an object to an individual or group in a given context…”, Akinlaye and Ajiboye (1996:57) saw value as “…a standard, criterion or rule for determining whether something is good or bad and for judging one’s behaviour and the behaviour of other people.”

These definitions imply that values are universal standards of judgement against which human society, individuals and groups are assessed or weighed. The values are standards for judging the worth or worthlessness of anything. They are principles which guide human behaviour, actions and social interaction. Values are developed from experiences that individuals have had, from the influence of people, and from the conditions around them (Ogunyemi, 2000; Iheoma, 2000;

Eweniyi, 2006). Values not only influence action, but are themselves influenced by the consequences of actions of the values held by individuals and groups. All human actions and inactions are determined by values (Ogunyemi, 2000). Values provide reasons as well as motive for human behaviour. Ogunyemi (1997), in considering values, identified three basic, hierarchically ordered categories of values. First are the core values, which spring from an accepted universal consideration (for example, it is universally accepted that the human environment is worthy of protection). Second are national values, which spring from an ideological viewpoint and are concretised through several socio-economic constructs including, for example, a national philosophy of environment. Third are the values that may be traced to communal needs. An individual becomes an active member of a community at one point or another and is influenced by locally cherished ideas and values. People make decisions about how to use the natural resources in their environment within the context of these values. Each community and culture has its own array of values.

Kellert and Applegate (1984) distinguished between ascribed values (values that are important to humans) and intrinsic values (values existing regardless of humans). In the same vein Brown (1984) noted the difference between an assigned value and a held value. Assigned value

“…is the worth of a thing (animal) in relation to other things…” while held value is “an underlying personal or societal principle, standard, goal, or ideal that results in the value assigned to something (animal)…” (Brown, 1984:232).