Sponsoring Committee: Professor Robert Teranishi, Chairperson

Professor Mary Leou

Professor Harold Wechsler

WHERE MEANING LIES:

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO

SUSTAINABILITY IN COLLEGE

Annie W. Bezbatchenko

Program in Higher and Postsecondary Education

Department of Administration, Leadership, and Technology

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the

Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development

New York University

2011

ii

Copyright © 2011 Annie W. Bezbatchenko

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation is hinged on the care and good will of many people. First,

thank you kindly to the participants in this study for being generous with their

thoughts; I hope you will continue to use your voices.

Thank you to Richard Couto and Richard Morrill, my first two mentors in

college, who inspired me with their gifts for questioning and writing about the

complexities of life and sharing with me its many joys.

I want to deeply thank Robert Teranishi, my advisor, for contributing

immeasurably to my scholarly development and identity; I thank him for his

tremendous support and friendship. Thank you to my committee members, Mary

Leou and Harold Wechsler; Mary kindly shared her environmental expertise from

the very beginning of this process, and Harold offered his valuable perspectives

on social change in colleges and universities.

Thank you to Laurie Behringer and Emily Grey Goldman for shepherding

me through the doctoral experience with unflagging kindness. My doctoral cohort

also served as wise and gentle sounding boards throughout the experience. Many

thanks to my 7th

Floor buddies, especially Loni, Barry, and Steph, for offering

doses of levity as well. I also want to thank my friends who have provided

iv

helpful insight on life in general throughout my doctoral experience – Liza,

Jaime, Julie, Yap, Beth, Patty, and Lauren.

Finally, a heartfelt thanks to my mom and dad, Judy and Dick Williamson,

for their steadfast cheering. Leah, Scott, Park, Mimi, Goggy, Mike, Ellen, Ann,

and Mary- I know it takes a village, so thank you kindly for your benevolence.

And, to save the best for last, I especially want to thank my spouse, Tim, for his

magnificent grace. His unwavering belief in me provides tremendous momentum.

I love you very much, Tim.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES viii

CHAPTER

I THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1

Introduction 1

Purpose and Rationale 4

Constitutive Definitions 6

Significance of the Study 8

II RELATED LITERATURE 9

Sustainability in Colleges and Universities 9

College Impact on Students 11

The Relationship: Attitudes and Behaviors 13

The Relationship between Attitudes and

Behaviors related to Sustainability 14

Finding the Meaning behind the Complex

Attitude-Behavior Relationship 16

Specific Models about the Relationship 19

Conceptual Framework 24

A Social Capital Framework 28

III METHODOLOGY 37

A Case Study Approach 37

Site Selection 38

Participant Selection 40

Students 40

Administrators and Faculty 42

Procedures for Data Collection 43

Student Data Collection 43

Administrator and Faculty Data Collection 48

Data Analysis 48

Researcher‟s Stance 50

Limitations 52

continued

vii

IV STUDENT CONCEPTIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY 55

Teresa 56

Jamia 57

Carolina 58

Justin 60

Rebecca 62

Sarah 63

Fawn 64

Peter 65

Seth 66

Alex 67

Ava 69

Paige 70

Synthesis 70

V STUDENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS 75

Student Attitudes toward Sustainability 76

Intellectual Concern 76

Concern and “Active Level of Concern” 79

Student Behaviors related to Sustainability 81

“In the Middle” 81

Direct Actions and Civic Engagement- 82

related Actions

The Relationship between Attitudes and Behaviors 85

Creatures of Convenience 86

“Priorities of the Moment” 89

Guilt and Judgment 95

VI COLLEGE IMPACT 105

Pre-College Influences 106

Parents 107

Media 109

Faculty and Administrators‟ Perspectives on

Institutional Environment 113

Students‟ Perspectives on Institutional Environment119

College Influences 122

Interpersonal Peer Groups 122

Messaging through Effective Signage 126

continued

viii

VII CONCLUSION 132

Major Findings 132

Human Connections to Sustainability 133

Remedying Guilt and Judgment 136

Facilitating Behaviors in the

College Context 138

Expanding Academics 140

Implications for Future Research 141

Implications for Policy and Practice 143

Link Sustainability 143

Limit Guilt- and Judgment-based Language 144

Look to Influences 145

Look further to Academics 146

BIBLIOGRAPHY 148

APPENDICES

A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO STUDENTS 159

B CONSENT FORM FOR STUDENTS 160

C INTERVIEW ONE PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS 162

D INTERVIEW TWO PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS 165

E LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO FACULTY AND

ADMINISTRATORS 167

F FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATOR CONSENT FORM 168

G INTERVIEW PROTCOL FOR FACULTY AND

ADMINISTRATORS 169

H ANALYTIC CODING PROCESS 171

viii

LIST OF TABLES

1 Gender, self-identified ethnicity, and major of the study participants 44

1

CHAPTER I

THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Introduction

Over the last thirty years, as environmentalists, scientists, and

policymakers have more closely examined the world‟s ecological systems, the

impossibility of limitless development on a finite earth has been recognized

(Onwueme & Bosari, 2007). Sustainability is now part of the national public

conversation and is becoming an increasingly central issue in the political

landscape of the United States in the 21st century. The most frequently cited

description of sustainability comes from the 1987 Brundtland Report, explaining

that sustainability involves “meet[ing] the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p.1).

While a serious public debate certainly exists around the issue of how to approach

sustainability in the ensuing years, Campbell (1996) asserts, “In the battle of big

public ideas, sustainability has won, but the task in the coming years is simply to

work out the details” (p. 301).

While sustainability is a national priority, an intriguing gap seems to exist

between peoples‟ perceptions of sustainability as an issue and their levels of

actual engagement. In terms of attitudes related to sustainability, the majority of

2

Americans, and young people in particular, feel that the environment is a high

legislative priority, with most Americans indicating that they worry „a great deal‟

about pollution and can sympathize with environmental concerns (Public Agenda,

2010). Yet, in terms of behavior, the extant research indicates that people are

hesitant to take responsibility for environmental problems (Stoll-Kleeman,

O‟Riordan, & Jaeger, 2001; Takacs-Santa, 2007). Essentially, while concern for

the environment has become a cultural norm in western society (Derksen &

Gartell, 1993), inconclusive findings exist in trying to provide explanatory factors

in the relationship between attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. When

inconclusive findings exist, research is warranted in trying to better understand

the phenomenon. Discovering the best way to unpack the apparent incongruence

between attitudes and behaviors is imperative in working toward a more

sustainable future.

To meaningfully study attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in a

way that impacts our future, the study of college students makes sense. In 2008,

over eighteen million students were enrolled in postsecondary education (U.S.

Department of Education, 2009), making college students a robust population to

study. These college students comprise our future citizens and leaders who will

go on to tackle the most critical issues facing society, including sustainability.

Asking traditional-aged students about their attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability is particularly useful when considering social change efforts. Given

that these individuals will lead our businesses, government agencies, and our

3

schools, emerging adults hold great potential to become beacons and engines of

change.

Understanding college students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to social

issues is also critical in order to reduce the considerable estrangement of young

people from public life. Bok (2006) argued that public apathy is the norm among

college students. Researchers must work diligently to better understand the

attitudes and behaviors of this generation in order to move them toward action

and design the higher education setting in a way that supports their development.

Possibility does lie ahead; Levine (1999), in his study of 9,000 college students,

reported that 88 percent of students are hopeful about their own future, and 66

percent are optimistic about the future of the United States. One student shared,

“Our generation will be able to fix this problem; we care” (1999, p. 452).

Gathering knowledge that can help to inform a more sustainable future

also directly aligns with the public and social purposes of higher education.

Historically, dialogue, research, and action within American colleges and

universities have reflected national public conversation. Clark Kerr (2001)

articulated, “As society goes, so goes the university; but also, as the university

goes, so goes society” (p. 194), which suggests the university‟s obligation to

attentively heed the national public dialogue and also highlights the university‟s

critical role in guiding change. John Dewey (1916) asserted that higher education

must provide the landscape for people to become involved in the critical issues

facing society. If students can be empowered as citizens in the context of college,

4

then they will likely become empowered citizens in the larger society (Banks,

2009).

While the entire education sector is important in producing thoughtful and

engaged citizens, the college and university setting may be uniquely positioned to

address the issue of sustainability in the twenty-first century. First, in a setting

that typically respects academic freedom, students may be better positioned to

openly and critically engage in a serious dialogue about sustainability. Second,

for traditional-aged college students, college is typically a mark of emerging

adulthood, and this transition into adulthood inevitably involves the need to

develop and better solidify one‟s own attitudes and beliefs (Quaye, 2007). Third,

a critical and often diverse mass (in terms of geography, socio-economic status,

and ethnicity) exists to weigh in on the discussion from multiple perspectives.

Simply put, there is a need to capture deep insights into the interworkings

of student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the context of

college. Researchers must explore the very shape and texture of the various

elements involved in student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in

order to ultimately understand the relationship between them. Gathering such

knowledge will help us work toward a more sustainable future.

Purpose and Rationale

In order to best characterize the complex attitudes and behaviors that

students present to the world, in-depth qualitative research is needed. While

5

quantitative research has traditionally served as the primary means of collecting

and analyzing data on attitudes and behaviors (Vining & Ebreo, 1992), merit in

qualitative research also exists given its capacity to capture the discursive

developments and maneuvers on complex social issues (Bonilla-Silva, 2000) as

well as its ability to focus on the meaning behind attitudes and behaviors. While

extant research has begun to help us understand these intricacies, this research

study responds to the need for deeper and richer perspectives through a qualitative

investigation that captures and uncovers the subtleties of the relationship between

student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the context of college.

Given that undergraduate college students comprise a large share of the

population of young people in the United States as well as make up our future

citizens and leaders, unpacking the complexities behind college student attitudes

and behaviors is essential. Research from this perspective can help to educate the

higher education community and policymakers about how to best cultivate a

setting that most effectively supports pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.

In sum, this research aimed to yield a more expansive way of thinking about

investigating attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in a population that

holds the potential to guide future change efforts.

The research questions driving this work are:

1. How do college students describe the relationship between their attitudes

and behaviors pertaining to sustainability?

6

2. How does the college environment influence students‟ attitudes and

behaviors related to sustainability?

Constitutive Definitions

In exploring student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability, a

foundational understanding of the concept of sustainability is needed. As

previously mentioned, the most frequently cited definition of “sustainability”

comes from the 1987 Brundtland Report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development in its description of new directions for “our

common future”: sustainable development is “development that meets the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs” (p. 1). This study focuses on environmental sustainability, but the

topic includes economic and social sustainability as they relate to environmental

sustainability. In other words, while sustainability as a concept is focused on the

environment, it is inclusive of the way people are involved in the equation – how

they gather, distribute, and utilize resources and services as well as social and

natural capital (McNamara, 2008). While some disagreement still exists over the

precise meaning of sustainability, three concepts are reflected in almost all

definitions: that natural resources are finite; that environmental, economic, and

social goals must be pursued within these limits; and that a need for inter- and

intragenerational well-being exists (Farrell & Hart, 1998).

7

This study focuses specifically on student attitudes and behaviors.

Individuals‟ attitudes represent their evaluation of some aspect of their world;

attitudes can be defined as “the enduring positive or negative feeling about some

person, object, or issue” (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002, p. 252). „Pro-

environmental‟ attitudes are therefore defined as attitudes focused on one or more

of the three key concepts of sustainability, including a recognition that natural

resources are finite, a belief that humans‟ goals must be pursued within the limits

of nature, and the feeling that humans must preserve the earth for future

generations. Behaviors, by definition, involve the actions performed by the

individual. „Pro-environmental‟ behaviors are therefore defined as behaviors

centered around one or more of the three main concepts of sustainability,

including acting in ways that acknowledge the limits of natural resources,

pursuing one‟s own goals within the boundaries of nature, and behaving in ways

that will maintain our world for the coming generations. This study consistently

used „pro-environmental‟ attitudes and behaviors to describe sustainable attitudes

and behaviors because „pro-environmental‟ is the most frequently used term in the

literature, and it also emphasizes this study‟s focus on environmental

sustainability.

8

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is three-fold. First, the study takes a

qualitative approach in order to best understand the complexity of students‟

voices and ultimately seek to understand the actual meaning behind students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. An insufficient amount of

research has taken a qualitative approach in an attempt to better understand

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability.

Second, this study privileges student voices. The voices of our future

leaders and stakeholders – our students – have not previously been positioned in a

way that directs attention or resources toward interpreting and guiding

sustainability efforts. Any institutional or policy change requires a degree of

acceptance from community members if it is to be effectively implemented. This

study therefore aimed to listen to student voices as a first step in working toward

citizen-led definitions and solutions to the issue of sustainability. Through

research that takes into account the intricacies of students‟ voices, we may be

better able to engage in the pursuit of impactful institutional and policy priorities

related to sustainability.

Third, this study is unique in its emphasis on exploring the impact of the

college environment on the attitudes and behaviors of students, thus adding to the

body of literature on the college environment and the “added value” of

participation in college.

9

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

Sustainability in Colleges and Universities

Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) wrote, “Sustainability is a key issue for

organizations in the twenty-first century as they increasingly acknowledge that

their policies and practices have social and/or environmental consequences” (p.

206). A sustainability movement is currently occurring within American colleges

and universities. Sustainability efforts can take shape within and around various

facets of university life: research; curriculum and education; university policy;

management and operations; programs and services; as well as the attitudes and

behaviors of students, faculty, and staff. This research study focuses on the

attitudes and behaviors of students, in particular.

On the whole, higher education has already recognized that it must play a

role in creating a more sustainable future. The Association of University Leaders

for a Sustainable Future (ULSF), which includes over 400 universities, issued a

statement in 1990 indicating that the success of higher education institutions in

the 21st century will rest on the field‟s ability to set a bold sustainability strategy

and make the environment a cornerstone of academic practice. Over the past two

decades, over 1,000 university leaders, presidents, and vice chancellors have

10

committed their institutions to work toward sustainability through pledges such as

the Talloires Declaration (1990), Swansea Declaration (1993), Copernicus Charter

(1994), Lindberg Declaration (2001), and American College and University

Presidents‟ Climate Commitment (2007) (Tilbury & Wortman, 2008). The

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)

was established in 2005 as a leading organization in sustainability efforts and has

over 300 institutional and system members.

Most of these declarations, commitments, and organizations stem from the

Talloires Declaration. In 1990, 22 university leaders, recognizing the importance

of sustainability in colleges and universities, endeavored to define sustainability‟s

role in higher education by creating a declaration that acts as a guiding set of

commitments for institutions pursuing sustainability. The document these leaders

produced outlines key actions in terms of policies and procedures that institutions

must take in order to achieve sustainable campuses.

Much of the extant research on sustainability in higher education has

focused on institutional-based, top down methods of change. A more

comprehensive approach that works toward creating an ethic of conservation

among campus community members and a culture of sustainability is needed.

This study aims to use findings generated from the community to help guide

institutional change efforts. Approaching sustainability in this way is important

given the unique governance and organizational structure of higher education

where power is diffused. This study thus departs from and extends the body of

11

work on sustainability in the context of higher education in its focus on students,

and, in particular, attitudes and behaviors of students. Understanding the attitudes

and behaviors of college students begins with a respect of and appreciation for

community knowledge. Gathering such knowledge found in the institutional

community can ultimately help inform formalized, institutional change.

Adopting a sustainable culture requires that a mass of students exhibit an

„ethic of conservation,‟ which is an ingrained habit of behaving in ways that

minimize impact on the environment (Friedman, 2008). A community that

demonstrates an ethic of conservation imposes norms on themselves and acts

voluntarily rather than having the norms dictated from above. For instance, if an

ethic of conservation were the norm, those individuals who engage in highly

wasteful behavior would be regarded in the same way someone who lights up a

cigarette on a plane would be looked at today (Friedman, 2008). An institutional

culture of sustainability does not prescribe the type of behavior, but determines

the likelihood that people will behave in certain ways. Simply put, a culture

“develops the boundaries of the probable” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 176).

College Impact on Students

Studying students during college is particularly important because of the

development that does and can occur during this time period. College impact is a

broad concept that includes “all the varieties of college experiences and tries to

12

compare the effects with the effects of noncollege” (Astin, 1993, p. 25). The

underlying assumption of college impact research is that every student who

participates in any college undergoes impact from the experiences. Feldman and

Newcomb (1969), Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), and Astin (1993), have all

conducted research on college impact, attempting to understand how students

change in college based on specific experiences and institutional arrangements.

The conditions explored can include such factors as peer groups, curricula

exposure, and place of residence. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), for example,

explored the impact of college by: investigating the direction and degree of

change; how changes are shaped by individuals‟ characteristics; and the extent to

which changes are attributable to college rather than other external influences

such as natural maturation or other noncollege experiences.

Astin (1993), in his study of over 20,000 college students at 200

institutions, asked the central research question, “How does college affect

students?” (p. 5). He captured non-cognitive or affective outcomes such as

student attitudes and behaviors and found that undergraduate students show

significant changes in attitudes during the college years. One of the largest

positive changes in attitudes involved students‟ “commitment to participating in

programs to clean up the environment” (p. 159). Astin (1993) noted, however,

that most of the college impact research on non-cognitive or affective outcomes

has focused on attitudes, which he argues boasts little social consequence unless

13

the attitudes are reflected in behavioral choices. The present study thus chose to

focus on attitudes, behaviors, and the relationship between them.

Astin (1993) also underscored the importance of peer group experiences,

writing that students‟ views on current social issues changed in the direction of

the peer group‟s dominant beliefs. In fact, he wrote that students‟ experiences

with fellow peers comprised “the singlemost important environmental influence

on student development” (p. xiv). Yet, despite Astin‟s critical finding, he

highlighted that “relatively little is actually known about how undergraduates are

influenced by their peers” (1993, p. 33). The present study thus chose to explore

peer influence as part of the context of college.

The Relationship: Attitudes and Behaviors

Much research has been conducted on the complex relationship between

general attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Kelman, 1974;

Schuman & Johnson, 1976). For years, social behaviorists had accepted the

dominant role of attitudes in explaining behavior (Aitken, 1992; Allport, 1935).

This early work typically modeled the relationship in a linear form, with a causal

arrow flowing from attitude to behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Much of

this research had been focused primarily on attitudinal change and had simply

projected the relationship between attitudinal and behavioral change (Gregory &

Di Leo, 2003). This relationship was presumed because the definition of an

14

„attitude‟ at the time was thought to incorporate a behavioral (motoric) component

reflected in action such as speech or posture change.

Beginning in the 1960‟s, however, social psychologists and sociologists

became skeptical of the utility of attitudes in predicting behavior after

accumulating nearly forty years of low or nonsignificant relations between

attitudes and behaviors (Wicker, 1969). Further, Festinger (1957, 1964) argued

that more attention must be given to how behaviors may even affect attitudes.

The more recent literature has indicated that a substantial, but highly imperfect

relationship exists between attitudes and behaviors (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002;

Vogt, 1997). No doubt exists that attitudes and behaviors do sometimes relate

(Fazio, 1990), but the relationship is highly imperfect and complex, begging

further inquiry.

The Relationship between Attitudes and Behaviors related to Sustainability

Given the volume of work on the relationship between attitudes and

behaviors and the unique terrain of sustainability as a social issue, this research

study focuses on the attitudinal and behavioral research specific to sustainability.

Investigating attitudes and behaviors related to the issue of sustainability has been

a priority for researchers for several years (Gregory & Di Leo, 2003). At first,

researchers mainly focused on attitudes related to the environment (Syme,

Seligman, & Thomas, 1991). Later researchers then connected pro-environmental

attitudes to behaviors, but the vast majority of studies suggest that concern for

15

sustainability is particularly weak as it relates to pro-environmental behavior

(Buttel, 1987; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Vining & Ebreo, 2002). Attitudes

related to sustainability have been found to have a varying but small impact on

actions. For example, results from the New Environmental Paradigm instrument

(Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) showed that people generally believe

that growth ought to be controlled, that economic growth should be limited to

ensure environmental preservation, and that people should strive to live in

harmony with the natural world, but individuals‟ overall scores on this instrument

exhibited small correlations, on average, with their behaviors (Scott & Willis,

1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1992).

Existing attitude-behavior research on the topic of sustainability thus

concurs with other attitude-behavior studies in that gaps typically exist between

attitudes and behaviors (Schultz & Oskamp, 1996). While concern for

sustainability in western cultures is a cultural constant or norm (Derkson &

Gartell, 2003), the reality remains that people who are concerned about the

environment often fail to engage in sustainable behaviors (Dunlap & Van Liere,

1978; Kennedy, Beckley, McFarlene, & Nadeau, 2009; Seligman, 1985).

Kennedy et al. (2009), for example, reported from their national survey study in

Canada (n = 1664) that 72 percent of respondents self-reported a gap between

their attitudes and actions related to sustainability. Studying this attitude-behavior

relationship is essential because while attitudes are useful in their ability to affect

16

the overall climate of opinion in a community, creating a more sustainable future

involves acting in pro-environmental ways.

Because of the weak relationships found between attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability, Cook and Berrenberg (1981) and Vining and Ebreo

(2002) have suggested exploring attitudes that are tied to highly specific

behaviors rather than more general pro-environmental behaviors. While more

narrowly defined attitudes may indeed lead to higher correlations to

corresponding behaviors, the landscape of cognitive and social processes at work

may then become lost. Schultz and Oskamp (1996) as well as this particular

study contend that research need not be narrowed to understand the relationship

between attitudes and behaviors; rather, what needs to be studied and what is less

understood is the meaning behind the attitude-behavior relationship as it pertains

to sustainability (Derksen & Gartell, 1993). Gregory and Di Leo (2003)

encouraged future researchers to not dismiss the attitude-behavior relationship,

but to use methodologies that better capture the complexity behind the

relationship.

Finding the Meaning behind the Complex Attitude-Behavior Relationship

To make meaning of the relationship between attitudes and behaviors and

best capture the complexities of the relationship, researchers must look for the

unevenness of elements, function and structure as well as for distinctions that can

make a difference (van Ginneken, 2003). Researchers must better understand the

17

innerworkings of individuals‟ expressed attitudes and behaviors, uncovering

individuals‟ ideologies and influences; van Ginneken (2003) likens this method to

exposing the shadow behind the light.

Quantitative survey research has operated as the most common

methodology to tackle attitudes and behaviors on public issues and has

characterized the bulk of research on attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability. Although qualitative methods have gained increasing acceptance

in sociology and psychology, they have rarely been used in the work on

environmental-related attitudes and behaviors (Vining & Ebreo, 2002). Vining

and Ebreo (2002) attributed this reality to the preferences and/or training of the

scholars in these fields. While quantitative survey research is valuable in

determining the „who, what, when, and where‟ of attitudes and behaviors,

qualitative research may be better suited to capture the complexities of the

attitude-behavior relationship, including the „how‟ and „why‟ behind attitudes and

behaviors.

In qualitative research on attitudes, the multi-faceted nature of attitudes

must be investigated, including intensity, stability, breadth, and depth of attitudes

(Turner & Killian, 1957). The intensity of attitudes looks at the strength of

individuals‟ attitudes, which includes how convinced they are of their own

beliefs. Rather than asking college students if they “strongly” or “mildly”

believe in an aspect of sustainability, an in-depth interview methodology can

probe students based on their initial expressed beliefs. Stability, which looks at

18

both intensity and direction, examines how individuals feel at different times in

divergent situations. Rather than prescribing certain scenarios for respondents, as

is often done in survey research, interviews allow for students to offer their own

examples of settings and situations. Breadth of attitudes reveals whether

individuals‟ attitudes toward one issue bear any relation with their attitudes

toward other issues. Through qualitative research, the researcher can explore

students‟ mental context on the students‟ own terms. Finally, depth investigates

the underpinnings of attitudes, exploring the lenses or frames of reference that

have helped constitute the attitude (Turner & Killian, 1957). Through an

exploration of the students‟ past experiences related to the attitude, depth in

attitudes can be described.

The complexity of behavior must also be investigated in order to decrease

the indeterminacy that remains in explaining the attitude-behavior relationship.

Parsons and Shils (1951) offered texture to the research on behaviors, contending

that four components of behavior exist: 1) behaviors that are connected to ends,

goals, and other anticipated states 2) behaviors that always take place in the

context of the situation 3) behaviors that are regulated by norms and 4) behaviors

that require an expenditure of effort, motivation, or energy. Jenson (2002) as well

as Courtney-Hall and Rogers (2002) contended that distinctions must also be

made between direct action and civic engagement-related action in behaviorial

research. By nature, civic engagement-related actions do not offer a direct impact

on the environment, but indirectly help it; such actions could include educational

19

outreach and political activities. In contrast, direct actions directly impact the

environment; such actions could include recycling, driving less, and using

alternative sources of energy. Existing studies typically favor direct actions, but

this study worked to also probe civic engagement-related actions as they can

contribute to students‟ development as citizens and problem solvers.

Examining the relationship between attitudes and behaviors necessitates

this type of rigorous, textured understanding of the meaning behind peoples‟

layered attitudes and behaviors. If the intricacies behind peoples‟ attitudes and

behaviors related to sustainability can be better captured, understanding the

circumstances under which social phenomena can shift becomes possible.

Specific Models about the Relationship

When addressing the attitude-behavior relationship specifically, four

prominent models emerge, all of which stem from social psychology: the Theory

of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Attitude

Accessibility Theory, and Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957). The

first three theories describe how attitudes affect behaviors, and the fourth theory

explains how behaviors can affect attitudes. It is important to note that while this

research study chose to expressly focus on the attitude-behavior relationship,

many other factors related to behavior have been studied such as knowledge,

values, and emotion (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).

20

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

One of the foremost theories in explaining the attitude-behavior

relationship has been the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;

Ellen & Ajzen, 1992). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; also Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)

developed this theory, asserting that behavioral intentions are determined by two

factors: 1) attitudes toward the behavior and 2) subjective norms. This theory

begins with the premise that behavioral intentions, measured close to the moment

when the action is performed, are the strongest predictors of the action (Ajzen,

1991; Madden, Ellen, and Ajzen, 1992).

The first factor, attitude toward the behavior, determines the belief about

whether the behavior will lead to specific consequences. Attitudes include the

positive or negative evaluations of performing the action. The second factor,

subjective norms, determines the belief that other people will approve or

disapprove of the behavior. The Theory of Reasoned Action thus introduces

norms into the discussion of the attitude-behavior relationship. Broadly, a social

norm can be defined as “a rule of behavior that is enforced by social sanctions”

(Nyborg & Rege, 2003).

The Theory of Reasoned Action has been applied to a variety of contexts

to predict behaviors with success, especially in the 1990‟s. Granberg and

Holmberg (1990), for example, investigated the attitude-behavior relationship

through the lens of TRA in their study comparing voting behavior among U.S.

and Swedish citizens. Kahle and Beatty (1987) tested the model based on coffee

21

drinking, deliberately trying to test a more habitual behavior, and found

significant results. Goldenhar and Connell (1993) also utilized TRA to predict

recycling behavior.

Several improvements to the TRA model have been suggested by other

researchers. Albrect and Carpenter (1976) and Manstead, Profitt, and Smart

(1983), for example, argued that attitudes can directly influence behavior even

without behavioral intentions or subjective norms. Other theorists soon realized

that additional factors would need to be considered, which led to Ajzen and

Fishbein‟s adapted theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) evolved from the Theory

of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). TPB

builds from the same premise as TRA in that intentions are the strongest

predictors of behavior and therefore focuses on intentions themselves rather than

behaviors. This theory is similar to the TRA in that behavioral intentions are

determined by attitudes toward the behavior as well as the perceptions of social

norms, but Ajzen (1991) added that perceptions of behavioral control should be

factored into the relationship as a third variable. Perceived control can affect the

intention to behave in a specific way as well as the actual behavior (Ajzen, 1987).

By definition, perceived control involves the perceptions about the degree

of difficulty in actually executing the action. The concept of perceived control

22

suggests that the more difficult the behavior is, the less control the person can

exert over the behavior. In turn, this concept proposes that the more difficult

behaviors require people with highly favorable attitudes rather than people with

moderately or slightly favorable attitudes.

Since Ajzen (1991) tested this addition of perceived control into the TPB

attitude-behavior model, other scholars have tested aspects of perceived control

such as level of effort (Bagozzi, Yi, & Baumgartner, 1990). However, in

comparison to the TRA model, the TPB model has gained less attention in the

environmental literature (Vining & Ebreo, 2002).

Attitude Accessibility Theory

The Attitude Accessibility Theory departs from Ajzen and Fishbein‟s

attitude-behavior conceptualizations in that accessible attitudes can be

spontaneous as opposed to engaging in a fully reasoned process to develop the

attitude. Fazio (1986) contended that the more accessible an attitude is, the

greater its strength, and in turn, the more likely the attitude will guide behavior.

„Accessibility‟ is determined by how rapidly an attitude can be expressed.

Attitudes that can easily be recalled from memory, for instance, are more likely to

guide behavior. Interestingly, however, Wu and Shaffer (1987) found that more

accessible attitudes are ultimately more difficult to change. An example of the

application of the Attitude Accessibility Theory can be found in Fazio and

William‟s (1986) study, which investigated how quickly respondents rated

23

presidential candidates and then tracked the respondents‟ voting behavior. They

found that 80 percent of the variance in voting behavior could be explained by

attitudes.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Festinger (1957) proposed an entirely different way of thinking about the

attitude-behavior relationship through his cognitive dissonance theory, arguing

that actions can influence attitudes. The theory posits that if individuals are

induced to change their behavior first, then their attitudes will follow because they

will experience cognitive dissonance; that is, if individuals hold two cognitions

that are inconsistent, they will experience the negative drive state of dissonance

and be motivated to change their attitudes in order to become more consistent

with their actions.

Proponents of school desegregation in the late 1950‟s employed this

theory to describe how the best way to change prejudiced attitudes is to allow

students to interact on a close, equal-status basis in schools with the very

individuals they had been prejudiced against; the students will likely alter their

previous attitudes to become consistent with their new behaviors. Aronson‟s

(1972, 1978) research as well as history itself has served to reinforce the merit of

cognitive dissonance theory as it relates to desegregation.

24

All four of these theories were important to explore as they have served as

the main theories in the attitude-behavior literature to date. What the extant

theories could not yield, however, is detailed attention to social context, which is

a weakness sociologists are beginning to remedy and is fully explored through

this research study‟s conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework

This study aimed to closely explore the landscape of attitudes and

behaviors in a way that captures texture and nuance. Through such an approach,

this study can complement the existing scholarship by offering more attention to

the social world surrounding individuals (e.g., the college environment). While

attitudes are psychological in nature, a framework that offers attention to the

broader social context is useful in further understanding the attitude-behavior

relationship, especially given the already established influential role of social

norms in the attitude-behavior relationship. This study‟s conceptual framework

thus highlights the sociological literature that best attends to how the larger social

context of college can shape attitudes, behaviors, and the relationship between

them. This research accounts for the way that the holistic context operates,

exploring the students‟ college environment.

Derksen and Gartell (1993) captured the importance of broad social

context from a sociological perspective in their article on the social context of

recycling. They wrote, “The conditional nature of the link between attitudes and

25

behavior demonstrated merged only after connecting the individual to a particular

social context” (p. 440). Derksen and Gartell (1993) urged future researchers to

consider social structure when studying attitude-behavior relations. The

individual‟s attitudes and behaviors must be bridged with the larger social

context. This research study seeks to bridge the internal world with the external

world, recognizing that while humans conduct themselves with cognitive agency,

cultures are comprised of human beings in the round who are influenced by the

structure and climate around them (Elias, 1972).

Blake (1999), a sociologist by training, has been credited with bridging the

internal world with the external world in a study that modeled the barriers

between environmental concern and action. His findings indicated three

significant barriers to action under the categories of individuality, responsibility,

and practicality. Individual barriers are closely tied to the individuals‟ internal

existence. Barriers related to responsibility address individuals‟ responsibility to

the external situation and whether they feel that they can affect the situation.

Finally, practicality involves the individuals‟ perceptions of the social and

institutional barriers that affect their attitudes and behaviors. This model is a

useful sociological lens in its ability to account for both psychological and

sociological factors. Yet, still, it failed to consider social norms (Kollmuss &

Agyeman, 2002), which are particularly important in the college context where

peer groups are highly influential (Astin, 1993). Blake‟s study (1999) also

adhered to the attitude-behavior „modeling‟ paradigm, which, as is later

26

discussed, can create monolithic narratives and can therefore be problematic in

working toward understanding the nuances behind attitudes and behaviors related

to sustainability.

Accounting for social context in the attitude-behavior relationship

remains essential for any conceptual framework guiding a study conducted in the

context of college. The higher education setting involves many individuals who

behave in ways that are contingent upon one another. Proximity, after all, is a

powerful determinant of influence; students often study together, play together,

work together, and eat together. Further, some students are particularly

influential among their peers. Senge (2008) deemed these influential individuals

as “animateurs” – a French word for people who create systemic change by role-

modeling behavior and bringing to life a new way of seeing that creates energy

and focus. Social roles were broadly conceived for this research study in order to

include the entire social context of college. Students, for example, are sensitive to

the physical campus surroundings. When students see how dorms dispose of

waste, they receive a message; it is part of the campus‟s „hidden curriculum‟ (Orr,

2002). The college campus thus presents an ideal place to study how social

context affects the attitude-behavior relationship.

The existing focus on theories that are micro-oriented without fully

considering the institutional and social structure also begs potential

methodological weaknesses. Nearly all the research studies reviewed in this

chapter were designed solely using quantitative methods, and as has been

27

previously revealed, studying the „how‟ and „why‟ behind attitudes and behaviors

is limited with quantitative methodologies. The quantitative survey research that

is almost always utilized in attitude-behavior studies typically includes simple

indicators, which can fail to provide deep insights into the components and

determinants of the relationship (Leiserowitz, 2006). Wall (1995) contended that

understanding the relationship between attitudes and behaviors is more important

than documenting the concrete levels of attitudes and engagement.

While a micro-oriented approach fits with the nature of behavioral

modeling, modeling need not drive the boundaries of a study (O‟Donoghue &

Lotz-Sisitka, 2002). Bauman (2001) argued that researchers seeking to

understand social life must begin “modeling without the model” (p. 139) in order

to avoid making facile, convenient assumptions that “fit” into the model structure.

The research process must be more open-ended rather than ruling out

uncertainties like objectivist modeling often does (O‟Donoghue & Lotz-Sisitka,

2002). The previously outlined models can be limited in their positivist approach

in that they seek to maximize generalizability, but in doing so, cannot attend to

the particularities that emerge in the relationship (Courtney-Hall & Rogers, 2002).

Researchers continue to believe that more specific measurement will demonstrate

causal links (Weigel, 1985), but perhaps this relationship cannot be neatly

measured in our intricate social world.

Prior researchers‟ insistence on modeling also seems to constrain complex

phenomena to boxes and arrows, yet this multifaceted relationship cannot be

28

easily visualized through a single diagram or framework (Kollmus & Agyeman,

2002). Modeling the blockages between attitudes and behaviors does little to

describe how and why these blockages occur, which is ultimately needed if we are

to unclog the blockages. Developing a model that strives to incorporate all factors

related to the attitude-behavior relationship is neither feasible nor useful as it

detracts from both the model‟s practicality and meaning (2002). While modeling

attitudes and behaviors may be useful for providing information on factors

relevant to policy analysis, it may disappoint educational leaders and

policymakers in its ability to describe meaning.

Finally, Derksen & Gartell (1993) add that in the quest for empirical

researchers to increasingly detail the models, the quest has become almost

“atheoretical” (p. 440). A theoretical framework that embraces the competing and

conflicting factors that shape individuals‟ attitudes and actions is thus needed:

social capital. This theoretical framework attends to the meaning individuals

construct behind the attitude-behavior relationship and also grabs onto subtleties

rather than placing them outside of a diagram.

A Social Capital Framework

The framework of social capital is a paradigm that both accounts for the

larger social context as it pertains to the attitude-behavior relationship and allows

for methodological approaches that dig at the „how‟ and „why‟ behind attitudes

and behaviors related to sustainability. In addition, the social capital lens aligns

29

with the substance of this study‟s research questions and the topic of sustainability

itself. Finally, while rooted in sociology, social capital transcends a range of

disciplines and methodologies, which helps to avoid a piecemeal approach to the

complex issue of sustainability. For these reasons, social capital offers a powerful

perspective through which to view students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability.

By definition, social capital can be described as “features of social

organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency

of society by facilitating coordinated actions” (Putnam, 1993, p. 167). While

several different definitions of social capital appear in various texts, the

definitions are typically complementary rather than contradictory (Grootaert &

Bastelaer, 2002). Social capital does not exist within individuals, but can be used

by individuals to garner both personal and community gains (Leahy & Anderson,

2010). The social capital lens underscores the importance of the connectedness

and fluidity of our social and relational world, delving into both networks and the

role of institutions (Adger, 1999). It allows the researchers to study the influence

of social factors on attitudes and behaviors, recognizing its consequences for both

individuals and communities.

The framework of social capital has been applied to a diverse range of

settings including family dynamics, community and social organizations, public

health, and career advancement. In the past decade, the social capital lens has

increasingly been used to inform phenomena within education settings (Stanton-

30

Salazar, 2004). Social capital has been associated with, for example, the attitudes

and behaviors underlying academic achievement in schools (e.g., Bankston &

Zhou, 1995; Muller & Ellison, 2001; Noguera, 2004). In particular, Stanton-

Salazar, Chavez, and Tai (2004) linked the social capital framework to actual

behavior in the education setting through their exploration of „help-seeking‟

behavior in school systems.

Undergirding this research study is the premise that communities of

students may have access to various forms of social support that can facilitate the

transition to a sustainable culture. Higher stocks of social capital contribute to

behaviors that promote the common good and individual well-being (Bourdieu,

1986; Coleman, 1990; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006; Zhao, 2002). Communities of

people with great trust, deep social networks, and social norms are more inclined

to collectively behave in pro-environmental ways that contribute to the public

good and protect natural resources (Pretty, 2003; Jones, 2006).

While Bourdieu (1980) and Coleman (1988, 1990) are often cited as the

grandfathers of social capital, their work is typically focused on the individual and

private benefits of social capital, such as personal outcomes like occupational

mobility and individual health (Baker, 2000). Studies that focus on these private

elements of social capital are often centered on issues of societal stratification and

opportunity structures. Given that this study worked to understand the public

dimensions of social capital in addition to the private dimensions, Putnam‟s

(1995, 2000) macro analysis of social capital is best suited for this research.

31

Putnam‟s (1995, 2000) work maintains a focus on the community and public

effects of social capital while also recognizing the private benefits. Through

Putnam‟s (1995, 2000) scholarship, social capital came to be seen as an attribute

of the community itself and as a „stock‟ of social capital (Portes, 2000). A public

conception of social capital depicts it as a collective resource that enables

productive outcomes (Goddard, 2003). Putnam‟s framework of social capital has

been used to indicate how benefits accrue beyond individuals to the community in

the form of outcomes such as reduced crime rates, decreased corruption, and more

democratic governance (Portes, 2000). In this study, the desired outcome

involves pro-environmental behaviors, which is clearly a principal element of a

sustainable culture.

The multidimensional components of social capital are typically divided

into four categories: social networks, social trust, social norms, and institutional

trust (Jones, Malesios, Iosifides, & Sophoulis, 2008; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, 2000;

van Oorschot, Arts, & Gelissen, 2006). Taken together, dense social networks,

high social and institutional trust, as well as a tendency for a community to adhere

to social norms may hold the ability to influence students‟ attitudes and behaviors

as they pertain to sustainability in colleges and universities.

The first component, social networks, is perhaps the most fundamental

part of social capital (Coleman, 1990), encompassing the formal and informal

connections among community members (Narayan & Cassidy, 2001). Examples

of social networks in the university setting can include the infrastructure of majors

32

and residence halls as well as groups of friends. Adger (1999) explained that two

primary types of social network capital exist: bonding social capital and

networking social capital. Bonding social capital is typically found in friendships

whereas networking social capital is found in weaker bonds. A combination of

both types of social networks is necessary to work toward change in a community.

It is through these networks of support that individuals develop the belief and

engagement in the norms and goals of an institution (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).

A second component, social trust, is considered a cognitive component of

social capital (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002), referencing the individual

members‟ perceived level of trust toward other community members. Trust is

connected with the likelihood that individuals will act in pro-environmental ways

because they believe they can trust the other actors to behave similarly (Goddard,

2003; Pretty, 2003). Individuals will recycle, for example, if they hold the belief

that others will recycle as well (Evangelinos and Jones, 2009). Social trust can

facilitate a sustainable culture in that behaviors are translated into habits over

time.

A third component of social capital includes social norms, a factor that

Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) have continually highlighted as essential in their

attitude-behavior models. Social norms determine acceptable behavior that

support desirable goals (Goddard, 2003), such as the goal of a sustainable culture.

Norms effectively influence both attitudes and behaviors because community

members‟ attitudes and actions are judged by other community members relative

33

to the group norms. The peer group sets standards for what is appropriate

behavior, which becomes the basis of the peer group social structure that, in turn,

drives social behavior (Stanton-Salazar, 2004). When a student‟s behaviors, for

example, are inconsistent with the shared attitudes of the community members,

the community will likely sanction those behaviors. Young people, in particular,

are deeply influenced by the attitudes and evaluations of their peers toward the

self, and over time, such attitudes and evaluations are internalized and become

reflected in the young peoples‟ attitudes toward themselves (Rosenberg, 1986).

Only some social capital theorists include institutional trust as a fourth

part of the social capital framework (e.g., Noguera, 2004; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;

Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006). Institutional trust refers to the trust toward an

institution(s) (Newton and Norris, 2000). For this particular study, institutional

trust involves the degree to which community members trust that the university

will take responsibility for a sustainable institution and future through initiatives

and policy. If the students hold a high level of institutional trust, for example,

they would be more likely hold attitudes and behave in ways that support the

initiatives and policy. The component of institutional trust is applicable to a

broad range of settings in that the degree of trust in formal institutions may be

foundational to the development of the other components of social capital (Evans,

1996; Ostrom, 1996; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000).

Within the four components of social capital, two forms can exist: 1)

structural social capital and 2) cognitive social capital (Grootaert & Bastelaer,

34

2002). Structural social capital is fairly objective and more observable through

social structures such as networks and institutions. Student groups and

institutional policies are examples of structural social capital. The second form,

cognitive social capital, involves the more intangible and subjective elements of

social capital such as attitudes and norms of behavior (2002). This study

specifically probed cognitive social capital as it is typically more difficult to

capture.

Grootaert and Bastelaer (2002) also outlined distinctions among micro,

meso, and macro level social capital. Micro level social capital has been

previously studied in psychological studies, examining the internal world and

horizontal networks of individuals. Meso level social capital typically heeds

group relations, going beyond individual relations and also taking into account

inequalities of power. Macro level social capital comprises the broader

institutional environment that serves as a background for all social activity.

Measuring social capital by its consequences is considered an arduous task

since social capital is seemingly less tangible than physical or human capital

(Ferri, Deakins, & Whittam, 2009; Portes, 2000). Since social capital is

relational, it defies easy measurement (Ferri et al., 2009). And because of the

relative newness of social capital, academics are still searching for innovative

means to measure and analyze it (Grootaert & Bastelaer, 2002). Much of the

extant scholarship using the framework of social capital has been quantitative

(Ferri, Deakins, & Whittam, 2009). These studies typically use indicators that

35

relate to delineated components of social capital (2009). However, this method

does not allow for new “indicators” to emerge through the data collection process.

Thus, the need for increased use of qualitative methods in studying social capital

has been identified in order to learn more about the interplay among attitudes,

behaviors, and the social world (Leahy & Anderson, 2010).

The lens of social capital is useful in studying young people and the

possibilities for future change as many social capital theorists (e.g., Putnam, 1995,

2000; Sander & Putnam, 1999) have argued that America‟s „stock‟ of social

capital is on the decline. Sander and Putnam (1999), for instance, found that

Americans decreased their civic participation during the past century. Yet,

Ritchey-Vance (1996) found that building social capital can serve as a means to

maintain community involvement over time. Brown and Ashman (1996) also

argued that fostering social capital contributes to future problem-solving, which in

turn, generates additional social capital. If social capital is ultimately what is

required to transition our attitudes and behaviors to become more sustainable,

studying the elements of social capital becomes critical.

Social capital, by nature, is imaginative and aspirational, focusing on

assets as opposed to deficits. A theoretical framework with a positive lens is vital

to use when addressing sustainability because too many environmentalists in the

past have used a “doomsday discourse,” consistently employing blockage verbs

such as “stop,” “restrict,” and “prevent” to talk about sustainability (Nordhaus &

Shellenberger, 2007, p. 7). Instead, individuals working toward a more

36

sustainable future must focus on “creating the good” rather than “stopping the

bad” (2007, p.7).

In sum, this study explores the role of social capital in explaining the

meaning behind attitudes, behaviors, and the relationship between them. It begins

to dig at how and why higher stocks of social capital may contribute to pro-

environmental attitudes and behaviors. The framework of social capital informs

this study in several ways. First, it accounts for the world surrounding

individuals, presenting a lens through which to view the larger social context of

college and beyond. Second, it allows for a qualitative methodology that can best

unpack the meaning behind the attitude-behavior relationship. Third, it supports

the essence of sustainability itself in that high stocks of social capital are needed

to contribute to behaviors that support the common good and protect nature‟s

resources. Fourth, social capital, while grounded in sociology, can cross

disciplinary divides, allowing for a more comprehensive approach to the intricate

issue of sustainability. By using social capital as a lens, the meaning behind the

attitude-behavior relationship can emerge.

37

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This research study was driven by the primary goal of invigorating the

inquiry on the attitude-behavior relationship as it pertains to sustainability by

giving specific attention to qualitative methodologies, a research tradition that had

been largely overlooked in past attitude-behavior studies. The purpose of this

particular chapter is to describe how the case study methodology drew on the

students themselves as the individual cases as an approach to explore students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the college environment. This

chapter articulates: the case study approach, site selection, outlines how the data

collection procedures and analyses evolved, offers the researcher‟s stance, and

discusses the delimitations of the study.

A Case Study Approach

This research study chose to employ an instrumental case study method,

which allowed for rich data collection in order to better understand the meaning

behind college students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability.

Specifically, Stake‟s (2009) conceptualization of an instrumental case study

guided this research. The instrumental case study allowed for a design that

privileged the students as the individual cases rather than solely focusing on the

38

institution as the case. Together, the units comprised a „collective case study‟ in

which each student case was important, but utmost importance was attached to the

coordination and relationships among the individual student cases. This

designation of students as the case study unit did not diminish the focus on the

context of the institution, but simply privileged the students as a way to better

understand the primary phenomena of interest: the students‟ attitudes and

behaviors related to sustainability. In the absence of in-depth, qualitative studies

on college student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability, the exploration

of an instrumental, collective case study was able to offer insights into individual

students‟ attitudes, behaviors, and the relationship between them in the college

environment. An instrumental case study approach allows for an appreciation of

the complexity of the cases as well as the cases‟ interplay with context (Stake,

2009). The instrumental case study approach contributes to the generation of

propositions and hypotheses about the phenomenon of interest (i.e., students‟

attitude-behavior relationships) that can hopefully facilitate later studies of

broader scope.

Site Selection

This research took place at a large, metropolitan university in the

Northeast; the identified pseudonym is Comprehensive Northeast University

(CNU). Given that this study aimed to capture students‟ attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability, selecting an institution where students are exposed to the

39

phenomenon of interest, sustainability, was important. A site was therefore

chosen where sustainability is deemed as a university priority. The selected

institution received several accolades for their work in sustainability, including

recognition from the Sierra Club, Environmental Protection Agency, Association

for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), and the

Princeton Review‟s Guide to Green Colleges. The university‟s communication

publications also asserted that the institution is continually striving to improve its

environmental performance and foster a sustainable campus culture. CNU has an

office specifically dedicated to sustainability, which serves as a hub of

information, communication, and initiatives in an effort to ameliorate the

environmental performance of the campus. Environmental performance, as a

term, involves both operational and cultural efforts and includes the pro-

environmental attitudes and actions of students, administrators, faculty, and even

alumni. Examples of the institution‟s sustainability efforts include an advisory

sustainability task force charged with developing recommendations for policy and

practice, a grant system whereby students, faculty, and staff can lead projects to

advance environmental sustainability on campus, and operational efforts such as

an in-house cogeneration power plant to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas

emissions.

Yet, while sustainability is an important university initiative, this

institution was also selected because it is similar to many colleges and universities

across the United States in that their efforts are relatively new within the last ten

40

years, and they are still working toward developing a culture of sustainability.

Given these characteristics, the institution therefore served as a rich, yet also

realistic backdrop for the individual cases.

Participant Selection

Students

The students, the case study unit, were purposefully selected. The

selection criteria included status as a full-time, traditional-aged, sophomore or

junior student in the University‟s College of Arts and Science who lived on-

campus and had been at the institution for a minimum of two semesters. These

criteria were necessary in order to limit some variability involved in the college

context. Full-time students were selected, for example, because they typically

experience greater exposure to the college environment than their part-time

counterparts (Astin, 1993). Traditional-aged students were selected as part of the

criteria given emerging adults‟ ability to affect our environmental future for

decades to come as citizens, stakeholders, and leaders. The participant selection

criteria also included status as sophomores or juniors because these students had

been in college for a considerable amount of time, leaving sufficient time to be

highly familiar with and reflective of the college environment, yet they still had

enough time left in their college experience to remain attached to and involved

with the undergraduate community. The criteria of attendance at the institution

for a minimum of two semesters was included to ensure that the student did not

41

just transfer into the institution as a sophomore or junior, which would minimize

their exposure to this particular college context. Further, students residing on-

campus were selected in order to ensure that students were experiencing the

college environment outside of the curricular setting. Finally, students in the

College of Arts and Science were part of the criteria because it is a college with

which most readers can identify regardless of one‟s own institution, and it also

offered a diverse range of disciplines and fields to which this cross-section of

students could be exposed.

Fourteen students who met the criteria were purposefully selected with

attention given to gender, ethnicity, and a range of disciplines within the College

of Arts and Science in order to gain a robust understanding of how different

characteristics and experiences influence students‟ attitudes and behaviors related

to sustainability. It is worth mentioning that I selected all of the males who

volunteered to participate as their volunteer rate was much lower than females‟

rate. Beginning with a total of fourteen students allowed for some attrition to

occur without compromising the completeness of data and ultimately the

credibility of the study. Ultimately, of the fourteen students, twelve completed

two rounds of interviews; one student cancelled the first interview and did not

return my subsequent follow-up emails, and one student only participated in the

first round of interviews due to illness. Given that this study aimed to reveal

complexities and subtleties in attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability, I

42

chose to report only on the twelve participants who completed both rounds of

interviews.

Although the sample was purposeful, involving twelve sophomore and

junior students in the study ensured sufficient variety in terms of attitudes and

behaviors. Two, one-hour long interviews with each student were necessary to

capture complexities and nuances of attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability.

Administrators and Faculty

As background for the twelve student cases and to provide further context

to the study, three administrators and one faculty member at the institution who

were all involved with sustainability on campus were interviewed for

approximately thirty minutes. Participants included a leader within the

sustainability office on campus, a program assistant in the sustainability office,

the vice president of student affairs involved with sustainability efforts, and a

faculty member in the College of Arts and Science who chooses to integrate

sustainability into his curricula. At these interviews, I tried to collect documents

directly and indirectly related to sustainability such as the institution‟s strategic

plan and information on sustainability-related policies in order to best capture the

institutional context, but the documents I collected did not yield any new

information. Hence, I chose not to report on them.

43

Procedures for Data Collection

All the interviews aimed to achieve coverage of the phenomenon of

interest: students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the college

environment.

Student Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews, lasting approximately one hour, were

conducted with a total of twelve students, two times each. As a beginning step,

two pilot interviews were conducted, which were audio recorded. Through these

pilot interviews, the researcher gained practice interviewing on this particular

topic and also gained a sense of how the recording would potentially influence the

setting.

Following IRB approval for this project, the next step involved inviting

the students to participate in the study via email (see Appendix A). I gained

permission from two College of Arts and Science administrators who manage the

school‟s listservs to disseminate the initial email inviting students to participate in

the study. The listservs included both advisee listservs and club listservs. In the

Letter of Introduction sent via email, a link was included to an Online Student

Information Form (see content of Appendix A for link), and I requested that the

students who were interested in participating in the study fill out the Online

Student Information Form within two weeks upon receipt of the invitation. The

students‟ real names, emails, and phone numbers were only used to contact the

students to set up interviews; otherwise, only aliases were used in the notes and

44

narratives to follow. Once the students hit the „submit‟ button on the online form,

they received a follow-up email within approximately one week if they were

selected to participate. Of the thirty-six students who responded, fourteen were

selected to participate. Many of the students who were not selected did not

currently live on campus.

The student information form was designed to provide simple baseline

data on the student, which was in turn used to ensure that all students met the

sampling criteria and also make certain that a diverse cross-section of students

was represented in terms of gender, self-identified ethnicity, and field/discipline

of study within the College of Arts and Science. The participant information

collected from the student information form can be found in Table 1:

Table 1- Gender, self-identified ethnicity, and major of the study participants

_______________________________________________ ________________

Student Gender Ethnicity Major

_______________________________________________________________

Sarah Female White Physics

Justin Male Chinese Philosophy & Economics

Rebecca Female Hispanic Journalism

Teresa Female Hispanic Environmental Studies

Fawn Female Black Still deciding

Seth Male White Psychology

Ava Female Caucasian East Asian Studies

Peter Male Caucasian Art History

Carolina Female Mexican Biology and Psychology

Paige Female White History

Jamia Female Black English

Alex Male Taiwanese Biochemistry

_______________________________________________________________

45

Once the potential student participants were identified, I emailed them,

thanking them for their interest and inquiring about possibilities for a mutually

convenient date, time, and on-campus location for the interview. Interviews

located on-campus were intentionally preferred as the interview included

questions about campus culture itself, and the campus setting was thought to

potentially inspire student ideas and stories. All the interviews took place on

campus in a location near the College of Arts and Science building where a

consistent space could be reserved.

The interviews with students lasted approximately one hour and were

recorded in order to trace the content in its entirety as well as the subtleties in

voices. In following a semi-structured format, the interview guide listed main

topics and open-ended questions to ask during the interview, but the patterns of

questions and even some of the questions themselves evolved over the course of

the interviews. This flexibility in design was important in order to accommodate

what I was learning during the interviews. The open-ended nature of the

questions also allowed for the discovery process to take place because the

participant could respond in numerous ways (Gillham, 2000). Through probes,

the students were encouraged to offer examples, narratives, or stories in order to

aim for detail, vividness, and depth (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Several follow-up

questions were also asked based on the participants‟ responses in order to

understand the implications of the responses to the main questions (1995). These

46

probes and follow-up questions were essential for gathering richness and texture

in students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability.

The multiple interview approach allowed me to reflect on data gathered in

the first interview and harness it to inform the interactions in the second

interview. The content for both interviews focused on the participants‟

interpretations of their own attitudes, behaviors, and the relationship between

them, with particular attention to the college context. More specifically, in the

first interview, the participants were asked about: their impressions of

sustainability; familiarity with sustainability and the institution‟s initiatives

regarding sustainability; a series of questions specific to their attitudes and

behaviors regarding sustainability; various influences that may affect these

attitudes and behaviors; and impressions about the campus culture related to

sustainability (see Appendix C for protocol). In addition to discussing the

participants‟ perspectives on the outlined topics, the first interview focused on the

development of rapport between researcher and participant. The protocol for the

second interview was developed after the first interview had taken place, so the

previously collected data could appropriately inform and shape the content for the

second round. This second interview centered on asking follow-up questions

from information the participants presented in the first interview and also gaining

clarification and re-phrasing questions that were not fully addressed in the initial

interview (see Appendix D for protocol).

47

The two interviews took place anywhere from one week to three weeks

apart; this time period was designed to allow the students time to reflect between

the two interviews, yet not forget the topics we had previously discussed. After

the conclusion of each interview, audio recordings were transcribed as soon as

possible in order to capture any notes not evident in the recording such as non-

verbal communication and also to jot down any initial interpretive comments

while the interview content was still fresh. I transcribed all the interviews myself

in an effort to maximize accuracy and also as a first step toward becoming close

to the data prior to data analysis.

The study was designed to include a small incentive in order to recruit

students and to encourage sustained participation. Each participant received $30

worth of iTunes gift cards as a token of appreciation – one $15 gift card being

given at the end of the first interview and another $15 being given at the end of

the second interview. The incentive was staggered in order to take account for

possible attrition. Guyll, Spoth, and Redmond (2003) found that monetary

incentives are helpful for increasing participation and may even help to reduce

sampling bias because incentives increase participation rates among those

individuals less likely to participate in the research. Assuming that potential

participants would consider personal costs inherent to the research study,

providing an incentive likely encouraged individuals to become more receptive to

participating in the study (Capaldi & Patterson, 1987).

48

Administrator and Faculty Data Collection

To provide context for the institutional culture, auxiliary interviews with

three administrators and one faculty member involved with sustainability efforts

were conducted. The auxiliary interviews lasted approximately thirty minutes

each, followed a semi-structured format, and were also audio recorded. To

recruit the participation of the three administrators and one faculty member, I

contacted them via email using the participation invitation found in Appendix E.

The consent form for these contextual interviews can be found in

Appendix F. In these interviews, participants were asked about: their role and

involvement with sustainability; the support and political will for sustainability on

campus; the institutional culture surrounding sustainability; their perceptions of

students‟ interest in sustainability; and future plans regarding sustainability

initiatives. The interview protocol for the administrator and faculty interviews

can be found in Appendix G.

Data Analysis

Through a process of synthesizing the student interviews as well as the

administrator and faculty interviews, the data were analyzed. First, I read through

the transcripts as a complete body in order to gain a sense of overall content and

pre-coded by bolding striking quotations (Yin, 2008). Next, the data were entered

into Dedoose, a computer-assisted software, to organize the data, which enhanced

49

my ability to find specific data during the analysis to follow. The aim of the case

study data analysis was to take the data that were relevant to the student cases, use

analytic questions to collect quotations related to the research questions, and then

comprehensively code them into meaningful categories and sub-categories. Of

course, some data fit into more than one code. If I found that too much discrepant

data existed within the codes, I revised the coding. The analytic questions were

divided into three levels: what the individual was claiming, what groups of

students were claiming, and finally, identifying what narrative could be told from

the students‟ claims. Please see Appendix H for additional detail on the coding.

Once I had reached level of comfort with the coding and tagging process,

I began writing the analysis. As I wrote, I consistently generated reports on

specific codes to assist with the analysis and writing process. This approach

allowed for a close, multidimensional examination of students‟ attitudes and

behaviors, which ultimately exposed subtleties about the attitude-behavior

relationship and how the college context may influence the relationship.

Once the preliminary findings were determined, I sifted through the data

again to determine if alternative explanations could be supported; this process

served to better determine the content validity of the findings. The findings were

not used to develop a fixed model, but rather to develop analyses that revealed

students‟ attitude-behavior relationship pertaining to sustainability. Further, I

engaged colleagues in discussions of student responses and my analysis as an

informal means of member checking (Stake, 2009).

50

In sum, this study offers an in-depth exploration of college students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the context of a higher

education institution that highlights sustainability as an institutional priority. By

listening and reporting on students‟ voices through a qualitative methodology that

captured richness and depth, this study takes a first step toward informing the

work of higher education leaders and policymakers‟ in their efforts to address the

issue of sustainability.

Researcher‟s Stance

In qualitative research, the researcher is an inextricable and essential part

of the research process (Merriam, 2009). Given this reality, providing a

background on the researcher‟s positionality is important as it affects how I

represent, or more accurately “re-present” the participants (Fine, 1994). I, the

researcher, hold the deep belief that knowledge can be found in and expressed

through the individual. In keeping with this constructivist and interpretive

worldview, I have purposefully selected an instrumental case study approach to be

able to deeply capture student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in

the college context. I aimed to better understand aspects of human thought and

activity from the perspective of college students. My hope is that this qualitative,

case study approach can assist in privileging student voices on the topic of

sustainability.

51

I came to this research with an identity as an environmental steward – as

an individual, community member, and citizen. I am particularly concerned about

climate change and wanted to conduct research that could help inform policy and

practice and that works to preserve our earth for the present and future

generations. My interest in the relationship between attitudes and behaviors in the

college context, in particular, stems from my own experiences witnessing gaps in

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability among friends, colleagues, and in

myself, too. I know how difficult it can be to alter behavior, even if the newly

adopted behavior holds distinct advantages over the old behavior (Kollmuss &

Agyeman, 2002). Yet, as a higher education scholar, I also know about the

transformative impact of college on individual participants as well as society at

large. Thus, I came to this research with an appreciation of the complex attitude-

action relationship and the college context, but with little understanding of the

„how‟ and „why‟ behind the attitude-behavior relationship pertaining to

sustainability in the college context.

Given my keen interest in sustainability issues, however, I was aware of

the biases I inevitably brought when analyzing the data. For example, I

consciously guarded against being too quick to see pro-environmental attitudes

and behaviors due to my hopeful stance. Awareness is the first step toward

minimizing biases, so I took time to carefully analyze my biases before entry to

the site and throughout the entire research process. The member checking process

with colleagues was also designed to minimize these biases.

52

Limitations

Three salient limitations emerged during the course of this research study:

the urban location of the institution from which the cases were drawn; the stages

of the participants‟ development as traditional-aged college students; and the

apparent ambiguity surrounding sustainability as a term.

While the institution from which I chose to collect data boasted many

advantages such as an institutional commitment to sustainability, complexity, and

student racial and geographic diversity, its urban location in the Northeast was

mentioned as a unique factor when influencing students‟ attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability as well as the institution‟s priorities. For example, when

students were asked to describe their pro-environmental behaviors, over half of

the students mentioned using public transportation, which may simply be a

product of their urban environment rather than an intentional choice to act

sustainably. Further, three of the twelve students mentioned the necessity of

sustainable practices at urban institutions in the Northeast because of the region‟s

limited space and great presence of industry. Students and even institutions

themselves in different regions of the country may be less inclined than CNU to

adopt sustainable practices; two students specifically cited colleges and

universities in Texas as such places. When thinking about the logical

generalizability of the claims from this study, considering the institution‟s urban

location in the Northeast is therefore important, especially given that Trembley

53

and Dunlap (1978) found that urban residents are more concerned with

environmental issues than rural residents.

A second limitation of this study involved the participants‟ varying

developmental stages as traditional-aged college students in emerging adulthood.

Student development experts (e.g., Kohlberg) may note that traditional-aged

students‟ attitudes and behaviors are still in flux in college, so asking them to

describe their attitudes and behaviors at this life stage may result in thin findings.

Nevertheless, this study contends that privileging college student voices is a

necessary part of helping institutional leaders and policymakers understand how

to better facilitate a campus culture of sustainability. Further, through the very act

of interviewing these students in ways that challenged them to meaningfully

reflect on their attitudes and behaviors, perhaps I was able to gently assist in

advancing their cognitive and socio-emotional development trajectory.

A final limitation that surfaced was the ambiguity surrounding

sustainability as a term. The interview protocol was purposefully designed to first

ask students about their conception of sustainability and then share a common

definition of it that could be used as a common base for the rest of the discussion.

I had purposely sought out participants whose attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability collectively varied, so I suspected that the concept of sustainability

may be slightly vague in some students‟ minds, but I did not anticipate that a few

students would be entirely fuzzy on the term. This vagueness on the concept of

sustainability does not make me question the study‟s claims since I had structured

54

the opportunity to teach students about a common definition of sustainability, but

it did cause me to wonder whether richer data could have been solicited from

students who hold a deeper knowledge of environmental sustainability.

55

CHAPTER IV

STUDENT CONCEPTIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY

The traditional Brundtland Report (1987) definition of sustainability -

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 1) - has been criticized

as ambiguous as well as arduous to operationalize and implement (Marshall &

Toffel, 2005). Farrell & Hart (1998) argued that sustainability must evolve from

a buzz word to a meaningful concept that is comprehensible to the public. This

research study acknowledges the debate around the “best” definition of

sustainability, but concurs with Farrell and Hart‟s (1998) assertion that the sheer

number of definitions surrounding the term hints at its potential power as a

meaningful concept.

In an effort to best capture students‟ conceptions of the word, this chapter

introduces the twelve participants through their individual conceptions of

sustainability and how they came to understand the term. A synthesis of such

conceptions will then be provided at the end of the chapter. Comprehending the

cases‟ conceptions of sustainability can serve as a fundamental base for situating

findings about students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in

college.

56

Teresa

Teresa is a 19 year old Hispanic female who is a junior at CNU majoring

in Environmental Studies, earned herself a Gates Millennium Scholarship, and is

from a predominately Latino agricultural community about one hour north of Los

Angeles. Given her major, she is clearly interested in environmental issues.

During both of our meetings, Teresa wore a professional-looking jacket and skirt,

almost as if she were coming to a job interview. Yet, her demeanor was much

more at ease, and during both of our interviews, we nearly exceeded the amount

of time we had allotted because of our chatting.

When describing sustainability, Teresa spoke of “giving an advantage to

future generations.” She described it this way because she felt like her generation

and her parents‟ generation were not beneficiaries of advantage; as Teresa shared,

“I grew up in a community that was rated the #1 most polluted city in the U.S. a

couple of years ago because of all the pesticides and stuff used in the fields and

from Los Angeles pollution and waste being dumped in my county.” She

recollected being disgusted by all the pesticides when she began working in the

fields after school at age 16 and seeing the horrific cases of asthma and other

health issues among her neighbors caused by the pesticides. She elaborated, “A

lot of them had eye issues, health issues, and just things that you can‟t really

reverse.”

As a result of these experiences, she wants to pursue a career as

environmental advisor for a private company. She communicated that her

57

primary concern related to sustainability is the often overlooked connection

between sustainability and worker health: “Because the United States is so

advanced, I feel like a lot of people don‟t know how close some people are to the

environment – and to the chemicals – in their daily existence.” Teresa‟s

understanding of what sustainability means and her desire for environmental

justice is clearly linked to her hometown experiences.

Jamia

Jamia is a 19 year old Black female who is a junior studying English and

Creative Writing. When she spoke, Jamia‟s words were eloquent and

imaginative; I immediately thought that her majors seem to suit her. Her family is

originally from Jamaica, and she grew up in Jamaica, Queens, so she cheerfully

verbalized, “I like to tell people that I‟m Jamaican squared!” Jamia is deeply

concerned about and engaged with sustainability issues; she even spent a summer

raising money for Green Peace through street canvassing. She communicated, “I

really wanted to work for the environment, and I needed a job, so I thought this

would be really, really awesome. I stood on the street and said, „Heyyyy, do you

have a minute for Green Peace?‟ I did that!”

In probing to find out how Jamia developed her love for the environment,

she told me about developing her passion when she read about Native Americans‟

conception of sustainability in her history books. Jamia articulated:

58

I‟ve always been fascinated by the fact that Native Americans typically

just used what they needed and really respected the earth. When the

Europeans came over, they sort of dismissed that. I remember seeing

pictures of the bison the Europeans killed just because it was fun.

While Jamia is not Native American herself, she deeply respects Native

Americans for their profound consciousness of the environment and recognizes

the injustice that ensued when Europeans disrespected Native Americans‟

environmental values. The definition of sustainability Jamia offered reflected

Native Americans‟ traditional deference to natural resources. She expressed, “To

me, sustainability means trying to limit the amount of non-renewable resources

that we use and preserving the renewable resources.” Jamia may have also come

to understand a lesson or two about preserving resources in her home; at any

given time, she told me that six to ten people lived in her household growing up.

Carolina

Carolina self-identifies as Mexican-Arabic, is 20 years old, grew up in

Mexico City and then moved to Hershey, Pennsylvania as a middle-schooler

when her mom married her American stepdad. Carolina spoke in a soft, relaxed,

and melodic tone during our conversations. However, she stumbled in trying to

offer a definition of sustainability:

I‟m actually completely fuzzy on the term „sustainability‟ because you

hear it kind of tossed around, and I don‟t really know what it means. When

59

I heard you were doing these interviews, I just kind of wanted to find out

what sustainability is.

Carolina is an educated young woman, so her inability to describe sustainability

in the most general terms supports the reality that sustainability remains a highly

ambiguous word. Nevertheless, after sharing the main principles of sustainability

with Carolina (i.e., that natural resources are finite; that environmental, economic,

and social goals must be pursued within these limits; and that a need for inter- and

intragenerational well-being exists), she was able to assert that she does not

prioritize sustainability because it is not something that “assaults [her] all the

time.” Her use of the word “assault” stood out because it is a strong verb and is

typically used in the context of people rather than issues.

Carolina also described how she cares about other social issues more

because they involve people, saying:

I think that people assault me more than the environment does. You

know, how people are treated. That makes me react more than how the

environment is treated because I don‟t really think about it.

Though sustainability is not at the top of Carolina‟s priority list, she spoke of how

different groups of people have access to varying levels of knowledge and

awareness about sustainability; she said:

Honestly, growing up in Mexico City, people aren‟t really aware of it.

They treat the environment like dirt. I mean, just the trash and the water,

you could die! I think it‟s not that people don‟t care about the

60

environment, it‟s just that they don‟t have access to knowledge about it.

Carolina continued, describing how she became aware of environmental issues

when she moved to Hershey, Pennsylvania:

As soon as I moved, I was like, „Oh, Pennsylvania is so green!‟ And

Hershey prides itself on being extremely clean and good to the

environment just because they could get complaints about the park, but

they make sure they don‟t. I remember thinking that people here know, or

have the resources to understand the environment, that the people in

Mexico City don‟t.

In this particular quotation, Carolina seems is speaking to how access to

knowledge has the potential to guide attitudes and behaviors. Jenson (2002)

contended that knowledge of environmental issues can be considered one

condition that helps individuals exhibit pro-environmental behavior. While

creating green rolling hills in Mexico City is unrealistic, passing along

information about sustainability to communities of people who may have less

access to it may be more realistic.

Justin

Justin is a 20 year old Chinese male who is a junior majoring in

Philosophy and Economics. He was born in China, lived in Hmong until he

turned four, and then came to the United States because his dad was pursuing his

61

doctorate. Justin wore an Army-style jacket to both interviews and projected a

serious demeanor, rarely laughing yet wholly engaged in the conversations.

In describing sustainability, Justin communicated, “One earth is all we

have. Once it‟s done, it‟s over.” Yet, he was quick to assert:

There are so many things I find to be much more pressing than

sustainability. I‟m really interested in human rights. I‟m thinking about

going to law school for international rights.

When probed on why sustainability seems less connected to human rights in his

mind, he communicated, “Sustainability seems focused on trivial things like

eating locally and driving hybrids rather than more pressing issues like water.

Water is a basic human right.” This interview was neither the time nor place to

explain how eating locally and driving hybrids can arguably help the pressing

issue of climate change, which is an issue that will disproportionately affect the

most vulnerable populations, but his point was well-taken and his candor was

appreciated. Americans have indeed seemed to approach sustainability primarily

through a green consumerism lens rather than employing a narrative that

addresses being conscientious and conscious about how much we consume or

ensuring that people have access to clean water and healthful food.

What I appreciated about my conversations with Justin was his genuine

concern for and commitment to our dialogue itself. In fact, at the end of the first

interview, when asked why he chose to participate in the study, Justin uttered,

62

Sustainability is something I‟ve never really talked about. And now I‟ve

talked about it for once. People don‟t really talk about it. I have opinions

about it that I felt like I had never really voiced, so I guess this was a way

to voice my opinions.

I smiled after Justin made this remark because a central aim of these interviews

was to privilege the students‟ voices in a way that allowed them to feel heard and

be heard regardless of their perspectives.

Rebecca

Rebecca is a 19 year old Hispanic female who is a sophomore at CNU

majoring in Journalism. She is the only child of two Literature Professors.

Rebecca is somewhat of a media wonk in that she consistently refers to TV shows

and songs throughout both of the interviews. For example, she even cited Captain

Planet as the main contributor to her understanding of sustainability at a young

age, saying, “I mean, that was a really big thing for my generation. It was like,

„Ohh, Captain Planet, Save the Earth, Recycle!‟”

Rebecca described sustainability as “doing the right thing when it comes

to environmental issues.” Marshall and Toffel‟s work (2005) discouraged the use

of sustainability as a synonym for “good” because of its imprecision. While

Rebecca‟s conception does go beyond the simplicity of “good,” “doing the right

thing” still seems nebulous.

63

When asked about her general involvement at CNU, Rebecca described

her involvement in a club that brings leftover food from the CNU dining halls to

homeless shelters. Each club member is assigned to a specific dining hall, visits

the dining hall at end of the day to collect unused food, and then carts the food to

a homeless shelter in the area. To me, this activity exemplifies sustainability as a

concept in that it minimizes wastefulness, so when I followed up by asking

Rebecca if the club members talk about their engagement as being related to

sustainability, she answered, “Not really. They‟re more at the social justice end of

it and less, you know what I mean? It‟s difficult to explain.” This comment

seems revealing in that Rebecca is hesitant to overlap sustainability with social

justice.

Sarah

Sarah is a 20 year old White female who is a sophomore studying

Physics. During both of our interviews, she seemed relaxed and even chose to

walk with me for about ten minutes following our second interview, which I took

as a sign of comfort. Sarah disclosed that she grew up in a home on a ninety acre

estate because her father was the land caretaker there. She elaborated on the

experience of growing up in a wealthy environment:

I grew up around very wasteful people. They‟re wasteful with money, and

they‟re wasteful with resources. They‟re the kind of people who will buy

64

something, wear it once, and then never wear it again. Instead of donating

it somewhere, they‟ll just throw it away. I grew up in that world. I don‟t

have that, but I grew up amongst these people.

Given the „bubble‟ in which Sarah grew up where the pool stayed at 85 degrees

Fahrenheit year round and chemicals kept the lawn looking pristine, she

admittedly did not come to understand the meaning of sustainability until she was

older: “I mean, I never really saw a problem with it all until I realized that‟s not

how things are supposed to be done.” During Sarah‟s junior year in high school,

she began reading about “this whole „go green‟ movement” and has since seen

more and more of the movement while in college. So, she explained, “Whenever

I think of sustainability now, I usually think of how there‟s been this big blow-up

of global warming and going green.” Sarah‟s understanding of sustainability

seems directly linked to the contemporary green movement.

Fawn

Fawn is a 19 year old Black female who is a sophomore still deciding on

her major. Unlike Sarah who seemed comfortable throughout our conversations,

Fawn nervously shook her leg during most of the first interview and spoke in a

hesitant, quiet tone. She grew up close to the coast in North Carolina, so her

science curriculum was often centered around the local ecosystem and wildlife;

Fawn said, “Whenever we were in any science classes, a lot of them were talking

65

about our local wildlife, so I was aware of local ecosystem and what pollution did

to them.”

More recently, in college, Fawn has associated sustainability with the „go

green‟ movement. Fawn explained how she does question the connection

between being “green” and “sustaining the earth” though:

I mean, at CNU, we‟re always talking about how green we are and that

we‟re one of the greenest institutions, but you never really know. I guess

that means people care about the environment. I sometimes forget the link

between being green and sustaining the earth. So, I‟m like, „Oh, they‟re

trying to be green – that sounds niiiiiice,‟ and not like, „Oh, they‟re trying

to be green. They‟re saving the earth.‟

Fawn‟s use of the term “nice” seemed to mean pleasant, but with few impactful

results. Thus, while Fawn comprehends sustainability as being interconnected

with the green movement, she questioned what it means to be „green‟ and also

questioned the depth of the movement beyond it seeming “nice.” Fawn exposed

her internal dialogue in a way that showed how she critically thinks about the

concept of sustainability.

Peter

Peter is a 20 year old White male who is a junior studying Art History. He

is an only child and grew up in the south. He came to our first interview in a

bright yellow sweater that strikingly matched his bright blond hair. While Peter

66

was far from loquacious during the interviews, often uttering one word or short

responses to questions even as I probed, he offered a unique perspective in his

focus on the sustainability movement being centered around clean energy.

Peter‟s interest in clean energy understandably stems from the fact that his

mother works in nuclear energy; he has therefore been indirectly involved with

clean energy issues for his whole life. In fact, he mentioned that when he was in

high school, his mom temporarily moved to the Midwest to start a nuclear energy

plant there. Peter chuckled about his mom‟s penchant for saving energy,

explaining, “Saving energy was indoctrinated in me from a young age. My mom

bought those efficient light bulbs that will last forever before anyone had even

heard of them!” Peter took sustainability to mean, “trying to use the natural

resources available to us in the most efficient way possible” and stressed that

nuclear energy is efficient in that it only requires nuclear fission reactions rather

than non-renewable resources.

Seth

Seth is a 19 year old White male who is a sophomore studying

Psychology. He walked with a bounce in his gait as he entered and exited the

interviews. In beginning to talk about his conception of sustainability, Seth

recollected fond childhood memories of going to summer camp in Vermont. He

expounded:

67

Up there, I kind of get a different perspective. The area is beautiful. To

be able to see that is something! They really know their sustainability

stuff up there. And it rubbed off on me a little bit too. Just being able to

see some of the nice stuff, and to have the mindset that we might lose that

stuff.

Seth is speaking about the risk of losing nature‟s beauty if we do not properly

protect it.

When asked more directly about his definition about sustainability, Seth

uttered, “I guess I really haven‟t thought about it too in-depth, but I guess what it

means to me is kind of being able to go about living the modern life without doing

a lot of damage to the earth - and being able to keep living here in the future.”

While Seth‟s definition is not necessarily inaccurate, it seems human-centric.

Further into the interview, he talked at length about the importance of the green

economy. He posed the question, “We have all this new technology, but it‟s just

on such a small scale; I mean, who wants to make money out of it?” This

comment also seems to suggest that Seth conceives of sustainability through a

human-centric lens.

Alex

Alex is a 19 year old Taiwanese male who is a junior majoring in

Biochemistry. He grew up in Queens, New York. During the interview, Alex

was eager to tell me how much he knows about sustainability, including talking at

68

length about a paper and presentation he had recently completed on biofuels. He

shared, “I actually did a paper on biofuels in Biology and talked for forty minutes

about it. I talked about how biofuels aren‟t actually a good alternative energy like

some people think because they‟re not efficient.” Alex continued speaking about

the paper for several minutes, indicating that he holds a high level of interest in

the science behind biofuels.

When asked about his conception of sustainability, Alex stated, “It‟s just

sustaining, keeping up our current living condition standards.” He seemed to

frame sustainability as preserving human beings‟ standard of living. Of course,

Alex did understand that sustainability is linked to conserving the environment,

but to him, the environment is principally linked to human needs.

Later in the interview, Alex expressed that people do not tend to talk about

sustainability-related topics. When asked why, he offered a forthright, yet

lighthearted response:

Um, it‟s a weird conversation starter. It wouldn‟t get you girls. I mean, it

might get you green girls – girls who are really excited about

sustainability. But other than that, people would rather be talking about,

„Oh, this new movie – Social Network…‟

While this quotation could be explored in several ways, the relevant point seems

to be that people like Alex do not prefer to talk about sustainability during

everyday social interactions.

69

Ava

Ava is a 19 year old female who identifies as Caucasian and is a

sophomore majoring in East Asian Studies. She was born in Ukraine, but moved

shortly after birth to Rochester, New York where she grew up. In addition to

being interested in Ukrainian and Russian culture, Ava highlighted her fascination

with Korean culture: “I watch a lot of Korean drama, variety shows, listen to

Korean music, and go to Korean restaurants. I‟m really into it. I‟m studying the

Korean language right now at CNU.”

While Ava seemed more passionate about Korean culture as a topic as

opposed to sustainability, she did explain how she was part of the Green Team in

her high school, saying, “The Green Team was based on helping out the

environment. I put green boxes around the school for students to recycle, and we

would also go to the pond and help clean it.” When asked more concretely about

her definition of sustainability, she expressed, “I don‟t really have a good way to

describe it except that it‟s about trying to preserve the things the earth offers us.”

Ava continued, describing that she does try to be conscious about sustainability

because, as she exclaimed, “We are the main problem!” Her emotionally charged

statement underscored her awareness of how humans are part of the earth, but

cannot dominate the earth.

70

Paige

Paige is a 20 year old White female who is a sophomore majoring in

History and minoring in Pre-Med. She is from Texas where the mentality toward

sustainability is, as she said (transitioning to a heavy Texan accent for emphasis),

“We‟ve got so much land! Why does it matta?” Paige thus came to appreciate the

concept of sustainability when she arrived at college and learned about it from her

roommate, Kassie:

Kassie is the one who actually got me interested in sustainability. She‟s

wonderful. But she‟s much more knowledgeable about it than I am.

What‟s a good word for Kassie? She‟s always been, in a lot of situations,

she‟s been above her present company. She‟s very empathetic. So,

sustainability has been among her interests for much longer than a lot of

people.

Paige‟s use of the word “empathetic” as the focal word to describe Kassie in

relation to sustainability seems to reveal Paige‟s appreciation for the connection

between sustainability and empathizing with and for the world in which we

inhabit.

Synthesis

Given the significant ambiguity that has surrounded the term

sustainability, privileging the students‟ various conceptions about sustainability

serves as an important building block for ultimately working toward more clarity

71

and resonance for the term and the movement itself. As this chapter detailed,

these data reveal that participants hold varying conceptions of sustainability and

came to understand sustainability through many different avenues. Still, some

commonalities can be found among the participants.

Five of the twelve students – Teresa, Jamia, Carolina, Justin, and Rebecca

- students spoke about their concern for social justice, yet only Teresa and Jamia

connected this concern with sustainability. Three students – Sarah, Fawn, and

Peter - conceived of sustainability as being interrelated to the contemporary green

movement. Finally, four students – Seth, Alex, Ava, and Paige - concentrated on

humans in their conception of sustainability. These apparent commonalities are

not mutually exclusive, but offer insights into how sustainability is currently

being conceived and will be further explored in the following synthesis.

Interestingly, Teresa and Jamia, the two people who strongly underscored

tenets of social justice in their rhetoric about sustainability, are also the

participants who expressed the greatest passion for sustainability issues. This

finding begs questions about the extent to which outlining the explicit connection

between social justice and sustainability could bolster support for sustainability on

college campuses.

Further, using parents‟ level of education as a proxy for economic class

level, the data also revealed that Teresa and Jamia – the two participants who

underscored social justice principles in their understanding of sustainability -

grew up in families where their parents‟ top level of completed education was

72

high school. In comparison to the ten other participants, this level of education

falls on the lower end. Teresa and Jamia presumably grew up in America‟s lower

to middle class and are also both minority students, likely allowing them to view

many issues, including sustainability, through the lens of social justice. This

finding seems to support Buttel and Finn‟s (1978) argument that lower income

groups are more concerned about the environment because they often live in

polluted areas and work in poorly maintained physical environments. However, it

is worth noting that several studies (e.g., Costantini & Hanf, 1972; Malkis &

Grasmick, 1977) offer conflicting findings, arguing that lower income groups are

less concerned than higher income groups about environmental issues.

Several other students – Carolina, Justin, and Rebecca - expressed a deep

belief in social justice, but cognitively separated social justice from sustainability.

These students all explicitly mentioned that they were more interested in social

justice issues than sustainability; social justice issues were separate and distinct

from their level of interest in sustainability. Yet, sustainability and social justice

need not be two separate and distinct topics. Placing greater emphasis and

explicit attention on how justice is embedded in sustainability may enable people

like Carolina, Justin, and Rebecca to feel more aligned with sustainability as a

concept.

A handful of students – Sarah, Fawn, and Peter – conceived of

sustainability as being intertwined with the contemporary green movement.

When Sarah, Fawn, and Peter shared their conceptions of sustainability as being

73

focused on a “movement” and/or “going green” as many call it, they were all

describing the contemporary sustainability movement that both the media and also

CNU have helped shape. This contemporary movement is focused primarily

around carbon emissions and global warming, but has been built upon two

previous environmental movements: 1) the modern environmental movement that

began in the 1960s, which was principally centered around air and water pollution

issues and 2) the early conservation movement that started in the late nineteenth

century and was focused on wildlife and fishery conservation.

Finally, at least four of the twelve students seemed to concentrate on

humans in their conception of sustainability. While some participants used

human-centric language to talk about sustainability, others used an empathy-

centered lens to talk about humans‟ relationship with the earth. Seth and Alex, for

example, tended to identify human needs as the priority in sustainability. They

seemed to view sustainability through a human-centric lens rather than solely

through an eco-centric lens. Ava and Paige also approached the concept of

sustainability from a human perspective, but distinct from Seth and Alex, their

emphasis when speaking about the human connection to sustainability seemed

focused on empathy for other humans and the earth itself.

In reflecting on an improved definition of sustainability based on the

students‟ conceptions, I turn to Moore‟s (2005) definition in which she described

the concept of sustainability as speaking to “the reconciliation of social justice,

ecological integrity, and the well-being of all living systems in the planet” (p. 78).

74

Beyond appreciating Moore‟s (2005) direct integration of social justice into the

definition, her use of words that are often applied to humans such as “integrity”

and “well-being” seems productive based on several students‟ human-centered

conceptions of sustainability.

Painting portraits of students‟ individual conceptions of sustainability and

better understanding how they came to understand the term provides a useful

backdrop for exploring the terrain of students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability in college. The next chapter specifically focuses on these attitudes

and behaviors pertaining to sustainability.

75

CHAPTER V

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

This chapter speaks directly to the first research question in this study:

How do college students describe the relationship between their attitudes and

behaviors pertaining to sustainability? This research question attends to the

indeterminacy involved in the attitude-behavior relationship. Most extant

research studies suggest that concern for sustainability is weakly related to pro-

environmental behavior (Buttel, 1987; VanLiere and Dunlap, 1980; Vining &

Ebreo, 2002), but little is known about how or why attitudes related to

sustainability have been found to have a varying but small impact on actions.

In order to best attend to this indeterminacy surrounding the attitude-

behavior relationship related to sustainability, this chapter first looks at student

attitudes toward sustainability and student behaviors related to sustainability, and

then uses these data to build an understanding of the attitude-behavior

relationship. These data are considered in comparison and contrast to the extant

attitude-behavior theories.

76

Student Attitudes toward Sustainability

When the participants were asked how much they care about sustainability

on a scale of one to ten (one being low, ten being high) on the information form

filled out prior to the interviews, all the students put a five or higher. On the

whole, students seemed to care. The interviews then served as a means to delve

into the degree to which students are concerned about sustainability, exploring the

multidimensionality of attitudes.

Several themes arose from the data related to student attitudes. Students

seem to hold an intellectual concern for sustainability issues as part of being

educated individuals. Yet, on the whole, sustainability seems to hold less weight

in comparison to other social issues about which the students are concerned.

Finally, participants claim to care about sustainability, but their “active level of

concern,” as one participant called it, seems lower.

Intellectual Concern

Based on the student interview data, an intellectual concern for

sustainability is the norm. At least five of the twelve students explained that their

concern and their fellow peers‟ concern is generally part of being educated and

“socially aware,” which aligns with extant research that higher levels of education

77

are correlated with increased social concern (e.g., Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980).

Peter explained:

I think people my age are concerned about sustainability, or at least the

people in college are, because you‟re in this academic environment where

everyone is intelligent and wants to be informed about all the social issues

of the day.

Peter‟s quotation notes that sustainability is a current social issue about which to

be concerned, but does not cite anything specific to sustainability itself.

Like Peter, Justin also underscored education as being interconnected with

concern for the environment: “I mean, everyone cares about the environment.

Most students are educated. Most students know what‟s going on.” The use of

“everyone” reflects Derksen & Gartell‟s (1993) finding that concern for the

environment is a cultural norm in western society. When Justin said, “Most

students are educated. Most students know what‟s going on,” he is not only

hinting at how knowledge can influence attitudes, but he is also speaking about an

intellectual concern for the issue. Seth expounded on this intellectual concern

with a specific example: “Students can read an article and get upset. They can

have an intellectual conversation over the effects of the oil spill.” In short,

students seem concerned about the environment as part of being an educated

human being.

78

While eleven of the twelve participants claimed to hold pro-environmental

attitudes, a different narrative surfaced when they were asked how sustainability

compares to other issues; at least half of the students discussed how other issues

are more concerning to them. The intensity of their attitudes, as Turner & Killian

(1957) termed it, seemed to wane. Sarah explained, “I feel that the recent giant

economic crash and wars going on and stuff like that is more concerning.” Sarah

believes that sustainability takes a back seat to economic issues even though

sustainability, by its very nature, aims to contribute to stability in the long-term

economy.

Justin expressed a similar sentiment as Sarah, articulating: “Sustainability

is important, but at the same time, there are so many things that I find to be so

much more pressing than sustainability.” Justin seemed to use the term

“pressing” as a way to express the immediacy of other issues.

Further, Jamia discussed her perspective about how sustainability issues

tend to lose steam over time in policy discussions: “Everyone sort of talks about

sustainability issues, but in the long run, there‟s not enough laws put into effect.”

Jamia‟s words align with Public Agenda‟s (2010) data indicating that Americans

can sympathize with environmental concerns, but they are hesitant to take

responsibility for environmental problems in terms of policy and actions (Stoll-

Kleeman, O‟Riordan, & Jaeger, 2001; Takacs-Santa, 2007).

79

Concern and “Active Level of Concern”

When speaking about their attitudes, students seemed to quickly transition

into talking about how their attitudes translate into action, or more frequently, do

not translate into action. Seth expressed:

No one is going to say „I don‟t give a crap about the environment,‟ but it‟s

more that I‟m really apathetic in my actions. I realize how much of a

hypocrite I am to be ideally pro-environment, but I do very little.

In short, Seth seems to feel hypocritical when his actions do not reflect his

attitudes.

In summing up her attitudes toward sustainability, Rebecca articulated:

“I care, but there are more things I care about. That may sound bad, but it‟s real

to me.” Rebecca‟s honest comment is representative of how many students seem

to view sustainability. Perhaps Fawn said it best though when she simply stated:

“I feel like everyone cares, but then not so much,” with “not so much” hinting at

the intricacy of students‟ attitudes.

When the participants spoke in their own words about their attitudes

related to sustainability, the realities of their pro-environmental attitudes were

illuminated. Through the two rounds of interviews with each participant, I

discovered that the students‟ indication of concern about sustainability on the

student information form did not tell the whole story; while the participants did

80

articulate a concern about sustainability as an issue, their attitudes were less

connected with the substance of the issue itself and more connected to their status

as an educated individual. As such, they reported that their behaviors do not

necessarily reflect their attitudes, potentially because their attitudes themselves

are not specific to sustainability as a concrete issue.

Thus, while “everyone cares,” the participants suggested a difference

between concern and “active level of concern,” a term that Justin used and which

begins to dig at behaviors related to sustainability; he said, “No one is going to

say they don‟t care about the environment, but are we doing things that actually

help the environment? That‟s the big issue.” The attitude-behavior relationship is

the “big issue” for this study too. It is a central issue because attitudes boast little

consequence unless they are reflected in behavioral decisions. First, however, a

deeper discussion of students‟ behaviors related to sustainability is necessary as a

primer for unearthing the „how‟ and „why‟ behind the attitude-behavior

relationship.

Student Behaviors related to Sustainability

What are people actually “doing” related to sustainability? Two principal

themes emerged from the data pertaining to student behaviors. First, the majority

of participants fell “in the middle” in terms of their actions related to

81

sustainability; they recycle and turn off their lights, for example, but they “don‟t

do a lot,” as Peter said. Second, when probed about actions related to

sustainability, eleven of the twelve participants expressed a greater commitment

to direct actions than civic engagement-related actions.

“In the middle”

The reality remains that, on the whole, most participants fall “in the

middle” as Peter called it in terms of the degree to which they behave in pro-

environmental ways: “I do some, but not a lot. As a college student, I‟m sort of

„in the middle.‟” Peter‟s statement seems to accurately reflect the majority of the

participants‟ behaviors related to sustainability. At least half of the students

indicated that they recycle, turn off their lights when they leave their room, and

turn off the water when brushing their teeth. Certainly, a few participants

mentioned the one or two friends who are “at the extreme and about to run off to a

commune,” as Jamia put it. She continued, articulating, “Everyone else has a

baseline level of action. Like, we all recycle.”

Recycling surfaced as the most prominent behavioral norm, with over 90

percent of the participants indicating that they recycle. It seems to be a social

norm as well. Carolina, for example, in describing how her friends encourage one

another to recycle, expressed that one of her roommates is lazy, so she and her

82

other roommates have to do some extra nudging to get this particular roommate to

recycle: “We have to tell her, „Don‟t be a fat ass. Get up off the couch and put

your bottle in the recycling bin!‟” Teasing aside, the influence of peers remains

powerful in social norming. Rosenberg (1986) found that young people are

deeply influenced by their peers‟ attitudes and evaluations toward the self, and

over time, these attitudes and evaluations are often internalized, becoming

reflected in young peoples‟ conceptions of themselves. Azjen and Fishbein

(1975) wrote that social norms serve to enforce others‟ attitudes and behaviors,

which seemingly makes the social norm of recycling on CNU‟s campus critical

for fostering pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. In addition, Goddard

(2003) argued that social norms, as a component of social capital, provide

momentum for creating desirable cultures, which suggests that pro-environmental

social norms like recycling may offer momentum for driving sustainable campus

cultures. Finally, in the student development field, Clark & Trow (1966)

expressed that college students‟ peers act as a source of social norms in the midst

of which students grow and develop.

Direct Actions and Civic Engagement-related Actions

Eleven out of twelve participants were considerably more willing to

engage in direct actions as opposed to civic engagement-related actions. To

83

review, direct actions directly impact the environment (e.g., recycling, unplugging

electronics after use, and using renewable energy) whereas civic engagement-

related actions indirectly help it (e.g., donating money, signing petitions, and

educational outreach). Given that direct actions are typically favored in the extant

research on attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability (Courtney-Hall &

Rogers, 2002; Jenson, 2002), this study probed at civic engagement-related

actions as well.

Seth helped me capture an important distinction between direct actions

and civic engagement-related actions when he offered the following words about

his peers‟ behaviors:

I definitely think people are recycling, people don‟t litter, people would

maybe sign a petition every once in a while if offered to them. I don‟t see

everyone going out and marching every weekend or doing things for the

environment, although I bet people do, but it‟s only one segment of

people.

Similar to several others, Seth categorized direct actions as the “small stuff”

whereas civic engagement-related actions were more “large-scale” and “broad” in

his mind.

Teresa shared, “I don‟t go and think of protesting or doing educational

campaigning because I never feel like I have that much influence on people.” At

84

this stage in her life, Teresa does not feel she holds the ability to affect other

peoples‟ decision-making. Alex perceived civic engagement-related actions as

requiring more time than he currently has as a student: “I wouldn‟t have time to

protest, write letters, attend town board meetings, or plant trees. There‟s a degree,

which is based on time. Everything is limited by time and money.” In Alex‟s

view, civic engagement-related actions involve a commitment of time that he is

not willing to make, so he sticks to direct actions. Justin crisply explained why

direct actions are more appealing to him, asserting:

I want to feel like I‟m actually contributing to the cause. I want to feel

like I‟m the one doing something. I‟m making these choices. I‟m making

this happen. And I feel like it‟s more meaningful to me that way rather

than participating indirectly.

Perhaps this preference for direct actions is generational. Martin & Tulgan (2006)

wrote that Millenials tend to like immediate gratification and are more me-

focused than Generation X, presumably making direct actions more attractive

than civic engagement-related actions.

In reflecting on students‟ behaviors, I return to Parsons and Shils (1951)

research, which can shed some light on the students‟ behavioral decisions.

Parsons and Shils (1951) found that four components of behavior exists: (1)

behavior connected to ends such as goals or other anticipated states; (2) behavior

85

that consistently takes place in a specific context; (3) behavior that is regulated by

norms; (4) and behavior that requires an expenditure of energy, motivation, and

effort. I note that these components do not seem mutually exclusive and seem to

lend themselves more easily to direct actions rather than civic engagement-related

actions. Civic engagement-related actions appear more connected to abstract ends

than direct actions, which seem to have more defined ends. For example, while

the outcome of writing one‟s congressperson or signing a petition is uncertain,

when a person recycles, s/he is fairly confident about the outcome. Further,

recycling takes place in a particular context and can therefore be considered

highly prescriptive as opposed to civic engagement-related actions that typically

require non-rules-based thinking. Civic engagement-related actions, unlike

recycling, also seem less regulated by norms as they are not necessarily cultural

constants. Finally, the perception remains that civic engagement-related actions

require a greater expenditure of energy, motivation, and effort than direct actions.

I carry this nuanced understanding of students‟ behaviors with me while moving

into the findings about the attitude-behavior relationship.

The Relationship between Attitudes and Behaviors

The data thus far have shown that students‟ attitudes are typically pro-

environmental. Yet, the data also revealed that most of the students‟ behaviors

86

related to sustainability are “in the middle.” The question still remains: What is

happening in students‟ psychological and social landscape that is influencing the

majority of them to fall “in the middle” in terms of their behaviors related to

sustainability? The attitude-behavior relationship seems to be affected by both

convenience in the environment and “priorities of the moment” such as class,

time, and indulgence. These influences will be explored in the following sections.

Creatures of Convenience

When students described how they are “in the middle” on their behaviors,

one major influence as to whether or not they engage in pro-environmental

behavior seems to be convenience; in order for their pro-environmental attitudes

to translate into action, the data indicated that the behavior must be fairly

convenient. For instance, when Fawn was asked about what factors affect

whether she acts in eco-friendly ways, she succinctly responded: “It‟s actually

simple. Basically, it comes down to how it inconveniences me. I know that‟s

selfish, but it‟s true.” Fawn‟s frank response echoed the words of many of her

peers. The word “easy” often surfaced in the dialogue to represent convenience.

Sarah communicated:

If it‟s easy for me to do something right now, I‟ll do it. When I‟m taking

out the garbage, it‟s also easy for me to take the recycling out and put it in

87

certain containers, so I‟ll do it. They‟re all right there together, so why

not?

Participants like Sarah frequently expressed that recycling is easy, especially on

campus in the residence halls, which is perhaps one significant reason why

recycling is a social norm among the students. Seth seemed to concur with Sarah,

indicating: “It‟s no skin off my back to recycle. I can pick up this water bottle

and walk it to the recycling bin. I‟m not that lazy!” Expressions such as “why

not?” and “no skin off my back” indicate that the convenience factor is present.

Rebecca, nevertheless, conveyed that recycling ink cartridges is more

difficult, causing her to engage in an internal debate about whether or not to

recycle the cartridge. When asked to describe what happens inside her head, she

articulated:

I think, „Oh God. What a pain.‟ I‟m just like, „What can I do with this

thing? If I throw it out, then it‟s going to poison the water supply.‟ And

I‟m big with that because my hometown has a really limited reserve

supply. And then I‟m like, „Ok, I‟ll just recycle it. But it‟s so far away!

Oh, but you have to go out later, just do it then. I know, but what if I

forget it? It‟ll just sit on my desk forever. Just throwing it away will be so

much quicker. And then it won‟t be on my desk. And it‟s not going to

88

leak on stuff!‟ And then I‟m usually like, „Ok, I guess I‟ll recycle it,‟ and

I put it in a plastic bag in my purse, and I take it out later.

Rebecca‟s internal dialogue explains the mental reasoning behind her behavioral

decision-making. The barrier she identified in the attitude-behavior relationship

is inconvenience; the recycling receptacle for cartridges is “so far away.”

This convenience factor aligns with Ajzen‟s (1991) Theory of Planned

Behavior (TPB) in its focus on perceived control. Perceived control involves

perceptions about how difficult it would be to execute the action; those

individuals with the most favorable attitudes toward sustainability are more

willing to engage in the behavior than people with slightly or moderately

favorable attitudes. When Rebecca was telling me about her decision-making

regarding the ink cartridges, she contemplated the level of effort required to

engage in the behavior. Level of effort can, of course, be considered a main

aspect of perceived control.

When students like Fawn, Sarah, Seth, and Rebecca spoke about the

convenience factor, their words seemed to imply that the environment and/or

system around them must change in order to facilitate increased pro-

environmental behavior. Jamia directly referenced the system itself when she

uttered, “It sometimes feels easier just to go to the store and buy bottled water

because there just is bottled water,” placing her emphasis on “is.” Because the

89

environment does offer bottled water, it is easy to buy it. Whether or not

students‟ attitudes are consistent with their behaviors, the participants told me, is

largely influenced by the convenience of their environment. We remain creatures

of convenience.

“Priorities of the Moment”

Other factors that seem to influence the attitude-behavior relationship are

“priorities of the moment,” as Paige termed them. Many students expressed how

the “priorities of the moment” can trump translating their pro-environmental

attitudes into action. In particular, schoolwork was most commonly cited as the

priority that takes precedence over acting sustainably. Certainly, this priority can

be viewed as reassuring given that the participants are students in college who are

there to learn, but the texture of their thinking is worthy of further exploration.

Paige used the term “priorities of the moment” in speaking about how she

prioritizes papers and midterms in comparison to using eco-friendly cleaning

products:

I could change my cleaning product to become more sustainable, but when

it comes down to the fact that I have three papers due and a midterm, and I

have to clean that bathroom because it‟s disgusting, I‟m going to run to

Kmart and find the cheapest thing there and run and go. So I think it

90

always comes down to the priorities of the moment. Like everything, the

priorities of the moment seem so much more important than everything

else.

Paige‟s words may suggest that sustainability is rarely a “priority of the moment”

because it is typically oriented toward improving the long-term, and the goals of

sustainability also seem less concrete than the impending paper deadline. Thomas

(2004) echoed this sentiment, writing that the intangibility of sustainability can

create a lack of interest in it as an issue and, in turn, less commitment to it.

Justin spoke about how classes are a higher priority than behaving in pro-

environmental ways. He explained a scenario to illustrate his point:

When I see that the TV is on when I‟m leaving for class, and I‟m late, I‟m

going to leave it on and go to class because that‟s a higher priority. If I‟m

leaving, and I‟m not late, I‟ll go back and turn it off. So, I mean, it is a

priority, but just not a very high one.

Justin holds the attitude that sustainability is a priority, but if he needs to get to

class in a hurry, he rationalizes that class is more important than eco-friendly

behavior. In speaking about human rationality and environmentalism, Naess

(2001) wrote, “The rationality that characterizes the knowledge society is of an

extremely limited kind – a petty rationality – that does not ask what are our most

fundamental priorities and values as human beings” (p. 51). Whether or not

91

Justin‟s rationale would be viewed as “petty” in Naess‟s (2001) view is

undoubtedly unclear, but thinking about the connections between our priorities

and values and our pro-environmental actions, or lack thereof, seems to be a

worthwhile exercise for all.

Time also seems to serve as an influencer in determining pro-

environmental behaviors. Ava, in speaking about what governs whether or not

she acts in pro-environmental ways, stated:

Time is a big part of it for me. If I‟m really busy, and I‟m running

somewhere, I‟ll throw something out instead of recycling it. I feel bad

about it, but more importantly, I need to get somewhere. And I might

leave the lights on when I go out because I‟m not thinking about it. All

I‟m thinking about is, „Oh, I‟m late!‟

For Ava, behaving in pro-environmental ways is determined by time. Peter

agreed, simply boiling down whether he behaves pro-environmentally to time: “It

really just comes down to time. Sometimes, I don‟t have time to walk all the way

to the green market on the weekends because I‟m like going to the library,

running around.”

Rebecca also spoke about time, but spoke specifically about how the two

priorities of punctuality and sustainability factor into her mental processing:

92

I try to be a bit conscious of the actions I‟m doing and how they affect the

environment. But, at the same time, it‟s not the first thing that comes to

mind. Honestly, it‟s sort of like a process thing. Process 1 is like, „Ok, I

gotta get there on time.‟ Process 2 is „I don‟t want to waste gas.‟ So again,

Process 1 is like, „I don‟t want to be late.‟ Process 2 is like, „How is this

going to affect the environment?‟ But sometimes, by the time I get to

Process 2, I‟m already in the act of doing it. At that point, it‟s a little late.

In Rebecca‟s mind, “Process 1,” which is unrelated to the environment, dictates

her actions. She regularly employed the phrase, “at the same time” to suggest that

sustainability is a priority, but it is a secondary priority; it is part of “Process 2.”

A subtheme worth noting was the role of taking time to pamper oneself,

mostly in relation to long showers and baths, which surprisingly surfaced in over

30 percent of the interviews. Indulging oneself, on occasion, took precedence

over pro-environmental behavior. Paige explained how a long day means a long

shower for her: “Taking a long shower, it‟s more of an indulgence thing. It‟s

more of, „Well, I‟ve had a long day, it won‟t make a difference.‟” Carolina also

spoke about her long shower justification, saying:

I usually try to take as quick a shower as possible because I don‟t like to

waste water. But sometimes, like last week, I had a really tough midterm,

93

so I was just bummed, so I was like, „Ok, I‟m going to take a bath,‟ and

that wastes so much water, but I took a bath.

Carolina is saying that her pro-environmental attitude typically aligns with her

pro-environmental behavior of taking quick showers, but she makes exceptions

for herself when she wants to indulge, which may turn out to be reasonable logic

after all.

On a related note, mood also seemed to serve as an influencer in the

attitude-behavior relationship. Paige expressed how she frequently finishes her

tea that comes in a glass bottle on her way to class, and she typically saves the

bottle for the recycling bin outside her classroom, but once in a while a bad mood

intercedes. She explained, “Generally, I‟ll keep my bottle for the recycling bin.

Every now and then, I just get angry at the world and will throw it away

anywhere.” Her negative attitude toward life in those situations overtakes her

pro-environmental attitude, and as a result, she takes the environmentally-

unfriendly action of throwing the bottle in the trash. Seth also spoke about how

mood affects him, terming it “mindset.” When asked, “Who or what would

influence you to behave in environmentally-unfriendly ways?,” Seth

communicated:

Just an overall mindset. If, just life is really getting me down, and I‟m

feeling beset on all sides and don‟t want to make an effort for anything.

94

Like I‟m putting effort into relationships and getting no return. Or, I‟m

working so hard, and feeling useless, then why should I care about the

environment? I need to put my person first.

Seth is describing the importance of “putting his person first” above the

environment, which arguably may be a necessity in order to truly sustain pro-

environmental actions over time.

Neither indulgence nor mood has been addressed in the psychological

attitude-behavior literature to date. Perhaps the realization must be made that

enjoying an occasional indulgence or experiencing an occasional bad mood is part

of the landscape of human behavior. Just as a strict diet will inevitably fail,

perhaps our pro-environmental behavioral goals will fail if room is not made for

occasional self-centeredness; that is, we can take time for centering ourselves.

These initial findings about attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability, on the whole, concur with the extant research that gaps typically

exist between attitudes and behaviors (Schultz & Oskamp, 1996). They also lay a

firm foundation for understanding the intricacy of the attitude-behavior

relationship, but a closer look at the data is needed to uncover the grain and

texture of the students‟ ideologies about the attitude-behavior relationship. A

better understanding of this substantial but highly imperfect relationship between

attitudes and behaviors (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Vogt, 1997) is needed in an

95

effort to solicit meaning from its apparent untidiness. The following section

therefore serves to help unveil the meaning behind the relationship between

attitudes and behaviors pertaining to sustainability. What seems to happen when

incongruence exists in the attitude-behavior relationship? In digging at the

evidence, these data show that students often experience guilt and feel judged

when incongruence is present.

Guilt and Judgment

Some form of the word “guilt” repeatedly surfaced in the interviews. I

began to understand the interconnectedness between guilt and the attitude-

behavior relationship through Jamia‟s narrative. She began:

Well, one of the things I do a lot is that I always say I‟m going to try not to

buy bottled water, but I always seem to buy bottled water, which is really

bad. I always feel guilty after. I mean, I make sure I recycle it, but I

always feel a little guilty. And also, I try not to waste paper, so if you

gave me a hand-out and there‟s nothing on the back, I‟ll try to use it for

brainstorming because it‟s not like I‟m going to hand it in or anything.

But, I never do that, I waste paper. I never do that, and I always feel really

bad.

96

Jamia seems to hold pro-environmental intentions based on her pro-environmental

attitudes, but gaps inevitably occur between these intentions and behaviors. She

experiences guilt when her intentions do not match her actions.

Teresa described a similar feeling of guilt in speaking about how she

intends to take shorter showers because she is concerned about wasting water, but

in reality, she usually takes longer showers:

I feel like I should put a timer in the shower, I should get out, and I feel

really guilty because I know that I‟m wasting a lot of water. I like long

showers. And then, it‟s well, it‟s really embarrassing, but it‟s like,

„Should I shave?‟ That would be another five minutes, ten minutes?‟ And

then I say, „No, I have to.‟ But I feel really bad afterward.

Both Jamia and Teresa hold certain pro-environmental intentions based on

their strong pro-environmental attitudes, but when they do not act in pro-

environmental ways, they feel guilty. In thinking about how this evidence relates

to the existing attitude-behavior models, I note that both the Theory of Reasoned

Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the Theory of

Planned Behavior (Azjen, 1991) speak to the role of intentions in predicting

behavior, indicating that intentions are the strongest predictors of behaviors. Yet,

if failed intentions (i.e., pro-environmental intentions not translated into pro-

97

environmental behaviors) are common and are laced with guilt, perhaps less

motivation exists to maintain pro-environmental intentions over time.

Justin helped me further understand this phenomenon. When asked if he

ever intends to do one thing, and then does another thing when it comes to pro-

environmental behavior, he asserted, “No, because I don‟t really strive to be pro-

environmental. I don‟t have these goals like, „Today I‟m going to walk instead of

taking the bus.‟ I always take the bus.” Justin can remain gap-free and thus guilt-

free if he does not hold goals or intentions to become more sustainable.

However, for most of the participants who care about the environment,

they often shoulder guilt from the gaps between their attitudes and behaviors.

Teresa, for example, who is an Environmental Studies major, said that “guilt

always comes up for [her].” She mentioned that she has talked with her

roommate about her guilt as she is also in Environmental Studies, and her

roommate “also always feels guilty.” Paige, in referencing how she has come to

care more about sustainability since she came to CNU, succinctly exclaimed, “As

I care more, I feel more guilty!” Is it productive for this guilt to exist among

those who are concerned about sustainability? Experiencing guilt may not be

sustainable in itself. After all, few individuals aim to walk this earth feeling

guilty all the time.

98

Jamia offered additional nuance to the role of guilt in the attitude-behavior

relationship, explaining the dichotomy that currently exists between the labeling

of „sustainable‟ or „not sustainable.‟ Very reflectively, Jamia shared:

I feel like there are always these extremes. It‟s like you‟re either

sustainable or you‟re not sustainable. It‟s hard to place yourself. So, I

think a lot of times a lot of people just sort of think about sustainability

and they think like, „Oh, I should stop using gas. Or, everyone should just

stop using water bottles.‟ And it‟s always like all or nothing.

Jamia‟s words helped me understand how people perceive „being

sustainable‟ as „being sustainable all of the time.‟ And, if one fails to be

sustainable all of the time, then the person is considered as „not sustainable.‟ This

strict and unrealistic dichotomy between „sustainable‟ or „not sustainable‟ on two

extremes can elicit guilt for people who care about sustainability but do not act in

sustainable ways all the time, which seems to comprise all eleven participants

who articulated a concern for the environment. Thus, if most students seem to

care about sustainability, but fall “in the middle” in terms of their behaviors, why

must this false dichotomy exist?

Students may feel trapped between wanting to be sustainable, yet thinking

that they are not worthy of the „I‟m sustainable‟ label. Further, if no option exists

for people to place themselves as „someone who acts sustainable as much as

99

possible,‟ are people more inclined to distance themselves from sustainability

issues? Given that “it‟s hard to be an environmental saint all the time,” as Seth

put it, could this culture of guilt be destructive to the sustainability movement‟s

momentum?

If individuals are expected to feel guilty when they do not act in pro-

environmental ways all of the time, why would people want to strive to reach a

new level of commitment to sustainability? Animal lovers are not expected to

have a house full of animals, yet sustainability lovers are expected to always

behave in pro-environmental ways? Perhaps the dominant framework is flawed.

What is the external environment teaching people about attitude-behavior

disjuncture? In asking this analytical question to the data, I found that a

moralistic and judgment-oriented framework is being used to characterize

sustainability, which may be contributing to guilt. The students repeatedly used

words such as “should,” and “preach,” and “judge.”

In speaking about her decision-making related to the environment, Jamia

verbalized:

I always feel like a little devil and a little angel are on my back, and one of

them is like, „Jamia, you should do this.‟ And the other one is like, „It‟s

okay. It‟s not necessarily bad, it‟s just easier.‟ Like, for instance, I‟m

100

going to class, and I‟m like 30 minutes early, so I could take the stairs, but

I‟m like, „Ah, just take the elevator. It‟s nothing.‟

In employing an angel-devil analogy, Jamia is revealing the moralistic lens she

uses to view sustainability. I also noted Jamia‟s use of the word “should”;

interestingly, across the cases, “should” is most often connected with pro-

environmental behaviors that the students do not end up doing, indicating that it

may be an ineffective word to employ anyway.

Peter is one of the students who used the word “preach.” He

communicated, “I just don‟t feel like having someone sort of preach to me about

sustainability.” Unlike Jamia who seems to be placing the “should” upon herself,

Peter seems to be expressing that he does not want a judgment-based framework

placed upon him by others.

Similar to Peter, Fawn described a judgment-based framework that she

feels others are often placing upon her: “There‟s a certain, „Oh, I recycle, you

don‟t recycle? Oh, I don‟t eat meat, you eat meat?‟ The judgment here comes

from the other person comparing actions and labeling himself/herself as

„sustainable‟ and the other as „not sustainable.‟

Seth was another case who recognized others‟ comments regarding the

attitude-behavior gap as judgment-based. He said, “I‟m not one of those people

that looks up and says, „Ug, why don‟t people ever do anything?‟ I‟m part of

101

„people‟ too! Any judgments I make kind of reflect back on me too.” Seth‟s

comment reveals the seemingly pervasive mismatch between the true meaning of

sustainability and judging others. In fact, by nature, sustainability involves

recognizing that many social and economic needs exist beyond the environment

and working with those social and economic needs to find a feasible balance.

Recognizing that this judgment-oriented rhetoric is present and even

socially embedded in the dialogue about sustainability is the first step toward

changing it. Everden (1985), an environmental philosopher, argued that our

assumptions about the environment are so deeply buried in our lifestyles and

belief systems that we cannot recognize them on a daily basis. The evidence from

these interviews uncovered the guilt- and judgment-based language that currently

and perhaps unknowingly coats our lives.

Moreover, judging is also antithetical to trusting. In turning to the

literature, Goddard (2003) and Pretty (2003) remind us that social trust involves

individual members‟ perceived level of trust toward other community members.

The presence of judgment-oriented language may indicate that an overall lack of

social trust exists. Given that social trust is a key component of social capital, a

dearth of social trust among students may be injurious in working toward a

culture of sustainability.

102

This goal of adapting the discourse surrounding sustainability to move

away from judgment-oriented language complements Nordhaus and

Shellenberger‟s (2007) assertion that we must refocus environmental efforts on

“creating the good” instead of “stopping the bad” (p. 7). These authors declared

that the current environmental discourse is too “doomsday” in its focus on “stop,

restrict, prevent, regulate, constrain” (2007, p. 7). This study adds to Nordhaus

and Shellenberger‟s (2007) work in that it also suggests avoiding judgment-

oriented words such as “should,” “preach,” and “judgment.” Humans who care

about sustainability are allowed to feel good about behaving pro-environmentally

as much as they possibly can rather than continually feeling guilty. Rebecca used

this positive lens in her rhetoric when she spoke about the possible catalytic effect

of doing something pro-environmental: “You feel better about doing the eco-

friendly thing, so that kind of makes you feel better, and then you want to do

more.” Reforming the vocabulary may be one strategy to help students “do more”

and increase social trust.

Certainly, in an ideal world, attitudes would be linearly connected to

behaviors, and everyone who cared about sustainability would then operate as

“environmental saints,” to use Seth‟s term. However, an integral part of

sustainability is realism, and the discourse around sustainability must reflect the

reality of human beings‟ attitude-behavior relationship.

103

In synthesizing the key findings around student attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability, I find that the apparent disconnect between attitudes and

behaviors may be a reflection of the larger disconnect between people and the

concept of sustainability. Students seem to care about sustainability as a social

issue because they are educated individuals, but not necessarily because they hold

a deep connection to the issue of sustainability itself. Students, on the whole,

quickly asserted that they care about other issues more than sustainability and also

swiftly transitioned into talking about how their “active level of concern” toward

sustainability is quite low. The most consistent pro-environmental behaviors

among students, such as recycling, seem closely connected to social norms and

convenience rather than a deep belief in their actions. To be sure, students‟

“priorities of the moment” will trump their pro-environmental behaviors if

sustainability is a secondary priority for most students. This broader finding

about humans‟ lack of connection to sustainability as a concrete issue will be

paired with the findings from the second research question in an effort to better

understand how sustainability can be elevated to a higher priority.

The qualitative data gathered pertaining to the first research question

allowed for a rigorous exploration of the meaning behind students‟ layered

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. As Gregory and Di Leo (2003)

advised, rather than dismissing the attitude-behavior relationship as ambiguous

104

and inconclusive, I was able to use a qualitative methodological approach in an

effort to capture the subtleties of students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability. Through such a methodology, I was able to begin exposing the

shadow behind the light, as van Ginneken (2003) described it.

This chapter sought to enhance our understanding of college students‟

psychological landscape. The next chapter aims to complement this

psychological landscape with a deeper understanding of the students‟ sociological

landscape. How does the context of college, including students‟ experiences and

institutional setting, change students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability? Wilson and Iatabadi (2007) indicated that context is highly

significant in terms of understanding pro-environmental behavioral decision-

making.

105

CHAPTER VI

COLLEGE IMPACT

This chapter explores the second research question in this study: How

does the college environment influence students‟ attitudes and behaviors related

to sustainability? Broadly speaking, this question tackles a larger debate about

the extent to which college provides “added value” or gains for individual

participants and even communities themselves at large.

Many higher education researchers have grappled with questions

surrounding the “added value” of college, exploring the impact of college on

students (e.g., Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin,

1993; Perna, 2005). Astin (1993), for example, in his study of how college affects

students, captured non-cognitive or affective outcomes of participation in college.

His finding that students‟ “commitment to participating in programs to clean up

the environment” is one of the largest positive changes in attitudes during the

college years is particularly relevant to the study at hand (p. 159). Yet, the

present study goes beyond attitudinal change related to sustainability to explore

behavioral change and also adds nuance in understanding how college affects

student attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. Perna (2005), for

instance, has also studied college impact by looking at both the short-term and

106

long-term benefits of college. She found that students who attend college

experience short-term benefits such as the enhancement of social status and long-

term benefits such as better health and lower probability of unemployment. Thus,

determining the “added value” of college, in all its varied forms, remains an

important and relevant debate, especially in an era when public confidence in

higher education is waning.

While this chapter attentively addresses college impact, it first takes the

time to delve into pre-college influences. Next, this chapter explores faculty and

administrators‟ perspectives as well as students‟ perspectives on the institutional

context of CNU. Both of these steps are critical primers for comprehensively

understanding college impact on students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability.

Pre-College Influences

While the second research question directly asks how the college

environment influences students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability,

it became apparent during the interviews that the participants‟ beliefs and actions

on this topic were shaped by influences prior to college. Given this clear finding,

addressing the texture of the students‟ pre-college impact is necessary and

provides relevant contextual information. Parents and the media, in particular,

surfaced in the data as the primary sources of influence. The participants‟ words

revealed that parents served as a main influence in their younger more formative

107

years, and various forms of media have more recently served as influential forces

in shaping students‟ current attitudes and behaviors.

Parents

In speaking of the role of parents in guiding students‟ attitudes and

behaviors related to sustainability, the participants often associated their parents

with habit-forming. Fawn told me, “Yeah, I never let the water run while I‟m

brushing my teeth. My parents must have told me that because it‟s just a habit. I

just turn it off.” Similarly, Rebecca verbalized, “My parents taught me to finish

my food, turn out my lights, and recycle, so that behavior is ingrained. No matter

what environment I‟m in, I‟ll recycle. Turning off the lights, I‟m going to do

that.” Fawn and Rebecca‟s parents have instilled in them behaviors that will not

change throughout college and beyond because they are “ingrained.” In

consulting the literature, Fazio (1986), based on his Attitude Accessibility Theory,

argued that habits are highly accessible attitudes in that they are spontaneous and

can easily be recalled from memory, making them quite predictable in guiding

behavior.

The participants‟ parents seemed to hold the ability to develop the

participants‟ behaviors at a young age by serving as role-models, educating, and

correcting them. Sarah, for example, spoke about how her parents served as role

models to emulate, expressing, “When I was younger, and I was more

impressionable, I would start copying things that my parents did.” Jamia

108

remembered her parents‟ educating her and her siblings about recycling in

Queens, NY as soon as the city introduced fines for not recycling: “My parents

forced us to sit down with the little sticker and memorize what goes where

because they didn‟t want to pay a $100 fine.” Whether Jamia‟s parents educated

her because they cared about recycling or because they wanted to avoid the fine,

she expressed that her parents still influenced her deep belief in recycling.

Finally, Ava and her sister seemed to learn about recycling through correction;

she shared, “If one of us were too lazy and put something in the trashcan that

should be recycled, my parents scolded us.” Ava‟s case reminds us that parents

are permitted and even encouraged to correct children and help them form

appropriate behaviors. Of course, most institutional leaders would concur that

college, nevertheless, is not a place where students ought to be verbally scolded

for failing to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. After all, the death of the

university‟s role as in loco parentis (“in the place of the parent”) occurred in the

1960‟s (Melear, 2003). Nevertheless, the influential role of parents demonstrates,

once again, that humans serve as powerful sources of influence on others‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that one of the main reasons why parents,

much like colleges and universities, seem to encourage pro-environmental

attitudes and behaviors among their children is for cost-savings. Teresa

explicated this point: “My parents taught us to act in environmentally-friendly

ways, but it was because it‟s less costly. „Turn off the light – we can‟t afford

109

this.‟” Cost savings typically takes the form of reducing energy use. It is likely

that the parents did care about the environment and wanted to pass along the value

of environmental stewardship to their children, but they likely wanted their child

to behave in pro-environmental ways for cost reasons too. I note this point not to

diminish parents‟ pro-environmental teachings, but rather to underscore the

importance of including cost-savings as a primary reason for people to behave in

pro-environmental ways. Cost savings simply resonates with people.

Media

When asked, “Who or what shaped your understanding of environmental

issues?” or “Who or what positively influences you to think and act in more

environmentally-friendly ways?,” over half the participants also spoke of the

media. Diversity in media sources existed as students mentioned movies, TV

commercials, TV shows, the news, and newspapers.

Unlike parental references, almost all of the media references were from

2005 onward, which may speak to the role of media in the burgeoning green

movement. Justin spoke to this connection when he expressed:

I noticed all this sustainability stuff on commercials, and then you had Al

Gore‟s Inconvenient Truth. It suddenly popped up everywhere. Like

water bottle companies started advertising their green bottles, which was

very ironic.

110

However, for Justin, while the media got his attention, it did not seem to

significantly influence his attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. He

stated, “I just noticed and put it in the back of my mind.”

Nevertheless, for the majority of students who mentioned the media, it did

serve as a source of influence rather than simply offering information or

awareness. When Peter saw Food, Inc., for example, he began buying meat

locally and has since stuck with the behavior over time. Fawn also conveyed that

when she saw Food, Inc. as part of a hall activity in her residence hall, she found

it so fascinating that she watched it two more times on her own. As a direct result

of the movie, she then began eating vegetarian. Fawn admitted, however, that

she began eating meat again about three weeks later when she went home for

break because, as she said, “My parents are Jamaican, and they cook amazing

Jamaican food, and barely any Jamaican food is vegetarian or vegan.” But, she

stated, “I still don‟t eat McDonald‟s.” For Fawn, the norm of eating meat in her

Jamaican family combined with the extra effort it would require to eat meatless

dishes was simply “not worth it,” principally because of her deeply ingrained

cultural habits.

While Food, Inc. seemed to impact Peter and Fawn‟s behaviors to some

extent, the television comedy show My Name is Earl affected, or at least

reinforced, Jamia‟s attitudes toward sustainability. She described the influential

episode:

Earl goes to a commune, and they sort of convert him, and he comes back

111

to his old neighborhood and jabs holes in everyone‟s tires because he

doesn‟t want them to drive and pollute the air. And, he rides a tricycle

everywhere because he says it‟s better for the environment. And then he

gets flustered and goes back to the commune, and he‟s like, „No one else

is doing it! It doesn‟t matter what we do because everyone else is polluting

the environment!‟ And they sort of calm him down, and they say, „It‟s just

about what you do, Earl!‟

This episode allowed Jamia to adopt the attitude that even if she is the

only one who is “taking little steps” to improve the environment, over a period of

time, she believes her actions make a difference, and, she added, “I might inspire

someone else to do it too.” She resolutely concluded, “So, I don‟t think I should

ever give up like Earl.” I smiled.

While TV shows and movies seemed to positively influence most

students‟ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, Sarah spoke about how the

news has negatively influenced her attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability, estranging her from wanting to engage in the topic. Sarah claimed

that the media disengages her from sustainability because the news stories seem to

focus on politics rather than the issues themselves. She asserted:

The media makes it more about politics than the actual issue. They say,

„President Obama is not doing enough for creating a sustainable future.‟

Or, „The President is focusing too much on one aspect of sustainability.‟

So, I feel like the media makes the sustainability issue an issue about

112

something else – about politics. They say, „This is what the Republicans

are doing wrong to fix it.‟ Or, „This is what the Democrats are doing

wrong to fix it.‟

Sarah‟s observation echoes a New York Times article from December 22, 2010,

which profiled the scientist, Dr. Charles David Keeling, who developed a precise

technique to measure the amount of carbon dioxide present in the air. Even

though Dr. Keeling passed away in 2005, his widow, Louise, declared that if her

husband had lived to see the hardening political lines on the climate change issue,

his reaction would be one of dismay. She articulated, “He was a registered

Republican. He just didn‟t think of it as a political issue at all.” Like Sarah, Dr.

Keeling‟s wife believes that the issue is incorrectly being framed as politics rather

than the actual issue of climate change.

As the data have revealed, pre-college influences unduly affect students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. Parents taught their children

behaviors at a young age that have since developed into habits and will continue

during the college years and beyond. The influence of the media seems less

stable in terms of attitude and behavior development, often influencing the

participants, but not necessarily over time, and in a few cases, even negatively

influencing them.

113

Faculty and Administrators‟ Perspectives on Institutional Environment

In addition to looking at pre-college influences, understanding the

institutional landscape at CNU is also imperative as background because it sets

the stage for the subsequent findings on college impact. Astin (1993) reminds us

that understanding institutional arrangements can help to unpack the ways in

which students develop and change in college. The interviews with faculty and

administrators were conducted for this purpose of providing valuable institutional

context.

I interviewed three administrators and one faculty member who are

involved with sustainability efforts at the institution. The participants included:

(1) Mr. Evans, a lead administrator in the campus sustainability office; (2) Ms.

Deepa, a program assistant in the sustainability office; (3) Dr. Lingerfelt, the vice

president of student affairs who is involved with sustainability efforts; and (4)

Professor Nicklaus, a faculty member in the College of Arts and Science who

weaves sustainability into the core curriculum.

Dr. Lingerfelt described CNU as an institution marked by “diversity,

complexity, and breadth.” He explained that its large size and urban location

contribute to its comprehensiveness, to be sure, but it is also highly “school-

centric,” making it challenging for cultures to become infused throughout the

entire campus. Dr. Lingerfelt suggested that while developing a culture of

sustainability in individual schools and social groups may be realistic, creating a

broad ethic of conservation across the entire institution may be more arduous at a

114

place like CNU. He therefore spoke about strategically developing sustainable

cultures “in pockets” with the intention of it one day being infused across the

entire institution.

Dr. Lingerfelt continued, describing how there is tremendous support for

sustainability at CNU; he asserted, “In the over seven years I‟ve been here,

sustainability is one of the few issues that there hasn‟t been that much – in my

mind – protest, cynicism, or skepticism about it.” In describing how the support

for sustainability efforts even began at such a comprehensive place, Dr. Lingerfelt

explained that the executive vice president of CNU initially brought the issue to

the attention of the University President and leadership team. Concurrently, an

undergraduate student club focused on sustainability was gathering momentum

for campus sustainability efforts. Thus, the efforts simultaneously came from

both top-down and bottom-up. As Dr. Lingerfelt said, sustainability seemed to be

a “compelling scenario for CNU. It‟s a win-win situation.” He cited the

following reasons why CNU chose to invest in sustainability: (1) academic

interest in the topic is growing among researchers and students alike; (2) the CNU

community can rally behind it; (3) while it costs money, it ultimately saves

money; (4) and, of course, it is good for the environment. In broad ways, Dr.

Lingerfelt‟s reasoning echoed the list of institutional benefits Blackburn (2007)

identified for colleges and universities pursuing sustainability efforts: strategic

positioning as an ethical institution; bolstering relations with the community;

enhancing students‟ employment prospects with employers who are increasingly

115

interested in sustainability; attracting students, private donors, and government

funders who care about sustainability; and cost-savings through waste reduction

and energy conservation in the operations of the university itself.

Mr. Evans, a lead administrator in the campus sustainability office, was

quick to emphasize thoughtfulness as a central piece to both top-down and

bottom-up efforts in speaking about the evolution of sustainability efforts at CNU.

He noted, “Forced mandates from on high or unthoughtful grassroots organizing

that produces manifestos do not work.” Mr. Evans also repeatedly underscored

“doing things well” as a key component of successful sustainability efforts.

Perhaps thoughtfulness and “doing things well” are reasons why CNU has

made tremendous progress in their sustainability initiatives in a relatively short

period of time in comparison to other institutions that have committed themselves

to sustainability efforts. All three administrators interviewed spoke to this point

about rapid progress. Mr. Evans, for example, illuminated this reality when he

articulated:

One way or another, CNU has gotten a lot of good stuff done in a much

shorter period of time than most universities. And one of the things that is

notably different about our approach is that it has been unusually

participatory, specifically participatory, in terms of student involvement in

a leadership way.

Mr. Evans specifically highlighted student leadership as a key factor in their

sustainability success; he deemed students “an essential ingredient, a special

116

ingredient, a secret ingredient.” Ms. Deepa, a program assistant in the

sustainability office, expounded on how students contribute to the process:

“Students provide legwork, energy, and time to the sustainability initiatives on

campus.” Ms. Deepa added that they also provide a massive amount of

enthusiasm to the efforts. Given the seemingly critical role of students in

mobilizing sustainability efforts on campus, privileging student voices on the

issue of sustainability is of great importance in that offering students a metaphoric

megaphone can be an initial step in thinking about how to best foster sustainable

cultures.

When considering how to best approach attitudinal and behavioral change

related to sustainability on CNU‟s campus, a curious division seems to exist

between nudge-based and knowledge-based attitudinal and behavioral change.

Nudge-based change is grounded in the idea that prompting attitudinal and

behavioral change through nudges is acceptable, especially because our

environmental problems are urgent. Knowledge-based change, on the other hand,

is squarely based on the premise that changes in individuals‟ attitudes and

behaviors ought to be based on being informed about sustainability issues. This

difference in approach manifested itself in the interviews with members of the

sustainability office and a faculty member in the College of Arts and Science,

Professor Nicklaus, who addresses sustainability in his coursework. Professor

Nicklaus articulated his concern about nudge-based changes and expressed his

pedagogical goal of knowledge-based change:

117

I‟m concerned that falling into this somewhat superficial sense of pro-

environment without the ability to think through it does not lead you in a

very productive way, so I deliberately tone back a little bit on my rhetoric

and ask, „What evidence do you have?‟ I don‟t want to promote

superficiality by just saying, „Well, yes, we‟re all into sustainability, aren‟t

we?‟ and everyone says, „Yes.‟ And it‟s like, „Oh isn‟t that nice.‟ But then,

what does it mean?

As a conscious pedagogical goal, Professor Nicklaus wants his students to exit his

course with a deepened knowledge base and sophisticated appreciation of issues

related to sustainability. Professor Nicklaus continued, offering an example

specific to global warming:

I ask my students „Who believes in global warming?‟ Everybody. „Who

thinks it‟s related to humans?‟ Almost everybody. Um, ok, „Tell me why

you believe those things,‟ and there‟s a lot of blank faces.

To combat this hollow commitment to sustainability, he employs exercises in his

classroom where students are encouraged to collect and share evidence.

Mr. Evans from the sustainability office shared a subtly different stance on

attitudinal and behavioral change related to sustainability. He succinctly captured

this difference when he explained:

I want students to change their behavior - not more than understand the

real issues, but I want them to change their behaviors more urgently than I

118

want them to understand the real issues because we don‟t have time.

We‟re in an ecological crisis.

However, the nuance lies in the distinction between “not more” and “more

urgently”; Mr. Evans does not value a nudge-based approach more than a

knowledge-based approach, but he argues that a nudge-based approach is

necessary given the limits of time. Thus, at CNU, a nudge-based approach

typically predominates.

By design, a nudge-based approach complements Festinger‟s (1957)

cognitive dissonance theory, which fundamentally speaks to how behaviors can

affect attitudes. Nudge-based approaches prompt the desired pro-environmental

behavior, ultimately hoping to alter attitudes too. According to Festinger‟s (1957)

theory, students will be motivated to change their attitudes to become more pro-

environmental because of the cognitive dissonance they will experience if their

behaviors are inconsistent with their attitudes. This theory has been applied in the

past to effectively hasten social change. Activists in the 1950‟s, for example,

employed cognitive dissonance theory to urge educational leaders to desegregate

schools, arguing that the most effective way to change prejudiced attitudes is to

allow students to interact on a close, equal-status basis in schools with the very

individuals they had been prejudiced against; the students will likely alter their

previous attitudes to become more consistent with their new behaviors.

In sum, based on these contextual interviews conducted with faculty and

administrators at CNU, when seeking to understand how institutional

119

arrangements can help facilitate pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors,

contextual considerations involve: the comprehensive nature of the higher

education setting; the value students can add in working toward cultures of

sustainability; and the nudge-based and/or knowledge-based approaches

institutions can employ in fostering sustainability.

Students‟ Perspectives on Institutional Environment

Given that this research study‟s instrumental case study design privileges

the student cases, attending to how faculty and administrator data triangulates

with the student data is important. In at least three cases, students did seem to

perceive a “hollow” commitment to sustainability at CNU. One student shared, “I

mean, for instance, I really love the whole eco-thing, and CNU sells sustainable

water bottles, but the sustainable water bottles are like 10 dollars for six ounces.”

She reasoned that if CNU were to focus on the true intentions behind

sustainability, the price point on the eco-friendly water bottles would be

significantly lower. Carolina, when asked if she thought CNU would continue

their sustainability efforts in the years to come, expressed, “Yeah, I think so just

because I think that CNU cares a lot about how people perceive it.” In Carolina‟s

mind, the foremost reason why CNU will continue their sustainability efforts is

for public perception, not necessarily to share knowledge about sustainability.

120

Indeed, for some students, a degree of institutional trust may be lacking.

Institutional trust is often considered as part of the social capital framework (e.g.,

Noguera, 2004; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006). A lack of

institutional trust is problematic in that if students do not think and feel that

institutions and society as a whole care about sustainability, they may be less

inclined to take action on the issues as well (Yankelovich & Immerwhar, 1994).

Moreover, a lack of institutional trust may also be problematic as several social

capital theorists (e.g., Evans, 1996; Ostrom, 1996; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000)

view institutional trust as foundational to the development of other forms of social

capital such as social trust, social norms, and social networks.

Further, according to the student data, Professor Nicklaus‟s efforts at

knowledge-based attitudinal and behavioral change seem to be in the minority at

CNU. Academics, including professors and classes themselves, did not emerge

from the data as a source of influence, even after directly probing about

coursework in the second round of interviews. I specifically asked the students,

“Has there been any material related to sustainability in your coursework?” In

responding to this question, Carolina, for example, expressed, “Let‟s see. I took

all kinds of policy and law-related classes last year, but none of them really

related to the environment, so, not really, no.” Ava conveyed a similar message,

saying, “In college, I haven‟t really been in any science classes at all, so I think

most of my knowledge about sustainability stems from my high school.” High

121

school was cited more often as including sustainability-related curriculum than

college.

Only two of the twelve students interviewed mentioned that sustainability

has been brought up in their classes. Alex, who is a Biochemistry major, did

voice, “In classes ranging from Biology to Organic Chemistry, they all talk about

sustainability in some way, especially in biology.” The two students who stated

sustainability was integrated into the curricula and conversation were both science

majors. Perhaps if students‟ and even the professors‟ definitions of sustainability

were more broadly conceived to include human rights, for example, connections

between course content and sustainability would be made more easily. These

surprising data that surfaced also reveal that even if the knowledge-based

approach toward sustainability does work well in terms of long-term impact on

attitudes and behaviors, CNU students are not learning significant knowledge

about sustainability in the classroom, especially outside of the science curricula;

sustainability is certainly not integrated throughout the curriculum.

It is important to note, nevertheless, that a debate exists around whether or

not sustainability ought to be limited to its own course or be integrated throughout

the curriculum. Cortese (2003) wrote that sustainability should be a “seamless

and central part” of teaching in all parts of the institution. Cotton (2006) agreed,

arguing that compartmentalizing environmental teaching allows students to

compartmentalize themselves as environmental stewards – something that is for

certain moments or squeezed in as an activity on the weekly planner; instead, the

122

disciplines should work collaboratively to integrate sustainability throughout the

curriculum much like they would integrate the values of diversity and culture.

Kerr (2001), nevertheless, reminds us that instituting anything across the diffuse

higher education setting is difficult. Anything that is regulatory as opposed to

voluntary can breed dissension and frustration on campus, especially in the higher

education setting where power is diffused and academic freedom is valued.

College Influences

After delving into students‟ pre-college experiences with sustainability

and also gaining both faculty and administrators‟ as well as students‟ perspectives

on the institutional fabric of CNU, this chapter is now equipped to turn to the

findings regarding how the college environment actually does seem to influence

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability. Two principal findings directly

related to the second research question emerged after a close review of the data:

(1) the influence of interpersonal peer groups on attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability and (2) the importance of messaging through effective signage.

Interpersonal Peer Groups

When the participants were asked who or what influences them to act in

pro-environmental ways, five of the twelve participants cited peer groups as

serving as a source of influence: Seth, Ava, Teresa, Carolina, and Paige. More

123

specifically, these students cited peers who were close to them such as roommates

and friends. This finding supports Antonio‟s (2002) work, which asserted that

micro-level interpersonal peer groups are critical sites of influence in college.

Seth, for example, suggested that his friends provide momentum for him

to become more active about environmental issues. He explained:

It‟s like, if my friends bring up something they‟ve found, it‟s easier to get

enthusiastic about it. Like hearing that my friend had a goat farm. I was

like, „Well, that‟s really cool.‟ He was like, „Hey, do you want to go this

weekend?‟ „Um, yeah!‟ And then we ended up going. Friends present

opportunities, and then from there you start thinking, where else can we

go? What else can we do? They provide momentum. It‟s much easier to

get going if there are friends.

Seth‟s narrative indicated that his friend not only influenced his behaviors, but his

attitudes too. In fact, in alignment with cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger,

1957), Seth‟s action of going to the goat farm encouraged him to “start thinking”

and to develop increasingly receptive attitudes toward pro-environmental

behaviors.

Like Seth, Ava also spoke of the momentum that friends offer in terms of

supporting pro-environmental attitudes: “I feel like when you‟re around friends

who have that same type of concern, it builds up your concern even more because

you‟re like, „Oh wow, other people are concerned about this too. This must be a

124

bigger issue.‟” Ava chose the words “builds up” whereas Seth used “momentum”

and “get going,” but the meaning remains highly similar.

Seth and Ava‟s words hinted at a baseline level of concern that must

already exist, but that when friends offer support, their commitment becomes

more binding. “Binding social capital” is what Adjer (1999) identified as a type

of social capital found in friendships as opposed to “networking social capital,”

which is typically found in weaker bonds. When the participants spoke of their

friendships, they typically cited binding relationships such as roommates or close

friends. It is worth noting that networking social capital was less apparent in this

study, which can possibly be attributed to the large size of CNU; developing weak

bonds with a significant portion of the community at CNU may be more difficult.

Some students also spoke about how they themselves try to influence their

friends as well. Teresa declared:

I remind my roommates when they leave on the shower for too long, and

they know how I feel about leaving the water on when they‟re brushing

their teeth. They know it annoys me, which is really nice because they

know me really well, so they know I‟m not nagging them.

Teresa reported that her reminders and gentle nudging does influence her

roommates‟ behaviors, at least temporarily. Justin also reported that he has

directly influenced his friends‟ behaviors. He simply stated, “Well, they are

starting to recycle now because I‟ve lived with them.”

125

Carolina voiced that her friends actually mutually influence each other,

articulating:

We‟re big on recycling. I mean, basically my entire group of friends are

pretty big on turning the lights off and not letting the water run. And, we

all recycle our paper bags. We just do it. And if one of us forgets, we‟re

just like, „Come on, just put it in the recycling bin. It‟s no big deal.‟ So,

it‟s just something we do.

Carolina‟s group of friends is a fine example of a small, yet dense social network

at CNU that impacts one another‟s beliefs and rules of engagement (Stanton-

Salazar, 2001). More specifically, her group is an example of bonding social

capital in that it involves close bonds (Adger, 1999). Coleman (1990)

underscored the fundamental role that social networks play in facilitating change

in communities, and college campuses may certainly be viewed as one such

community.

It is interesting to note that roommates were most often mentioned as the

primary influencers in this study. Friends from clubs and organizations within

CNU were rarely cited as sources of influence, even though the interview protocol

intentionally sought out influences from all corners of campus. This notable lack

of reference to peer groups outside of residence halls may be a result of the

deliberate recruitment of participants who live on campus. While my initial

intention was to seek out participants who regularly experience the campus

environment, perhaps this specification actually limited the students‟ breadth of

126

influences. Or, perhaps CNU‟s residences halls have simply been the most

skillful at designing peer group settings that facilitate cultures of sustainability.

Regardless, close interpersonal peer groups such as friends and roommates

still arose from the data as the strongest sources of influence on students‟ attitudes

and behaviors related to sustainability. This finding confirms Astin‟s (1993)

broader finding that student views on social issues change in the direction of their

peers‟ dominant beliefs in college. Yet, Astin noted that “relatively little is

actually known about how undergraduates are influenced by their peers” (1993, p.

33). This study found that students influence their peers by: (1) providing

momentum for action, which in turn, may further reinforce or shape beliefs, as

Seth and Ava‟s cases showed; (2) gently reminding them from a place of genuine

concern, as Teresa‟s case demonstrated; and (3) mutually influencing one another

within a friendship network, as Carolina‟s case revealed. Yet, while Astin (1993)

employed the broad term of “peers,” this study would specify that peers with the

greatest influence seem to be close peers (i.e., friends and roommates). Close

interpersonal peers offer personal contact, which has been found to be important

in influencing behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999).

Messaging through Effective Signage

The data also showed that over half – at least seven of the twelve students

- repeatedly cited signage on campus as influencing their attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability. Yet, beyond simply citing signage, the data uncovered

127

several nuances about what specifically allows for effective signage (i.e., signage

that results in attitudinal and behavioral change). Sarah‟s below quotation helps

to capture many of the relevant points about messaging through signage found in

the data:

There are notices for recycling everywhere: Put this in this bin. Put this in

that bin. This will help the environment. This is garbage, throw it here. I

am influenced by the signs that I see; if there were no giant, blaring sign

that said, „Plastic bottles here,‟ I would probably just put it in the garbage,

but that‟s there, so it‟s like, „Why not?‟

This quotation highlights: the near omnipresence of signage related to

sustainability at CNU and how its presence affects student perceptions; the

content of the signs themselves and how effective the messaging is in terms of

prompting behaviors; the importance of clarity and crispness in the messaging

itself; and the significance of tone in messaging.

First, signage seems to help the campus to “look” sustainable. Paige told

me, “One thing about CNU is that it just looks sustainable. There are a lot of

recycle posters and sustainability posters. I think it‟s cool.” Paige likes that she

goes to school at an institution that appears sustainable, which speaks to

Blackburn‟s (2007) point that sustainability often attracts students. Paige is not

the only participant who described CNU‟s signage efforts as “cool” though;

Teresa explained, “There are signs everywhere about not using plastic bottles and

about the bicycle initiative. That‟s really cool – it‟s like, „Hello, this is

128

something!‟ There are just little signs like that everywhere I turn.” Signs seem to

be serving as a social marketing tool in creating an image of sustainability, which

may even contribute to attitudinal change; that is, if students perceive

sustainability as “cool,” they may be more inclined to hold positive feelings about

sustainability as a topic. Students‟ pro-environmental feelings or attitudes may

not be depthful, but they do exist. Signs seem to help nudge the students toward

this sentiment.

Further, in addition to the presence of signs potentially contributing to

nudge-based attitudinal change, the messaging on the signs themselves appears

linked to some level of behavioral change. Participants spoke about engaging in

the behavior specifically because the signs were there. Paige, for example,

communicated, “If I were considering throwing my glass bottle into the trashcan,

those signs guilt me into carrying it another 15 feet.” Ava referenced how signs

alter her behavior when speaking about light pollution from her dorm: “We‟re

reminded about turning off our lights by the signs all over the place. If the signs

weren‟t there, it would slip my mind.” Both Paige and Ava claimed to need the

signage as a reminder to behave in pro-environmental ways.

In discussing the signs‟ messaging, addressing content strategy is

important in order to better understand how colleges and universities can

maximize the impact of the messaging. Several students emphasized that the

message must be clear and quick because “otherwise, people just aren‟t going to

take the time to read it,” as Justin explained. The signs must be easy to read as

129

people walk by, or else “they‟ll just subconsciously focus out,” he said. This

finding is supported by McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) who underscored the

necessity of capturing attention before any persuasion can occur and making the

signage self-explanatory to the reader.

Further, students seemed to specifically cite signage that was focused on

positive behavior rather than negative behavior. Alex, for example, alluded to a

sign in an elevator that read, “Be green. The change is in your hands.” Such a

sign harnesses possibility. Justin referred to a sign in a residence hall that

suggested, “Take the stairs more often” rather than a sign that could have

explicitly discouraged taking the elevator. Student development experts (e.g.,

Sanford, 1967) and behavioral experts (e.g., Mckenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999)

seem to concur that supporting students to „do‟ something rather than saying

„don‟t do‟ something is a more effective strategy. Communicating a positive

message rather than a threatening message will encourage students to repeatedly

engage in a behavior rather than being deterred from the behavior altogether.

The students communicated a fairly unified message that they do notice

signage at CNU, and as long as the messaging is clear and simple, it typically

contributes to both their perception of sustainability on campus and prompts them

to engage in the behavior that the sign is encouraging. In short, the nudge-based

approach of signage in the college environment does seem to influence students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability.

130

Overall, the data directly related to college impact have revealed that

interpersonal peer groups and messaging through effective signage serve as the

two most common sources of influence on students‟ attitudes and behaviors

related to sustainability. This finding about the importance of interpersonal peer

groups expressly supports Antonio‟s (2005) argument that more research must be

done on interpersonal environments such as friendship groups and cliques rather

than studying peer groups as a singular, campus-wide entity. However, in

exploring types of interpersonal environments, clubs and other groups beyond

residence halls must be further probed in future studies.

It is also imperative to point out that while the finding about the influence

of messaging through effective signage may strike readers as fairly narrow, it is

worth remembering that signage is unique and powerful in its ability to reach all

corners of campus and therefore can speak to divergent peer groups.

Nevertheless, it is still surprising that effective signage surfaced as one of the two

most prominent findings while academics hardly surfaced at all. The nudge-based

tactic of signage prevails at CNU while knowledge-based tactics seem few and far

between.

In collectively considering the findings from this chapter, broader thoughts

can be offered as well. First and foremost, these findings address the ongoing

debate about the “added value” of college. This study reveals that “added value”

or gains can certainly be found through non-academic experiences; after all,

students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability grew from their

131

relationships and campus messaging rather than from their curricular experiences.

Second, in speaking to the classic debate between sociologists and psychologists

about the best way to study attitudes and behaviors, these data show that the

external world is inextricably linked to the internal world; external forces such as

parents, media, peers, and signage influence students‟ internal attitudes and

behaviors. The findings from this study therefore wholly support Derksen and

Gartell‟s (1993) call for future researchers to consider social structure when

studying attitude-behavior relations.

132

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

In order to understand human beings‟ attitudes and behaviors, we must

“ask and listen as well as we can” (Schuman & Johnson, 1976, p. 202), which is

precisely what I have attempted to do in this study. The content from the

interviews unveiled mental maps of students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability in the context of college. Through an analysis of students‟ voices,

several major findings were revealed.

Major Findings

First, as the students‟ stories unfolded, it became clear that students tend to

use a human-centric lens in the way that they view sustainability and decide

whether or not to behave in pro-environmental ways. Given this finding, perhaps

our understanding of these human-centric lenses can be better utilized as a means

to strategically foster humans‟ eco-centric lenses. Second, in exploring what

derails students from turning their beliefs into action, the themes of guilt and

judgment were revealed. To remedy such guilt and judgment, a more tolerant and

asset-oriented culture surrounding sustainability must be developed. Third, after

examining how the college context affects students‟ attitudes and behaviors

133

related to sustainability, conclusions can be made about how influences in the

college context such as close interpersonal peer groups and effective signage can

be used to help remove students‟ identified barriers to pro-environmental behavior

such as inconvenience and “priorities of the moment.” Fourth, in noticing the

lack of attention to sustainability in academics and to knowledge-based change

more broadly, recommendations can be offered regarding higher education‟s

responsibility for knowledge-based change as well as increased collaboration

between academics and student affairs on college campuses for such knowledge-

based change. The implications of these conclusions are ripe with possibility for

future research as well as for policy and practice, which will be discussed in the

sections to follow.

Human Connections to Sustainability

All told, the students seemed to care about issues that affect people. They

“put their person first,” as Seth stated, over engaging in pro-environmental

behaviors. They are also influenced by other human beings such as close

interpersonal peers in developing their attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability.

These individual findings reveal a larger conclusion about how to best

move people toward a greater commitment to sustainability as an issue. If

sustainability strategists can harness peoples‟ human-centric tendencies, they can

use these tendencies as a starting place for working toward increased eco-

134

centrism. For people like Alex and Seth, for example, who identify human needs

as a priority in their conceptions of sustainability, sustainability education in

colleges and universities can work toward eco-centrism by beginning with

exercises that help students place themselves in nature and also explore the deep

connections between social and ecological issues.

For people like Carolina, Rebecca, and Justin who tend to care the most

about issues that “involve people” such as social justice issues, framing the

environment in terms of taking care of other human beings may serve as starting

place for understanding how to take care of our common home, the earth. Rather

than treating human-centrism and eco-centrism as binaries as they often are in the

environmental philosophy discourse (e.g, Oelschlaeger, 1991), human-centrism

can be viewed as a stepping stone to work toward eco-centrism. Reaching

“biophilia,” which can be described as “the passionate love of life and all that is

alive,” is the end goal (Fromm, 1973, p. 365). In essence, becoming more eco-

centric involves making the environment more personal, and I am suggesting that

making sustainability “personal” can involve “persons.”

The way I am conceptualizing human-centrism taps into the “humane”

side of humans. Our very human nature gives us the capacity to think beyond

ourselves and act for the greater good. For example, recall that Ava and Paige

conceived of sustainability through human empathy (i.e., empathizing with and

for the earth). Employing human-oriented words such as “empathy” in the

discourse surrounding sustainability may allow people to feel less sterile about the

135

concept. Certainly, we cannot stop at human empathy, but employing language

that humans can best conceive of will allow humans to situate themselves in the

biosphere in order to ultimately “bring the biosphere home,” as Thomashow

(2002) called it. Thomashow‟s (2002) conception of bringing the biosphere home

explicitly involves knowledge-based change, reliant on an understanding of issues

such as climate change, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss. If

colleges and universities like CNU marginalize knowledge-based change,

however, the environment may remain impersonal to students, operating as a

“secondary priority.”

Further, the field of environmental justice must consider more directly

intertwining itself with social justice, and the social justice field must follow suit.

Environmental justice and social justice, by their very nature, are deeply

interconnected as the most vulnerable human populations often bear the greatest

environmental burdens. Social justice issues are what seem to resonate for these

contemporary college students, so more explicit attention to how justice is

embedded in sustainability is necessary in order to increase students‟ commitment

to sustainability as an issue. While the field of environmental justice has made

great strides since the 1980‟s in helping people understand how environmental

problems disproportionately affect people of color, low-income individuals, and

indigenous peoples (Bullard, 2010), they must directly connect themselves to

social justice in order to speak to contemporary college students. Likewise, the

136

field of social justice must also take the reins and offer attention to environmental

justice.

Further, from more of a nudge-based perspective, fully comprehending

humans‟ tendencies pertaining to sustainability is warranted given the tremendous

influence of other human beings on students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability. Whether it is close interpersonal peers or parents, this research

study found that human beings in the students‟ environment matter in determining

their attitudes and actions. McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) reported that

personal contact, because of the very fact that it is personal, is most likely to

influence humans‟ behavior related to sustainability. Focusing on the key

components of social capital such as social networks and social norms, which are

both human-centered, can thus help communities of people work toward an ethic

of conservation.

Remedying Guilt and Judgment

Throughout this study, I engaged with two major fields: psychology and

sociology. Connecting these two bodies of literature offered a powerful means to

better understand students‟ psychological attitudes and behaviors in the social

context of college. In many instances, I was able to confirm, challenge, and refine

the ways in which these theories and frameworks operate. While I resisted

adopting any of the theories from these fields as the ideal lens through which to

view students‟ attitudes and behaviors in college, I certainly borrowed from their

137

logic in order to make meaning of the attitude-behavior relationship.

Perhaps most notably, such a framework enabled me to uncover the guilt-

and judgment-based culture surrounding attitude-behavior gaps. Students who

care about sustainability experience guilt when their intentions do not match their

actions. Individuals like Justin who do not hold pro-environmental intentions can

remain gap-free and guilt-free while those individuals like Teresa and Jamia who

care most deeply about sustainability may be the most guilt-ridden of all. Further,

the judgment-oriented framework used to characterize sustainability seems to

contribute to such guilt as indicated by the dominant presence of words such as

“should,” “preach,” and “judge.” Given the tremendous influence that human

beings have on other human beings, judging others can reap deleterious

consequences; in not wanting to feel guilty and judged, people may back away

from further committing themselves to sustainability.

Such judgment is counterproductive to building social capital in that

judgment is antithetical to social trust. In judging, individuals are indicating that

they do not trust other community members to behave in pro-environmental ways.

In not trusting, they are also reducing their own likelihood of acting in pro-

environmental ways because they do not trust others to behave similarly

(Goddard, 2003; Pretty, 2003). If a culture of sustainability is to exist, social trust

is foundational. If we cannot trust, we are left with Hardin‟s (1968) „tragedy of

the commons‟ whereby all individuals act in their own self-interest, ultimately

138

depleting our natural resources despite the fact that it is in everyone‟s long-term

best interest to protect the commons.

Perhaps it is partly America‟s puritanical roots that allow us to treat people

as hypocrites if they are not sustainable all the time. Rather than employing an

unforgiving framework, developing a more tolerant framework that encourages

and supports people in being conscious and conscientious about sustainability as

much as they reasonably can may be a more effective approach to sustainability.

An asset-oriented approach such as this one will allow us to “create the good”

instead of “stopping the bad” (Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2007, p. 7).

Sustainability need not be associated with such guilt and judgment.

Facilitating Behaviors in the College Context

While this study is focused on the attitudes, behaviors, and the attitude-

behavior relationship related to sustainability, pro-environmental behavior is what

will actually drive the conditions of our environmental future. Attending to both

the social and psychological context of engaging in pro-environmental behavior

therefore remains of utmost importance.

In exploring the college context, this study found that interpersonal peer

groups and messaging through effective signage are powerful nudge-based

sources of influence on students‟ pro-environmental behavior. Further, the

findings from this study revealed that inconvenience and the “priorities of the

moment” such as limited time often prevent students from engaging in pro-

139

environmental behaviors. The question thus remains: How can the power of

interpersonal peer groups and effective signage help to remove the barriers of

inconvenience and “priorities of the moment?”

Reminders from close peers and clear signage can emphasize that the pro-

environmental behavior can be convenient and does not need to require a lot of

time. In underscoring convenience, interpersonal peers and signage can articulate

that the behavior is easy and “no skin off [their] back,” to use Seth‟s words. To

highlight the negligible time investment, close peers and signage can speak to

how behaviors such as recycling, turning off the lights, or turning off the water

while brushing your teeth take only seconds. In showing how the action is

convenient and quick, close peers and signage can help students understand how

sustainability is indeed a “priority of the moment.” For most campuses working

to transition to a campus culture of sustainability, reminders from peers and

effective signage can serve as valuable nudge-based prompts for pro-

environmental behaviors.

Further, students such as Fawn, Sarah, Seth, and Rebecca also insinuated

that the environment around them must change in order to maximize convenience

for the individual. While students were likely speaking about structural or

systemic changes, I would argue, based on this study‟s data, that signage itself

and close peers themselves can serve as facilitators of convenience, given that

convenience is synonymous with ease for the students. For example, in regards to

signage, Justin explained that signs, as long as they are clear and easy to read,

140

make pro-environmental behaviors easier. In regards to close peers, Seth told me

that friends “provide momentum” and help him “get going,” indicating how they

make pro-environmental activities easier as well.

Expanding Academics

In qualitatively exploring how the college context influenced students‟

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability, what students did not tell me

stood out. After the first round of interviews, the lack of academic influence on

their attitudes and behaviors regarding sustainability was glaring. In noting this

“theme,” or lack thereof, I specifically probed about academics in the second

round of interviews. The students told me, on the whole, that their coursework

did not address sustainability.

In synthesizing this finding with the study‟s other findings and situating it

within the literature, some sense can be made. A nudge-based approach rather

than a knowledge-based approach seems to dominate at CNU. The sustainability

office explained that they often employ a nudge-based approach, not because they

do not value a knowledge-based approach, but because our ecological crises

require immediate attention. Thus, the fact that the two influencers that did

emerge from the data – close peers and effective signage – are nudge-based does

make sense. Nevertheless, higher education, as an industry that drives knowledge

and advancement in our society, cannot ignore its responsibilities to knowledge-

based change.

141

Further, the reality remains that CNU is a large institution where

functional silos prevail, and the division between the academic silos and

administrative silos is no exception. The administrative side of CNU seems to be

driving sustainability efforts while the academic side of CNU seems much less

involved in the University‟s efforts. Yet, this separation between academics and

student affairs is irrelevant to students‟ post-college lives. The findings from this

study therefore support the Student Learning Imperative‟s (1994) call for greater

integration between academic and student affairs. While this call initially came in

the mid 1990‟s, the need for increased integration remains all too apparent.

Implications for Future Research

Given the findings presented, several directions may be considered for

future research: replication at a different site(s), a longitudinal case study, and

replication with participants who hold a deep knowledge of sustainability issues.

These lines of inquiry may further illuminate the attitude-behavior relationship

pertaining to sustainability in the context of college.

This study took place at a large, urban research university in the Northeast.

Replicating this study at a different site(s) may be beneficial in two critical ways.

While the findings from such a study could not be used to make strong

generalizations about all college students in the United States or even all the

students at the institution itself, comparing the findings from the two or more sites

can help work toward reliability and also allow for important commentary about

142

patterns of students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the context

of college. Further, if the chosen site(s) were non-urban and outside of the

Northeast, possible commentary could be made about the influence of place,

institutional setting, and geography on students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability in college. Finally, if site(s) were chosen where knowledge-based

change was emphasized, conclusions might be reached about the relative

effectiveness of knowledge-based and nudge-based change strategies.

Second, conducting a qualitative longitudinal study of students‟ attitudes

and behaviors related to sustainability in college would allow for capturing

patterns of change in attitudes and behaviors over time from the beginning of

freshman year through graduation and also allow for the possibility of gathering

data on the frequency of pro-environmental behaviors over time. Further, such a

study would also likely offer additional depth and richness to our understanding

of influences in the college context. Interviewing students at four time points

(e.g., once per year) may serve as a realistic and worthwhile methodology. Such a

methodology may also yield important findings about how participants‟ stage of

student development affects their attitudes and behaviors. Another interesting

option would be to interview students pre-college, in college, and even post-

college given the present study‟s finding of tremendous pre-college impact.

Certainly, ample room for attrition would need to be considered for all such

studies.

143

Third, while this study deliberately selected participants with a wide range

of knowledge about sustainability (based on the self-reported data from the

student information form), some students‟ knowledge of sustainability, even as a

concept itself, was quite limited. Therefore, engaging in a similar study with

people who hold a deeper knowledge of sustainability as an issue may yield even

more textured findings that can ultimately be compared with this study‟s findings.

With such participants, for example, the researcher could ask highly specific

questions pertaining to sustainability, and the participants may also be able to

provide precise and detailed responses to questions.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The conclusions from this study hold implications for institutional leaders

and policymakers wishing to foster a sustainable future. The recommendations

that follow serve as strategies and guidelines for cultivating settings that most

effectively encourage and support pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.

Link Sustainability

Linking sustainability to concepts that deeply resonate for humans such as

social justice can serve as an initial way to bridge humans‟ concern for other

humans and themselves to the biosphere. Let me be clear: I am not advocating for

developing an anthropocentric curriculum because anthropocentrism has led us to

many of our environmental problems in the first place. However, fully

144

understanding students‟ human-centered perspectives on sustainability allows us

to comprehend various levers that can be pulled in order to work toward changes

in perspective.

For instance, those individuals who lead campus programs and courses

related to social justice may wish to cover environmental justice as an important

component of social justice, illuminating how environmental sustainability is

intertwined with social sustainability. Institutional leaders must also promote

place-based orientations among their students in both academic and student affairs

contexts, encouraging them to closely observe what is around them as a pillar of

their education. Place-based education is particularly effective for sustainability

issues because it is both personal to the individual human being and also links the

person to his/her environment (Thomashow, 2002). Engaging in conversations

and activities that both acknowledge and harness students‟ human-centric lenses

on sustainability as a starting place can allow individuals to ultimately work

toward eco-centrism and a meaningful connection to “Mother Earth.”

Limit Guilt- and Judgment-based Language

Limiting or even eliminating the guilt- and judgment-based rhetoric that

seems to envelope conversations about attitude-behavior incongruence is of

critical importance in order to encourage students to increase their commitment to

pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. If students feel judged, they will back

away from sustainability. Sustainability professionals on college campuses must

145

particularly guard against guilt- and judgment-based rhetoric such as the word

“should,” as their positions expressly connect to supporting greater levels of

commitment to sustainability on campus. Sustainability professionals would also

be wise to connect with health education professionals to potentially borrow harm

reduction and social norming strategies in helping students work toward pro-

environmental behavior. A social norming campaign, for example, could involve

signs revealing facts about the student body‟s recycling habits. Such signs could

also frame behaviors in terms of what people do rather than what people do not do

in order to project a positive lens onto sustainability as an issue.

Look to Influences

Looking to influences in the attitude-behavior relationship (i.e.,

convenience and “priorities of the moment”) and influences in the college

environment (i.e., close peers and effective signage) that affect pro-environmental

behaviors is necessary in order to strategically work toward a campus culture of

sustainability. Messaging in the form of signage can serve as a valuable nudge-

based approach if the signs direct behavior in a crisp and quick way. While many

campuses seem to use signage to promote pro-environmental behavior, ensuring

that the message is clear and easy to read is paramount based on this study‟s

findings.

Interpersonal peers‟ influence on others may be a particularly

underutilized approach at CNU and perhaps at other colleges and universities too.

146

Student affairs functional areas hold tremendous capacity to tap into peer

influence in their programming. For example, while CNU currently has a

program through which staff members can be trained to serve as advocates for

sustainability in their respective offices, such a program is needed among student

leaders as well. Given the enthusiasm and momentum that students can generate

for increased sustainability efforts on campus, students themselves could lead

such an effort. If student leaders can be trained as sustainability advocates whom

the other students respect, imagine the potential influence they could have on the

behaviors of their fellow club members and social networks.

Look further to Academics

In addition to looking to the nudge-based influences that presented

themselves through this study, academic and student affairs leaders must look

further to knowledge-based influences if they truly wish to foster campus cultures

of sustainability. Environmental educators (e.g., Thomashow, 2002; Orr, 2004)

have consistently shown that a fundamental knowledge base is critical to

understanding global environmental change and moving people to action. Orr

(2004) asserted, “Often those who do not comprehend our plight intellectually

cannot feel it and hence are not moved to do much about it” (p. 95). Several

participants‟ “fuzziness” on the concept of sustainability speaks to the need for

increased knowledge about sustainability. Given the interdisciplinary nature of

147

sustainability, fields such as Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, and

Economics could all integrate sustainability strands into their respective curricula.

Further, academic affairs and student affairs must come together to work

toward fostering cultures of sustainability on campuses. Without the support of

one realm or the other, synergy is lost. Students as whole beings are not

encouraged to separate their academic and socio-emotional selves, so colleges and

universities cannot separate academics from student affairs either. Activities

outside the classroom related to sustainability must be linked to academic content.

For example, given that residential life settings emerged in this study as

contributing to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors among students at

CNU, faculty members in residence would be wise to link sustainability-related

curricula to hall activities and/or community service activities.

In brief, by linking sustainability to meaningful concepts that resonate for

students such as social justice; limiting judgment-based language involving words

such as “should”; looking to nudge-based influences like close interpersonal peers

and effective signage to help prompt students‟ behaviors; and looking further to

the integration of academics in sustainability efforts, we may be able to better

interpret and guide sustainability efforts in colleges and universities. It is my

hope that this study provides helpful perspectives for institutional leaders,

policymakers, and future researchers conversant on students‟ attitudes and

behaviors related to sustainability in college.

148

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adger, W.N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in

Coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27, 249-269.

Aitken, C.K. (1992). Factors affecting residential water consumption in

Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Civil and

Agricultural Engineering, University of Melbourne.

Aitken, C.K., McMahon, T.A., Wearing, A.J. & Finlayson, B.L. (1994).

Residential water use: Predicting and reducing consumption. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 24, 136-158.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of

behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).

Advances in experimental social psychology, 20.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior: Some unresolved issues.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical

analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5),

888-918.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social

behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Albrecht, S. & Carpenter, K.E. (1976). Attitudes as predictors of behaviors versus

behavioral intentions: A convergence of research traditions. Sociometry,

39, 1-10.

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning

imperative: Implications for Student Affairs. Washington, DC: National

Center for Higher Education.

Antonio, A. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-

confidence and educational aspirations in college. Journal of Higher

Education, 75(4), 446-471.

149

Aronson, E. (1972). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bagozzi, R. Yi, Y., Baumgartner, J. (1990). The level of effort required for

behavior as a moderator of the attitude-behaviour relation. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 25-29.

Baker, W. (2000). Achieving success through social capital: Tapping the hidden

resources in your personal and business networks. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey- Bass.

Banks, J. (2009). Human rights, diversity, and citizenship education. The

Educational Forum, 73(2), 100-111.

Bankson, C.L. & Zhou, M. (1995). Effects of minority-language literacy on the

academic achievement of Vietnamese youths in New Orleans. Sociology

of Education, 68, 1-17.

Barlett, P.F. & Chase, G.W. (2004). Introduction. In P.F. Barlett & G.W. Chase

(Eds.). Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic

organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Blackburn, W.R. (2007). The sustainability handbook. Washington, DC:

Environmental Law Institute.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the „value-action gap‟ in environmental policy:

Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local

Environment, 4(3), 257-278.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much

students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

150

Bonilla-Silva, E. & Forman, T.A. (2000). “I am not a racist…but”: Mapping

white college students‟ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse and

Society, 11(1), 50-85.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social: Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche in

Sciences Sociales, 31, 2-3.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

theory and research for sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York,

NY: Greenwood Press.

Brown, L.D. & Ashman, D. (1996). Participation, social capital, and intersectoral

problem solving: African and Asian cases. World Development, 24, 1467-

1479.

Bullard, R.D. (2010). Should the EPA being do more to fight environmental

injustice. In T.A. Easton (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on

environmental issues (pp. 83-88). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Buttel, F.H. (1987). New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of

Sociology, 13, 465-488.

Buttel, F.H. & Finn, W.L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs:

A reconsideration. Environment and Behavior, 10, 433-450.

Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and

the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 62(3), 296-323.

Capaldi, D. & Patterson, G.R. (1987). An approach to the problem of recruitment

and retention rates for longitudinal research. Behavioral Assessment, 9,

169-177.

Clark, B. & Trow, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T. Newcomb & E.

Wilson (Eds.), College peer groups: Problems and prospects for research

(pp. 17-70). Chicago: Aldine.

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens:

Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic

responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The

American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

151

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Costantini, E. & Hanf, K. (1972). Environmental concern and Lake Tahoe: A

study of elite perceptions, backgrounds, and attitudes. Environment and

Behavior, 4, 209-242.

Cook, S.W. & Berrenberg, J.L. (1981). Approaches to encouraging conservation

behavior: A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Social Issues,

37, 73-107.

Cortese, A.D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a

sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.

Cotton, D.R.E. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: neutrality

and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educational Research, 48(2),

223-242.

Courtenay-Hall, P. & Rogers, L. (2002). Gaps in mind: Problems in

Environmental knowledge-behavior modeling research. Environmental

Education Research, 8(3), 283-297.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

the five approaches. San Francisco: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

Methods approaches. San Francisco: Sage Publications.

Derksen, L. & Gartell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American

Sociological Review, 58(3), 434-442.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

Dunlap, R.E. & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A

proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring

endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale.

Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 435-442.

152

Elias, N. (1972). Theory of science and history of science: Comments on a recent

discussion. Economy and Society, 1(2), 9-15.

Evangelinos, K.I. & Jones, N. (2009). An analysis of social capital and

Environmental management of higher education institutions. International

Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(4).

Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing

the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24, 1119-1132.

Evernden, N. (1985). The natural alien: Humankind and environment. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Farrell, A. & Hart, M. (1998). What does sustainability really mean?: The search

for useful indicators. Environment, 40(9), 4-31.

Fazio, R. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R.H. Sorrentino & E.T.

Higgins (Eds.). The Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundation of

social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.

Fazio, R.H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: the

MODE model as an integrative framework. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.).

Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Fazio, R. & Williams, C. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of

attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relation: An investigation of the

1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 505-514.

Feldman, K. & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ferri, P.J., Deakins, D. & Whittam, G. (2009). The measurement of social capital

in the entrepreneurial context. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 3(2),

138-151.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row

Peterson.

Festinger, L. (1964). Behavioral support for opinion change. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 28(3), 404-417.

153

Fine, M. (1994). Working with the hyphens: Reinventing self and others in

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, VA: Sage Publications.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Friedman, T.L. (2008). Hot, flat and crowded: Why we need a green revolution –

and how it can renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Gallup Poll. (2009). Environment. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107593/partisan-gap-global-warming-

grows.aspx

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. New York, NY: Continuum.

Gillis, J. (2010). Temperatures rising: A scientist, his work, and

climate reckoning. The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2010

from,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?_r=1&s

cp=1&sq=temperature%20rising&st=cse

Goddard, R.D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social

capital perspective on students‟ chances of academic success.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-74.

Goldenhar, L. & Connell, C. (1993). Understanding and predicting recycling

behavior: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of

Environmental Systems, 22, 91-103.

Granberg, D. & Holmberg, S. (1990). The intention-behavior relationship among

U.S. and Swedish voters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 44-54.

Gregory, G.D. & Di Leo, M. (2003). Repeated behavior and environmental

psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in

explaining water consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

33(6), 1261-1296.

Grootaert, C. & Bastelaer, T.V. (2002). Understanding and measuring social

capital: A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, DC: World

Bank Publications.

154

Grootaert, C. & van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Social capital: from definition to

measurement. In C. Grootaert and T. van Bastelaer (Eds.). Understanding

and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners

(pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Guyll, M., Spoth, R. & Redmond, C. (2003). The effects of incentives and

research requirements on participation rates for a community-based

preventive intervention research study. Journal of Primary Prevention,

24(1), 25-41.

Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Jones, N. (2006). The role of social capital in environmental policy and

management. International Journal of the Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences, 1(3), 163-168.

Jones, N., Malesios, C., Iosifides, T. and Sophoulis, C.M. (2008). Social capital in

Greece: Measurement and comparative perspectives. South European

Society and Politics, 13(2), 173-191.

Jenson, B.B. (2002). Knowledge, action, and pro-environmental behavior.

Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325-334.

Kelman, H.C. (1974). Attitudes are alive and well and gainfully employed in the

sphere of action. American Psychologist, 29, 310-324. ADD JOURNAL

Kennedy, E.M., Beckley, T.M., McFarlene, B.L., and Nadeau, S. (2009). Why we

don‟t “walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behavior

gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16(2).

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university (3rd

ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Kirp, D.L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act

environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?

Environmental Education Research, 8(3).

155

Leahy, J.E. & Anderson, D.H. (2010). “Cooperation gets it done”: Social capital

in natural resources management along the Kaskaskia River. Society and

Natural Resources, 23(3), 224-239.

Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences:

The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic change, 77, 45-72.

Levine, A. (1999). A new generation of student protesters arises. Chronicle of

Higher Education, 45(25), A52.

Madden, T., Ellen, P., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned

behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3-9.

Malkis, A. & Grasmick. (1977). Support for the ideology of the environmental

movement: Tests of alternative hypotheses. Western Sociological Review,

8, 25-47.

Manstead, A.S.R., Profitt, C. & Smart, J.L. (1983). Predicting and understanding

mother‟s infant feeding intention and behavior: Testing the theory of

reasoned action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 657-

671.

Marshall, J.D. & Toffel, M.W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of

sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Environmental Science and

Technology, 39(3).

Martin, C. & Tulgan, B. Managing the Generation Mix (2nd

ed.). Amherst, MA:

HRD Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An

introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island,

British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

McNamara, K. H. (2008). Fostering sustainability in higher education: A mixed

methods study of transformative leadership and change strategies.

Doctoral Dissertation. Antioch University.

Melear, K.B. (2003). From in loco parentis to consumerism: A legal analysis

of the contractual relationship between institution and student. Journal

of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 40(4).

156

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, J. (2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning?: A

question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative

Education, 3(76).

Muller, C. & Ellison, C.G. (2001). Religious involvement, social capital, and

adolescents‟ academic progress: Evidence from the National Educational

Longitudinal Study of 1988. Sociological Focus, 34(2), 155-183.

Naess, A. (2002). Life’s philosophy: Reason and feeling in a deeper world.

Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Narayan, D. & Cassidy, M.F. (2001). A dimensional approach to measuring social

capital: development and validation of a social capital inventory. Current

Sociology, 49(2), 59-102.

Newton, K. & Norris, P. (2000). Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture,

or performance? In S.J. Pharr & R. Putnam (Eds.). Disaffected

democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries (pp. 52-73).

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Noguera, P.A. (2004). Social capital and the education of immigrant students:

Categories and Generalizations. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 180-183.

O‟Donoghue, R. & Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2002). Some insights on the gap.

Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 261-271.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the age of

ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Onwueme, I. & Borsari, B. (2007). The sustainability asymptogram: A new

philosophical framework for policy, outreach and education in

sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,

8(1), 44-52.

Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and

development. World Development, 24, 1073-1087.

Orr, D.W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human

prospect. Washington: Island Press.

157

Parsons, T. & Shils, E. (Eds.). (1951). Toward a theory of action. New York:

Harper & Row.

Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple

Indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88-127.

Perna, L. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and

socioeconomic group differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1),

23-52.

Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1),

1-12.

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and collective management of resources. Science,

302, 209-27.

Public Agenda. (2010). Issue Guides: Environment. Retrieved February 26, 2010

from

http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/environment/overview

Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America‟s declining social capital. Journal

of Democracy, 6, 65-78.

Putnam, R.D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. American

Prospect, 24, 34-48.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quaye, S.J. (2007). Hope and learning: The outcomes of contemporary student

activism. About Campus, 12(2), 2-9.

Redclift, M. & Benton, T. (1994). Introduction. In M. Redclift & T. Benton

(Eds.). Social Theory and the Global Environment. London: Routledge.

158

Report and Declaration of the Presidents Conference at the Tufts University

European Center (1990). The role of universities and university presidents

in environmental management and sustainable development. Medford,

MA: Tufts University.

Ritchey-Vance, M. (1996). Social capital, sustainability, and working democracy:

New yardsticks for grassroots development. Grassroots Development, 20,

3-9.

Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence.

In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.). Psychological perspectives on the self

(pp. 107-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, L.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing

data. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sander, T.H. & Putnam, R.D. (1999). Rebuilding the stock of social capital.

School Administrator, 56(8), 28-33.

Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schultz, P.W. & Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior

relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 375-383.

Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A

five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.

Schuman, H. & Johnson, M.P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of

Sociology, 2, 161-207.

Seligman, C. (1985). Information and energy conservation. Marriage and Family

Review, 2, 135-149.

Senge, P. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations

are working together to create a sustainable world. New York:

Doubleday.

Stake, R.E. (2009). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

159

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the

socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational

Review, 67(1).

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and

kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students.

In M.A. Gibson, P. Gandara, and J.P. Koyama (Eds.). School connections.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R., Chavez, L.F., & Tai, R.H. (2004). The help-seeking

orientations of Latino and non-Latino urban high school students: A

critical sociological investigation. Social Psychology of Education, 5(1),

1573-1928.

Stoll-Kleeman, S., O‟Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C.C. (2001). The psychology of

denial concerning Climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss

focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11, 107-117.

Stubbs, W. & Cocklin, C. (2008). Teaching sustainability to business students:

Shifting mindsets. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher

Education, 9(3), 206-221.

Syme, G., Seligman, C. & Thomas, J.F. (1991). Predicting water consumption

from homeowners‟ attitudes. Journal of Environmental Systems, 20, 157-

168.

Takacs-Santa, A. (2007). Barriers to environmental concern. Human Ecology

Review, 14, 26-38.

Teranishi, R.T. & Briscoe, K. (2006). Social capital and the stratification of

college opportunity. In S. Thomas (ed.), Theoretical perspectives on

college students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, I. (2004). Sustainability in tertiary curricula: What is stopping it from

happening? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,

5(1), 33-47.

Thomashow, M. (2002). Bringing the biosphere home: Learning to perceive

global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute

of Technology.

160

Tilbury, D. & Wortman, D. (2008). Education for sustainability in further and

higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 36(4), 5-13.

Trembley, K.R. & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Rural-urban residence and concern with

environmental quality: A replication and extension. Rural Sociology, 43,

474-491.

Turner, R.H. and Killian, L.M. (1957). Collective Behavior. (3rd

ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2009).

Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

van Ginneken, J. (2003). Collective behavior and public opinion: Rapid shifts in

opinion and communication. American Communication Journal, 6(4).

Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social bases of environmental

concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181-197.

van Oorschot, W., Arts, W. & Gelissen, J. (2006). Social capital in Europe:

Measurement and social and regional distribution of a multifaceted

phenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49(2), 149-176.

Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and

specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580-1607.

Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological

perspectives on conservation behavior. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman

(Eds.). New handbook of environmental psychology. New York: Wiley.

Vogt, W.P. (1997). Tolerance and education: Learning to live with diversity and

difference. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wall, G. (1995). General versus specific environmental concern: a western

Canadian case. Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 294-316.

Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and

overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25,

41-78.

161

Wilson, C. & Iatabadi, H.D. (2007). Models of decision-making and residential

energy use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 169-203.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a

theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-

208.

Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for

development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer,

15, 225-49.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). The Brundtland

report, our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, C. & Shaffer, D.R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function

of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677-688.

Yankelovich, D. & Immerwhar, J. (1994). The rules of public engagement. In D.

Yankelovich & I.M. Destler. Beyond the beltway. New York: Norton.

Yin, R.K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th

ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zhao, Y. (2002). Measuring social capital of laid-off Chinese workers. Current

Sociology, 50(4), 555-571.

162

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO STUDENTS

Dear CAS Sophomores and Juniors,

I invite you to participate in a qualitative study that explores students‟ attitudes

and behaviors related to environmental sustainability in college. I am a Ph.D.

Candidate in Higher and Postsecondary Education in the department of

Administration, Leadership, and Technology at NYU Steinhardt and am

conducting this research to gain a better understanding of students‟ perspectives

on this topic in order to ultimately inform the work of institutional leaders and to

support and improve future sustainability initiatives.

More specifically, I would like to conduct two interviews with full-time

sophomores and juniors who live on-campus, each lasting no more than one hour.

Although these interviews will be recorded, all information discussed during these

sessions as well as your identity will be kept confidential. In appreciation for

your time and effort, I will pay students $30 in iTunes gift cards (a $15 gift card at

the end of each interview) for participation.

If interested in participating, by September 16, please fill out an online student

information sheet at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZVN7GHG

I will follow up within approximately one week if you have been selected to

participate in this study.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at

annie.bez@nyu.edu.

Thank you for your assistance.

With all best wishes,

Annie Bezbatchenko

Ph.D. Candidate, Higher Education

New York University

annie.bez@nyu.edu

163

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM FOR STUDENTS

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY

Thank you for your willingness to participate in two interviews as part of a project to

better understand students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in college.

The findings from this project will be used to help inform and guide institutional leaders

and policymakers‟ work related to sustainability. The study will be conducted by Annie

Bezbatchenko as part of her doctoral dissertation. Her faculty sponsor is Professor Robert

Teranishi, Associate Professor of Higher Education.

Your identity will be kept strictly confidential and referred to only as a code or in

general terms. Each interview should take no more than one hour. With your permission,

the interviews will be recorded. If desired, you have the right to review the recordings

and request that any or all of it be destroyed. Your participation is voluntary and you

may withdraw at any time. You will not receive any direct benefits from participation,

but there are no foreseeable risks. If any questions make you uncomfortable, please let

me know and we will skip them. The results of the project will be available at your

request upon completion. You will be paid $30 in iTunes gift cards for participation (a

$15 gift card at the end of each interview).

Please contact Annie Bezbatchenko or Dr. Robert Teranishi if you have any questions

about the research. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant,

you can contact the NYU Human Subjects Protection Office at

ask.humansubjects@nyu.edu or 212-998-4808. To ensure that you understand this

consent agreement, please sign both copies. One copy is yours to keep.

Thank you for your time and willingness to participate.

With best wishes,

Annie Bezbatchenko Robert Teranishi, Ph.D.

Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Associate Professor, Higher Education

New York University New York University

annie.bez@nyu.edu robert.teranishi@nyu.edu

215-301-5188 212-998-5522

164

I have read this form and consent to participate:

Name: __________________________________

Signature: _______________________________

Date: ___________________________________

239 Greene Street, 3

rd Floor | New York, New York 10003

212 998 5520 | 212 995 4041 fax | steinhardt.alt@nyu.edu | www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/alt

165

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW ONE PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS

__________________________________________________________________

Participant‟s Name: Date of Interview:

Phone number/Email Address: Location of Interview:

__________________________________________________________________

I. Opening Phase

Thank you for your participation. As I previously indicated, the purpose of

this research project is to gain a better understanding of students‟ attitudes and

behaviors regarding sustainability in college. This is the first of two interviews,

each of which will last no more than one hour long. In this first interview, I‟ll ask

you questions about your experiences with the environment and your attitudes and

behaviors related to the sustainability. In the second interview, we can talk about

anything we did not get a chance to cover in the first interview and also talk

further about your attitudes and behaviors related to environmental sustainability.

Does this plan sound ok to you?

1. Tell me a little bit about yourself prior to attending this university.

(Where did you grow up? What are your interests, hobbies,

experiences?)

2. How did you end up at CNU?

How would you describe your college experience so far? (i.e.,

academically, socially, etc.)

What types of activities are you involved with here?

How would you describe this university? If possible, use a metaphor.

II. Core Questions/Probes

1. Sustainability can mean different things to different people. What does

sustainability mean to you?

[After the student provides a response, emphasize that no single

definition exists, but describe the elements that exist in almost all

definitions: 1) nature resources are finite, 2) our environmental,

social, and economic goals must be pursued within these limits and 3)

166

a need for inter- and intragenerational well-being exists. Explain that

this study focuses on environmental sustainability, but incorporates

social and economic sustainability as they relate to environmental

sustainability.]

2. Tell me about when you first started thinking about sustainability.

Please be as specific as possible.

Who or what shaped your understanding of sustainability issues?

How have your ideas about sustainability issues changed over

time?

3. How important are environmental issues to you? (If you had to choose,

what social issues would you identify as being more important than the

environment? What social issues might be less important to you?)

4. Can you talk me through how familiar you are with the institution‟s

sustainability initiatives?

What is your earliest memory of sustainability on campus?

What have your experiences with sustainability on-campus been

like since then?

5. In what ways do you care about protecting the environment? In what

ways do you honestly not care about protecting the environment?

6. How do you act in pro-environmental ways? (e.g., reducing your

energy consumption, recycling, educating others about sustainability,

donating money and/or time to environmental causes, etc.) How do

you not act in pro-environmental ways? Please be as specific as

possible about your actions.

What thought process do you go through – if any – when you take

actions related to helping or harming the environment?

7. Who or what positively influences you to think and act in more

environmentally-friendly ways? Who or what negatively influences

your ability to think and act in environmentally-friendly ways?

8. Do you think your attitudes toward sustainability affect your

behaviors? If so, please try to give an example. Also, do you think

your behaviors related to sustainability ever affect your attitudes? If

so, please try to give an example.

9. A lot of us intend do one thing, and then end up doing another when it

comes to our actions. For example, we might mean to exercise three

167

times per week and think working out in a good idea in general, but

may exercise less in reality. Do you see any gaps between your own

attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability? If so, can you provide

an example?

10. How would you describe your friends‟ level of concern about the

environment?

Do their beliefs or behaviors affect your own beliefs or your own

actions related to the environment in any way?

11. In the college setting, beyond friends, who or what else sometimes

influences the way you feel about or the way you behave related to

sustainability issues (e.g., classmates, professors, administrators)?

12. Do you think that your own attitudes and behaviors related to

sustainability can affect the campus culture, if at all?

Do you trust that others in your institution will work to preserve

the earth for the present and coming generations?

Do you think that CNU will work to continue their sustainability

efforts in the years to come?

III. Closing:

1. What brought you to participate in this interview?

2. Is there any other relevant information that you would like to share

with me?

3. Thanks / Closure

168

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW TWO PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS

________________________________________________________________________

Participant‟s Name: Date of Interview:

Phone number/Email Address: Location of Interview:

__________________________________________________________________

I. Opening Phase

Thank you again for your participation. This is the second of the two

interviews, and again, this one will last no longer than one hour. Is it ok with you

if we jump right into things?

1. First off, between this interview and last interview, do you think about

anything we had talked about during the first interview?

IV. Core Questions/Probes

1. During our last conversation, we had talked about how you perceive

CNU as in institution. If you had to also identify CNU‟s values, what

would you say might be?

2. Last time, we also talked about what sustainability means to you. This

time, I‟m hoping to understand what you think sustainability‟s

connotation might be; when you hear the word sustainability, what

thoughts go through your mind beyond the straight definition?

3. I first review the three elements of sustainability that exist in almost all

definitions: 1) nature resources are finite, 2) our environmental,

social, and economic goals must be pursued within these limits and 3)

a need for inter- and intragenerational well-being exists. I then ask:

To what extent do these three elements of sustainability resonate with

you? We can go through them one by one if you‟d like...

4. Are your attitudes and actions related to sustainability connected to

any other values that you hold?

169

5. Do your attitudes and/or actions related to sustainability fluctuate from

week-to-week? If so, what causes those fluctuations?

6. Do you feel like you have a small part in controlling our

environmental destiny? Why or why not?

7. In your opinion, what are the sustainability-related norms on campus?

In other words, what do you perceive “everyone else” or “most

people” to be doing?

8. Do you trust that someone in this university or in your generation will

effectively handle issues related to sustainability?

9. [Typically inserted 1-2 questions per participant that were relevant to

our first conversation.]

V. Closing:

4. Is there any other relevant information that you would like to share

with me at this point?

5. Thanks again / Closure

170

APPENDIX E

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS

Dear [Insert Name],

I invite you to participate in a qualitative study that explores students‟ attitudes

and behaviors related to sustainability in college. You are being asked to

participate in this study because you are involved with sustainability efforts and

can provide valuable context for the study.

I am a Ph.D. Candidate in Higher and Postsecondary Education in the department

of Administration, Leadership, and Technology at NYU Steinhardt conducting

this research for my dissertation. My faculty sponsor is Professor Robert

Teranishi, Associate Professor in Higher and Postsecondary Education.

For this study, I would conduct one, 30-minute interview with you this fall. Your

identity as well as the institution itself will be kept strictly confidential and

referred to only as a code or in general terms. If you are willing to participate, we

can set up a mutually convenient interview date, time, and location.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at annie.bez@nyu.edu.

Thank you for your assistance.

With all best wishes,

Annie Bezbatchenko

Ph.D. Candidate, Higher Education

New York University

annie.bez@nyu.edu

171

APPENDIX F

FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATOR CONSENT FORM

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY

Thank you for your willingness to participate in an interview as part of a project to better

understand students‟ attitudes and behaviors related to sustainability in the context of college.

You are being asked to participate in this study because you are involved with sustainability

efforts and can provide context for the study. The study will be conducted by Annie

Bezbatchenko as part of her doctoral dissertation. Her faculty sponsor is Professor Robert

Teranishi, Associate Professor of Higher Education at NYU.

The institution and your identity will be kept strictly confidential and referred to only as a

code or in general terms. The interview should only take 30 minutes. With your permission,

the interview will be recorded. If desired, you have the right to review the recordings and

request that any or all of it be destroyed. Your participation is voluntary and you may

withdraw at any time. You will not receive any direct benefits from participation, but there

are no foreseeable risks. If any questions make you uncomfortable, please let me know and

we will skip them. The results of the project will be available at your request upon

completion.

Please contact Annie Bezbatchenko or Dr. Robert Teranishi if you have any questions about

the research. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you can

contact the NYU Human Subjects Protection Office at ask.humansubjects@nyu.edu or 212-

998-4808. To ensure that you understand this consent agreement, please sign both copies.

One copy is yours to keep.

Thank you for your time and willingness to participate.

With best wishes,

Annie Bezbatchenko Robert Teranishi, Ph.D.

Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Associate Professor, Higher Education

New York University New York University

annie.bez@nyu.edu robert.teranishi@nyu.edu

215-301-5188 212-998-5522

I have read this form and consent to participate:

Name: __________________________________

Signature: _______________________________

Date: ___________________________________

239 Greene Street, 3rd

Floor | New York, New York 10003 212 998 5520 | 212 995 4041 fax | steinhardt.alt@nyu.edu | www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/alt

172

APPENDIX G

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR FACULTY & ADMINISTRATORS

________________________________________________________________________

Participant‟s Name: Date of Interview:

Phone number/Email Address: Location of Interview:

__________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation. As previously indicated, the purpose of this

research project is to gain a better understanding of students‟ attitudes and

behaviors regarding sustainability in college. This interview will last

approximately 30 minutes. To provide context to the interviews I will be

conducting with students, I would like to have a conversation about your role and

involvement with sustainability, the support for sustainability on campus, your

perceptions of students‟ interest in sustainability, and any future plans regarding

sustainability initiatives. Finally, I am hoping you can share copies of any

sustainability-related documents with me. Does this plan sound ok to you?

I. Opening Phase

1. Can you describe your role here and how you‟re involved with

sustainability initiatives?

2. On the whole, would you describe this university? If possible, use a

metaphor.

II. Core Questions

1. Tell me about the support for sustainability at this school. Who or

what is driving these efforts?

2. In your opinion, what characteristics make this university conducive to

developing an institutional culture of sustainability?

3. More specifically, from your perspective, how would you describe

students‟ interest in sustainability initiatives here?

Do you think the school‟s sustainability initiatives are affecting

students‟ attitudes and behaviors? If so, in what ways?

173

4. How do you see the university moving forward in terms of

sustainability efforts?

How would you describe the institution‟s level of commitment to

sustainability?

5. Are there any sustainability-related documents that you can share with

me?

III. Closing Phase

1. Is there any other relevant information about the university‟s

sustainability efforts or your experience with the efforts that you

would like to share with me?

2. Thanks/Closure

174

APPENDIX H

ANALYTIC CODING PROCESS

For this study, I engaged in an analytic coding process. Given this study‟s aim of

achieving both depth and breadth as well as composing a coherent narrative, I used a

mixed coding strategy because of its ability to accomplish strategic coding while also

remaining open to additional coding. I first developed the below initial coding strategy

and then engaged in a rigorous analytic process, which allowed me to further refine the

codes.

Attitude-Behavior Theories

Did any of these theories emerge? -

Theory of Reasoned Action

Theory of Planned Behavior

Attitude Accessibility Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Barriers to Action Attitude-Behavior Disjuncture? –

Examples, if evident.

Institutional Context Culture vs. Structure

Social Capital Social Networks

Social Norms

Institutional Trust

Social Trust

Demographics

Gender

Race

Class

After transcribing interviews in their entirety, I began by reading through the

transcriptions as a complete body. Importantly, I then asked specific analytic questions

to the data (that were related to my research questions) as a means of “shoveling out”

relevant and meaningful data. Each chapter of this dissertation is based on a series of

analytic questions that I asked. For example, for Chapter IV, my central analytic

question focused on students‟ conceptions of sustainability, so I asked a series of

questions about these conceptions: 1) What is this individual student telling me about

his/her conception of sustainability?, 2) What is this group of students telling me about

their conceptions of sustainability?, and finally, 3) What claims can be made from these

data about students‟ conceptions of sustainability?

As I developed codes based on this series of questions, I continued to ask

additional questions as a means of refining my codes. Such questions included: Are the

categories mutually exclusive? Are the categories mutually exhaustive? What internal

patterns are worth noting? Does the coding capture an array of conceptions of

sustainability? Are the codes categorizing students, or are they lenses through which to

view students? Are there other coding configurations I can use? The chapter

subheadings in this dissertation are based on these refined codes.