The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validating a Comprehensive Model of Environmental Concern Cross‐Nationally: A U.S.‐Canadian Comparison*
Abstract
Objective. The dimensionality of “environmental concern” remains ambiguous despite decades of research on environmental attitudes and beliefs. We attempt to provide insight into this issue by using the belief systems perspective and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test a comprehensive conceptualization of environmental concern. Methods. The study employs a comparative design by using national probability samples of citizens from Canada and the United States, and a comprehensive conceptualization model to maximize content validity. We utilize CFA and structural equation modeling techniques to avoid well‐known measurement error problems in survey research. Results. Eight key facets of environmental concern have moderate to high factor loadings on one underlying construct, and all but perception of community problems and national problems have high loadings. Further analyses provide construct validation for our measurement model. Conclusion. Our results suggest that even among the general public, attitudes toward environmental issues are relatively well organized into a broad and coherent sense of “concern for the environment.” The similarity in the U.S. and Canadian results increases our faith in the validity of our comprehensive conceptualization of environmental concern, as well as the utility of the belief systems perspective and CFA modeling for future studies of environmental attitudes and beliefs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
Self-citationThe “new environmental paradigm”
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978) · The Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875 · Cited by 2,833
Self-citationDunlap, R. E., Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2001) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/714000580 · Cited by 432
Self-citation
Cited by
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001 · Cited by 1,017
Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil
Echegaray, F., & Hansstein, F. V. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064 · Cited by 509
Globalization, populism, and climate skepticism: untangling varieties and pathways
Kim, J., Henry, E. A., Carter, J., & Soysal, Y. N. (2026) · Environmental Sociology · doi:10.1080/23251042.2025.2536342 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E.
- Venue
- Social Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-04-19
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 471-493
- ISSN
- 0038-4941 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6237
- OpenAlex
- W2095827451
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 34.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validating a Comprehensive Model of Environmental Concern Cross‐Nationally: A U.S.‐Canadian Comparison*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00467.x
- The paper
- Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a Comprehensive Model of Environmental Concern Cross‐Nationally: A U.S.‐Canadian Comparison*. Social Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00467.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.