sustainability

Article
“Why (Should) I Do Something for the Environment?”
Profiles of Flemish Adolescents’ Motivation Toward
the Environment
Wanda Sass * ID
, Jelle Boeve-de Pauw ID
, Vincent Donche and Peter Van Petegem ID

Research Unit Edbron, Department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13,
2000 Antwerp, Belgium; Jelle.Boeve-dePauw@uantwerpen.be (J.B-d.P.); vincent.donche@uantwerpen.be (V.D.);
peter.vanpetegem@uantwerpen.be (P.V.P.)
* Correspondence: wanda.sass@uantwerpen.be; Tel.: +32-03-265-4143




Received: 8 June 2018; Accepted: 20 July 2018; Published: 23 July 2018


Abstract: The Motivation Toward the Environment Scale (MTES), developed in Canada, measures
people’s self-determined motivation for doing something for the environment. Answering the call by
its original developers, this study further validated the MTES within a sample of 779 Dutch-speaking
senior secondary school students, aged 17 to 19, in the north of Belgium. More specifically,
reliability and construct validity of a Dutch translation of the MTES were verified. To this measure,
confirmatory factor analysis was used, and the hypothesized simplex structure was tested through
correlation analyses. Results confirmed the reliability of the MTES and a five-scale version of
the MTES, excluding identified motivation, is introduced. This variable-centered approach was
complemented by the adoption of a person-centered approach for identifying MTES profiles.
Using cluster analysis, four meaningful MTES profiles emerged, with amotivation scoring medium to
high in all but one. Theoretical implications of the findings and suggestions for interventions and
further research are discussed.

Keywords: MTES; identified motivation; amotivation; self-determination theory; MTES profiles

1. Introduction
Human activity is universally recognized as being one of the major factors that contribute to
climate change. Internationally, political concern and a willingness for changing human activities
to stem climate change is increasing [1]. Consequently, the importance of scientific research on the
causation of environmental behavior of individual citizens can hardly be overestimated. Going beyond
merely describing observed behavior, academic fields such as environmental psychology and
environmental education have focused on what factors influence (intended) environmental behavior.
Hungerford and Volk [2] reviewed research into how environmental behavior is shaped.
They found no evidence for the assumption that more knowledge would alter attitudes or grow
awareness of environmental problems, which would then motivate people to change their behavior.
They concluded that this traditional simple linear model did not capture the complexity of
behavioral change. They found that empowerment and ownership are critical to responsible
behavior. Empowerment makes individuals feel capable of making a difference. People “own”
environmental issues when they find them extremely important. This resonates with research into
goals and motivation.
According to Sheldon and Elliot, the kinds of goals that people select affect the extent to which
they are capable of maintaining efforts to attain them. The more people feel ownership when pursuing
a goal reflecting their interests and values (i.e., in concordance with their self), the more they are likely

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579; doi:10.3390/su10072579 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 2 of 17

to put sustained effort into achieving it [3]. Deci and Ryan further explored how different regulatory
processes that underlie the pursuit of such goals, relate to the quality of behavior. This makes their
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) well-suited to explain (lack of) sustained effort [4]. Before moving on
to motivation toward the environment, we provide a brief review of SDT.
Self-Determination Theory
Deci and Ryan distinguish intrinsic and extrinsic goals. The former relates to basic need
satisfaction and is perceived as more important to the individual per se, whereas the latter is associated
with getting approval from others or external signs of worth (e.g., wealth, fame). Attainment of intrinsic
goals is more strongly related to well-being than extrinsic aspirations, since these are less linked to
basic need satisfaction [4]. SDT further posits that goal-directed activities can differ in the level to
which they are (not) self-determined. Two types of motivation can thus be ordered onto a continuum
from autonomous to controlled, whereas amotivation is a third type that stands somewhat apart as it
expresses a lack of motivation, be it self-determined or not [5]. As Figure 1 shows, amotivation lacks
any kind of motivation, extrinsic or intrinsic. Amotivated individuals neither feel competent nor in
control. In fact, there is no regulation at all and they feel helpless. Hungerford and Volk [2] also found
that the locus of control is an important variable involved in environmentally responsible behavior.
When this locus of control is internal, the individual expects to be successful. External locus of control
means that people expect they will not be able to make a difference [2]. Extrinsic motivation, which is
the least autonomous type of motivation, can vary in the degree to which it is autonomous [4,5].
In its most extreme form, people behave in a certain way in order to avoid a sanction or to get a
reward (external regulation). If these externally sanctioned values become partially internalized,
the individual engages in activities wanting to feel proud or avoiding feelings of guilt (introjected
regulation). People may also find the result worthwhile (identified regulation), without engaging in
activities for the pleasure of that behavior in itself [4]. When values have become an integrated part of
the self, the motivation is still extrinsic, since people triggered by integrated regulation do not act for
the pleasure this provides in itself. Finally, intrinsic motivation occurs when individuals engage in
activities purely out of interest. They feel competent and find pleasure in the activity per se. In fact,
administering external rewards or threats can be deleterious to intrinsic motivation [5].
According to Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci, intrinsic and identified motivation together can
compose autonomous motivation, since people act out of free will. Similarly, introjected and external
motivations make up controlled motivation [6]. Introjected motivation is controlled from within the self
(internally), through feelings of guilt or pride. Conversely, with external motivation, control is exercised
through punishment and reward systems external to the individual [7,8]. In addition to autonomy and
competence, relatedness also affects intrinsic motivation positively, albeit less powerfully. When people
feel connected to others, loved and cared for, and allowed to love and care for others, they are more
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17
likely to maintain intrinsically motivated behaviors [4].

Figure The self-determination

Figure1.1. The self-determinationcontinuum,
continuum,based
basedononDeci
Deci and
and Ryan
Ryan [4,5],
[4,5], Ryan
Ryan andand
DeciDeci
[8], [8],
and
and Vansteenkiste,
Vansteenkiste, Lens,
Lens, andand Deci
Deci [6].[6].

SDT offers insight into what factors may influence the quality of motivation [4]. A higher quality
of motivation might also lead to a better quality of (sustained) pro-environmental behavior.
According to Chawla [11], education becomes an important source of environmental commitment in
the junior high through university years. She also found that the influence of family and experience
of natural areas is associated more with childhood (i.e., up to 18 years of age). Starting the university
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 3 of 17

Almost 20 years ago, Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory or SDT [5] was applied to
motivation for environmental behavior [9]. One of the perspectives was to develop and validate a
questionnaire that also resulted in a measuring instrument, the Motivation Toward the Environment
Scale (MTES). Pelletier et al. [9] reported on four studies that contributed to the construction of the
MTES. They asked why respondents were doing things for the environment. Samples were taken
from populations of randomly selected citizens in the Cornwall area of the province of Ontario,
Canada (study 2), and university students (studies 1, 3, and 4). Convergent and discriminant validity
of the MTES was confirmed by Villacorta and colleagues [10] within a population of Canadian college
students of a university in a multicultural and multilingual city. They called for a validation within a
population of students in a secondary education setting in order to further gain insight into the validity
of the MTES in a population other than university students.
SDT offers insight into what factors may influence the quality of motivation [4]. A higher
quality of motivation might also lead to a better quality of (sustained) pro-environmental behavior.
According to Chawla [11], education becomes an important source of environmental commitment in
the junior high through university years. She also found that the influence of family and experience of
natural areas is associated more with childhood (i.e., up to 18 years of age). Starting the university
years, friends become more important sources [11]. Therefore, research into motivation toward the
environment is required and especially relevant in adolescents as they will grow up to be the citizens
and decision-makers of the future. Since it is these individuals’ motivation that will guide their
behavior and the decisions they make concerning the environment, the focus of attention is drawn
both toward a personal and a collective level.
To our knowledge, research in this field has uniquely made use of a variable-centered approach.
Nevertheless, a person-centered approach may offer more possibilities for diagnosis of and distinction
between motivational profiles, revealing the interplay of different motives within an individual.
Consequently, the combination of both approaches may yield complementary information [7].
Responding to the call for research within secondary school students outside Canada [10],
and the suggestion to add a person-centered approach [7], this study will offer a combination of
variable-centered and person-centered approaches to motivation toward the environment within
secondary school students in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking Community of Belgium.
Canada and Flanders do not only differ geographically, with Flanders covering only 0.1% in
surface (i.e., 13,522 km2 ) compared to Canada (9,984,670 km2 ). Both also show differences in the
degree to which the environment is focused on at a societal level: where the Canadian administration
protected 8.4% of its total surface in 2003 [12], Flanders only arrived at a joint effort of 3.4% between
government and registered private initiatives in 2011 [13].

1.1. This Study

Answering Villacorta and colleagues’ [10] call for a further validation of the MTES in a population
other than college students in Canada, we aim to find out whether the MTES can reliably and validly
be applied within secondary school students in Flanders. Furthermore, we will seek evidence for
MTES profiles, using a person-centered approach as suggested by Vansteenkiste et al. [7]. Both aims
may forward theoretic insight, making the following questions central in this study:
Research question 1: Is the MTES a reliable and valid scale for measuring the different types of motivation
(SDT) toward the environment within senior secondary students in Flanders?
Research question 2: Which MTES profiles toward the environment can be distinguished within senior
secondary students in Flanders?

1.2. Literature Review

Since the different types of regulation in SDT lie along a continuum of self-determination,
subscales are expected to form a simplex pattern in which scales that are adjacent show a
stronger positive correlation than scales that are theoretically more distant, eventually correlating
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 4 of 17

negatively. The three types of motivation, i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation, have been
widely confirmed within various domains, such as academic behavior [14,15], and motivation toward
the environment [9,16,17]. Regardless of some breaches that were found in the simplex structure,
the concepts of SDT have produced measuring scales. These scales, tapping into motivation for
behavior, were deemed valid and reliable in various domains. One of these is environmental behavior.

1.2.1. Motivation Toward the Environment

Reviewing research into environmental behavior, Pelletier and colleagues concluded that
correlates with environmental behavior such as attitudes and knowledge, had not succeeded in
explaining why people failed to act pro-environmentally. Consequently, they proposed a motivational
approach and more specifically suggested applying SDT to the environmental domain. The core
question was why people do things for the environment. Their research included development of the
MTES, an instrument for assessing people’s underlying motivation for environmental behavior [9].
The MTES was further validated by Villacorta et al. [10], and more recently also by Boeve-de Pauw
and Van Petegem [16].
Since SDT describes motivational types that show some presence of motivation in more detail,
with five types ranging from completely autonomous to completely controlled, whereas lack of
motivation is represented only in one type, i.e., amotivation, the latter merits more consideration.
Moreover, Pelletier et al. [17] noted that although people expressed stronger concern for the
environment, they did not show more frequent, nor more difficult pro-environmental behavior.
Consequently, they emphasized the need to look into individuals’ reasons for not engaging in
pro-environmental behaviors. This led to the development of an instrument tapping into amotivation
toward the environment, i.e., the Amotivation Toward the Environment Scale (AMTES). They further
defined amotivation toward the environment, suggesting four kinds of beliefs might be underlying
amotivation: global helplessness, strategy, capacity, and effort beliefs. When people are intimidated by
scale and severity of the environmental situation, they may not act pro-environmentally because of
global helplessness beliefs. They fail to see how their contribution could have a positive effect on such
a large-scale problem. Individuals who expect certain strategies to be ineffective could be amotivated
because of these strategy beliefs. They expect that their behavior would not produce the desired
outcome. People doubting their abilities to perform certain pro-environmental behaviors, would be
amotivated because of negative capacity beliefs. Consequently, even if a person believes a certain
course of action to be effective, they may still be doubtful that they themselves are capable of producing
the required behaviors. Finally, effort beliefs might also induce inactivity. Individuals may feel up to
the activities and believe them eventually to produce positive results. However, they think they are
incapable of producing and sustaining the required effort to engage in certain behaviors and integrating
these into their lifestyle. Generally, Pelletier et al. [17] found evidence for a preliminary instrument for
tapping into people’s amotivation. In order to determine how people can be supported so they can
overcome their amotivation toward the environment, insight into why people fail to do something for
the environment is essential. This could inform environmental education and awareness campaigns.
The conceptualizations of both motivation and amotivation toward the environment were
achieved using a variable-centered approach [9,17]. Such an approach focuses on the effects of
motivational dimensions on people’s behavior and performance [7]. Still, since individuals may show
different types of motivation at the same time, a person-centered approach would enable one to
categorize them in groups with members sharing a similar motivation profile. The insight gained from
such research might offer complementary information and enable change agents to design motivational
interventions to suit each particular profile [7].

1.2.2. Motives and Profiling

Research into motivation is interested in both the various types of regulation and how these may
be interrelated within individuals. Consequently, two approaches are possible, i.e., a variable-oriented
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 5 of 17

and a person-oriented approach. Neither approach is better than the other, as they yield complementary
information [18]. Whereas the variable-oriented approach focuses on separate variables about
individuals on average, the person-oriented approach allows one to address inter-individual as well as
intra-individual differences [19]. Vansteenkiste et al. [7] applied this approach for studying motivation
profiles for learning within high school and college students. Based on scores for autonomous and
controlled motivations as described in SDT, they found four motivation profiles: a high quality (high
autonomous, low controlled), a low quality (low autonomous, high controlled), a high quantity (high
scores on both), and a low quantity profile (low scores on both). They confirmed the predicted most
optimal learning patterns of the high quality group in comparison to the other three. In contrast
to Vansteenkiste and colleagues [7], Ratelle et al. [20] also included amotivation when studying
motivation profiles for learning within high school students. They found evidence for three motivation
profiles. The first consisted of students scoring high on controlled and amotivation, but low on
autonomous motivation. A second category showed high controlled and autonomous motivation and
low amotivation. Finally, a third profile consisted of moderate levels of autonomous and controlled
motivation, but low amotivation.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

Participants in the current study were 779 students in their last year of secondary school, who came
from 36 different schools across Flanders. In Belgium, education is the responsibility of the Flemish,
French, and German-speaking Communities. Since the aim of this study was to verify reliability and
validity of a Dutch version of the MTES, we selected participants in the Dutch-speaking provinces in the
north of Belgium (Flanders). Of these students 563 (72.3%) were male, 203 (26.0%) female, and 13 (1.7%)
did not disclose their gender. Convenience sampling provided the data for the current study. Data were
gathered in 2011 within a context of research on students’ motives for their academic orientation
in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, i.e., STEM-oriented courses. Consequently,
the MTES items were added at the end of the questionnaire, which consisted of 114 questions. This may
account for a high percentage of missing cases (26%). In Flanders, more male than female students opt
for STEM-courses [21]. This overrepresentation of male students was also reflected in our sample’s
gender distribution.
Communication with schools occurred solely through one person per school. This person was
responsible for administering the questionnaires, that were filled mostly online in a computer room
within a class context. Instructions for correct administration included limiting help to technical
assistance, since no further explanation concerning content of the questions was allowed. In the
questionnaire on motives for academic orientation, the 24 questions of the MTES were the last
items, originally (in 2011) added with the intention to explore some reliability and validity questions
concerning the MTES. Schools were asked to aim for 25 students or one complete class. Students were
guaranteed anonymity.

2.2. Measures
The MTES [9] consists of 24 items measuring the six types of motivation distinguished in the
SDT [4,5]. There are four items per motivation type. Participants rate the degree to which they agree
with each item on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “does not correspond at all” to 7 = “corresponds
exactly”). All items are possible answers to the question “Why are you doing things for the
environment?”, tapping into intrinsic motivation, integrated, identified, introjected, external regulation,
and amotivation. Since participants were students in Dutch-speaking schools, a Dutch translation of
the MTES was administered. First, two researchers translated the MTES into Dutch independently.
Then, consensus was sought between them. Finally, the Dutch version was translated into English
again, and this text was compared to the original English MTES. This procedure was followed for
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 6 of 17

reasons of content validity in order to ensure there were no discrepancies between the original version
and the back translation [22]. Table 1 shows the subscales and example items.

Table 1. MTES subscales with example items answering the question “Why are you doing things for
the environment?” [9].

Subscales Motivation Toward

Items Example Items in English
the Environment
For the pleasure I experience when I find new ways to
Intrinsic 4
improve the quality of the environment.
Because being environmentally conscious has become a
Integrated 4
fundamental part of who I am.
Because I think it’s a good idea to do something about the
Identified 4
environment.
Introjected 4 Because I would feel bad if I didn’t do anything.
Externally regulated 4 To avoid being criticized.
Amotivation 4 I can’t see what’s in it for me.

2.3. Analyses
All analyses were performed using the statistical software package R version 3.2.2. Missing data
were looked into in search of possible reasons for not answering some or any of the MTES items. Then,
preliminary analyses were done to assess departures from basic assumptions of univariate normality.
Values of skewness and kurtosis were examined for all items of the MTES. We also provide descriptive
statistics such as mean values and standard deviations per motivation type and per item.
The instrument used to measure students’ motivation toward the environment was a Dutch
translation. Hence, a validity check was deemed necessary [22]. In order to answer the first research
question internal consistency of the six subscales was examined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha.
Consequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess construct validity of
the MTES. A simplex pattern was verified using standardized scores of correlations on a motivation
type level. We verified how models could be improved using modification indices (MI). When the
largest MI exceeded value 100 and the suggested alteration to the model could be justified theoretically,
the model was modified [23]. To evaluate the model fit, multiple fit indices were used with minimum
values around .95 for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). For Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), threshold values lower than 0.05 were considered a close fit,
and values below 0.08 were deemed a reasonable fit [24]. In addition, the lowest values of Akaike’s
Information Criteria (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) were taken into account when
comparing two models.
For answering the second research question, we performed a hierarchical cluster analyses to
establish the optimal number of clusters. We first distinguished and removed univariate outliers,
i.e., values more than three standard deviations below or above the mean, and multivariate outliers,
i.e., individuals with high Mahalanobis distance values. Furthermore, only complete cases were used
for the hierarchical clustering analyses (n = 550). Starting from a dissimilarity matrix based on the
calculation of Euclidean distances, we proceeded with assessing linkage using Ward’s agglomeration
method. The latter is a holistic method used in order to group cases into clusters with minimal
within-group variation. Examination of the dendrogram further guided evaluation of optimal number
of clusters at several stages of clustering (heights). We also considered the distributions of cases per
cluster for each of these cluster solutions to establish how evenly cases were distributed over the
clusters. The thus retained cluster centers were then used as non-random starting points in an iterative,
non-hierarchical k-means clustering procedure to further fine-tune the preliminary cluster solution in
order to define each cluster. This clustering method randomly assigned cases to clusters, reassigning
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 7 of 17

them to the nearest cluster center in multiple runs until clusters showed optimal within-group
homogeneity and between-group heterogeneity [25,26]. Additionally, the optimal number of clusters to
be retained was based on a priori theorizing, parsimony, a pseudo screeplot plotting the within-group
sum of squares for various numbers of clusters, and the explanatory power of the cluster solution [27].
Explanatory power per cluster was deemed acceptable when the explained variance of the constituting
variables reached a 50% threshold value [28]. Finally, analysis of variance with post-hoc tests (ANOVA,
post-hoc bonferroni) allowed us to verify if clusters within a certain solution differed significantly
from each other. Thus, we aimed to arrive at a cluster solution in which students within a cluster were
most alike, while clusters were on average most different from one another on the variables of interest,
i.e., various types of motivation according to SDT [4].

3. Results
779 students were asked to fill the questionnaire, that consisted of closed questions only.
MTES items were scored on a 7-point Likert-scale. Unfortunately, only 578 fully filled questionnaires
were returned. Some technical problems in the schools may have made it impossible for groups to
finish the (online) questionnaire. The fact that entire groups returned incomplete answers seems
to point in that direction. Some schools also had an extremely multi-lingual population. Language
problems have probably made it unfeasible for some students to finish within the time limits. We also
noticed a gradual increase in missing items towards the end of the questionnaire. This could be an
indication of mental fatigue, especially for the students who indicated they did not speak Dutch at
home. One item (MTES10) showed a higher number of missing cases (148 as compared to 131 to 140,
gradually increasing towards the end of the questionnaire). In CFA analysis (see Section 3.1.3) this
item also emerged as problematic.

3.1. MTES Reliability and Validity

In order to answer our first research question, we verified the reliability and validity of a Dutch
version of the MTES within senior secondary students in Flanders. Within a 95% confidence interval,
the assumption of normality was deemed acceptable for all 24 items.

3.1.1. Reliability and Descriptives

Table A1, in the Appendix A, provides a summary of means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s
alphas. Items were possible answers to the question: “Why are you doing things for the environment?”
Respondents were asked to score their (dis)agreement with each answer on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from “does not correspond at all” to “corresponds exactly”. The six subscales represented the
types of motivation as described in the SDT [4]. Sumscores of items MTES1 to MTES4 provided the
overall scores for intrinsic motivation, items MTES5 to MTES8 for integrated motivation, MTES9 to
MTES12 for identified motivation, MTES13 to MTES16 for introjected motivation, MTES17 to MTES20
produced the sumscore for external regulation, and items MTES21 to MTES24 did for amotivation.
All six subscales showed high reliability, with alphas ranging from 0.87 to 0.93. This means that the
items that tapped into these types of motivation showed strong internal consistency between answers.
Highest positive answers were given for amotivation (M = 4.63, sd = 1.41). Students indicated strongest
agreement with the following statements: “I wonder why I’m doing anything about the environment,
since the situation isn’t improving” (MTES21); “I feel that doing something for the environment is a
waste of time” (MTES22); “I can’t see how my efforts to be environmentally friendly are helping the
environment” (MTES23); and “I can’t see what’s in it for me” (MTES24). Respondents agreed least
with answers indicating external regulation (M = 3.09, sd = 1.43). Statements in this type of motivation
were: “Because other people would be mad if I didn’t do anything about the environment” (MTES17);
“For the recognition I get for it from others” (MTES18); “Because my friends insist that I do” (MTES19);
and “To avoid being criticized”. The second lowest score was observed with integrated motivation
(M = 3.71, sd = 1.44), where “Because taking care of the environment is an integral part of my life”
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 8 of 17

(MTES5) and “Because being environmentally conscious has become a fundamental part of who I am”
(MTES8) both scored lowest. Looking more closely at identified motivation, item MTES10 (“Because it
is the way I have chosen to contribute to the environment”) showed a much lower score (M = 3.92,
sd = 1.54) than the other three answers (MTES 9: “Because it is a sensible thing to do something for
the environment”; MTES11: “Because it is a reasonable thing to do something for the environment”;
and MTES12: “Because I think it is a good idea to do something about the environment”). With the
exception of amotivation (α = 0.87), identified regulation showed the lowest reliability (α = 0.89).
We also noted that individual respondents’ answers differed greatly from each other, with standard
deviations for each item and subscale all around or exceeding 1.4, ranging from 1.39 for identified
motivation to 1.50 for introjected motivation.

3.1.2. Validity: Covariances and Simplex Pattern

As shown in Table 2, when observing covariances between the latent factors in the CFA,
the simplex pattern was largely confirmed, except for covariances of intrinsic motivation with
integrated (0.80; p = 0.00) and identified motivation (0.85; p = 0.00). With exception of the
negative covariance between latent factors identified motivation and amotivation (−0.08; p = 0.085),
all covariances and Pearson’s correlations were significant (p < 0.001).

Table 2. Pearson’s correlations between MTES subscales (above diagonal), and covariances between all
six MTES’s latent factors in the CFA (standardized scores).

MTES Intrinsic Integrated Identified Introjected External Amotivation

intrinsic – 0.76 *** 0.75 *** 0.72 *** 0.41 *** −0.18 ***
integrated 0.80 *** – 0.68 *** 0.70 *** 0.58 *** −0.28 ***
identified 0.85 *** 0.76 *** – 0.72 *** 0.31 *** −0.09 ***
introjected 0.77 *** 0.75 *** 0.80 *** – 0.48 *** −0.21 ***
external 0.42 *** 0.62 *** 0.32 *** 0.46 *** – −0.61 ***
amotivation −0.15 *** −0.28 *** −0.08 −0.18 *** −0.65 *** –
*** p < 0.001.

3.1.3. Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses were performed for several models. We looked at modification
indices to determine if the original 24-item model of the MTES could be improved. In the course of
examining various models, modification indices repeatedly indicated item MTES10 (“Because it is a
way I have chosen to contribute to the environment”) was problematic. Because identified motivation
also broke up the simplex pattern, we were especially interested in a five-factor model without
identified motivation. As shown in Table 3, comparison of fit indices also pointed at a five-factor
solution that included intrinsic, integrated, introjected, externally regulated, and amotivation. This
model (see Figure 2) consisted of twenty items, equally distributed over five subscales (i.e., intrinsic,
integrated, introjected, externally regulated, and amotivation). Except for this model, all models
showed disturbances in the simplex pattern with identified motivation breaking up the pattern.

Table 3. Summary of model fit indices of various factor solutions in the confirmatory factor analysis.

Model CFI TLI RMSEA AIC BIC

1 factor (all items, except amotivation’s) 0.692 0.656 0.188 34,689.960 34,862.647
2 factors (autonomous and controlled, excl. amotivation) 0.744 0.712 0.172 34,135.489 34,312.493
3 factors (autonomous, controlled, and amotivation) 0.745 0.717 0.152 40,053.977 40,272.468
4 factors (= excl. identified and amotivation) 0.958 0.948 0.081 26,874.201 27,039.865
5 factors (= excl. amotivation) 0.933 0.920 0.090 32,093.479 32,309.337
5 factors (= excl. identified) 0.954 0.945 0.072 33,032.563 33,248.781
 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 9 of 17
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of a model excluding identified motivation, with standardized
factor 2.
Figure
Figure loadings.
2. Confirmatory
Confirmatory factor
factor analysis
analysisof
of aa model
model excluding
excluding identified
identifiedmotivation,
motivation,with
withstandardized
standardized
factor loadings.
factor loadings.
3.2. MTES Profiles
3.2.
3.2. MTES
MTES Profiles
Profiles
For answering our second research question, sumscores were calculated for amotivation,
intrinsic
For motivation,
For answering
answering our integrated,
our second introjected,
second research
research and external
question,
question, regulation.
sumscores
sumscores were No univariate
were calculated
calculated for outliers were
for amotivation,
amotivation,
found, but
intrinsic
intrinsic eight multivariate
motivation,
motivation, integrated,outliers
integrated, were and
introjected,
introjected, removed. Criteria
and external
external determining
regulation.
regulation. No the optimal
No univariate
univariate number
outliers
outliers wereof
were
clusters
found, were:
but eight multivariate outliers were removed. Criteria determining the optimal
found, but eight multivariate outliers were removed. Criteria determining the optimal number of number of
clusters
 thewere:
clusters were:
similarity of cases within a specific cluster (i.e., homogeneity within groups),
• the similarity
similarityof
discriminative
the cases
caseswithin
ofvalue withinaaspecific
between specificcluster
clusters, cluster(i.e.,
(i.e.,homogeneity
homogeneitywithin
withingroups),
groups),
• parsimony,
discriminative value between clusters,
discriminative value between clusters,
• explanatory power of cluster solutions, and
parsimony,
parsimony,
• a priori theorizing.
explanatory
explanatory power
powerof ofcluster
clustersolutions,
solutions,andand
• aaFirst,
prioriatheorizing.
priori theorizing.
hierarchical cluster analysis was performed in order to assess possible numbers of
clusters
First,ataahierarchical
First, various stages
hierarchical of aggregation.
cluster
clusteranalysis wasThese
analysis suggested
performed
was performed a 7-,
in order
in to6-, 4-,
assess
order to 3-, and 2-cluster
possible
assess numberssolution.
possible We
of clusters
numbers of
atfurther
various examined
stages of solutions
aggregation.with two
These to seven
suggested clusters.
a 7-, We
6-, 4-, then
3-, proceeded
and 2-cluster
clusters at various stages of aggregation. These suggested a 7-, 6-, 4-, 3-, and 2-cluster solution. We to assess
solution. homogeneity
We further
within examined
examined
further clusters
solutions for various
with cluster
twowith
solutions twosolutions
to seven seven to
toclusters. determine
We thenWe
clusters. whatproceeded
proceeded
then cluster solution
to assess showed
tohomogeneity
assess optimal
within
homogeneity
similarity
clusters
within forwithin
various
clusters forgroups.
cluster
variousInsolutions
addition,
cluster toparsimony
determine
solutions was
whattaken
to determine into
cluster
what account.
solution A
clustershowedpseudo
solution screeplot
optimal
showed (Figure
similarity
optimal
3)
withinindicated
similaritygroups. a
within clear drop
In addition, in reduced
groups. Inparsimony within-groups
addition, was taken into
parsimony sum of
wasaccount. squares
taken into A pseudo between
account. a
screeplot
A pseudofive- and
(Figure a six-cluster
3) indicated
screeplot (Figure
solution,
a3) clear drop
indicated which
ainclear indicated
reduced that adding
dropwithin-groups
in reduced summore than
of squares
within-groups sum five clusters
between
of squares would
a between
five- andnot
aafive-result
and in
six-cluster increased
solution,
a six-cluster
homogeneity
which
solution,indicated
which within
that the groups.
adding
indicated more In sum,
that than
addingfivehierarchical
clusters
more cluster
would
than fivenot analysis
result in
clusters pointed nottowards
increased
would result ainthree-,
homogeneity four-
within
increased
,
the or five-cluster
groups. In sum,
homogeneity solution.
within hierarchical
the groups. cluster analysis
In sum, pointedcluster
hierarchical towards a three-,
analysis four-, or
pointed five-cluster
towards solution.
a three-, four-
, or five-cluster solution.

Figure3.3.Pseudo
Figure Pseudoscreeplot
screeplotshowing
showingwithin
withingroups
groupssum
sumofofsquares
squaresfor
for1 1toto1010clusters.
clusters.
Figure 3. Pseudo screeplot showing within groups sum of squares for 1 to 10 clusters.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 10 of 17

In order to further determine an optimal number of clusters, we performed a k-means cluster

analysis. We also examined the discriminant value between clusters and explanatory power for cluster
solutions ranging from seven to two clusters, bearing in mind that solutions with five clusters would
probably be the maximal number for reasons of parsimony. Post-hoc tests indicated that only in a two-
and a four-cluster solution, all cluster pairs differed significantly.
Explanatory power was then assessed by calculating explained variance per MTES subscale.
Explained variance ranged from 74.2% (introjected regulation) in a seven-cluster solution to 12.6%
(amotivation) in a solution with two clusters. With the exception of a two- and a three-cluster
solution, all solutions’ clusters explained at least 50% of variance of the motivational subscales,
which was the threshold value. Consequently, four, five, six, and seven clusters all showed sufficient
explanatory power.
Reviewing the criteria set to determine the optimal number of clusters, only a four-cluster solution
showed positive results on all criteria. This solution had shown optimal within-group homogeneity
with all four clusters also differing significantly, explaining between 55.4% (amotivation) and 65.3%
(intrinsic motivation) of variance in motivation types.
Moreover, it was also considered parsimonious, since it was the most economical solution meeting
the criteria of within-cluster similarity, between-cluster discriminant value, and explanatory power.
As can be seen in Table 4, the four-cluster solution revealed significant results with a first cluster
containing 24% of all cases (n = 132; 24.1% of male; 23.3% of female) scoring low on all motivation
types, except amotivation. The second cluster represented 49% of students (n = 268; 52.8% of male;
38.7% of female) with moderate scores on all five MTES subscales. Containing 18% of cases (n = 99;
12.7% of male; 31.3% of female), cluster three showed high scores on all subscales except externally
regulated motivation. Finally, cluster four was the smallest group, including 9% of students (n = 51;
10.4% of male; 6.7% of female). This group scored high on all motivation types except amotivation.
Similar proportions of both genders were found in the unmotivated group, whereas a larger proportion
of female respondents (31.3%) were members of the inconsistently motivated group as compared to the
proportion of male respondents (12.7%). The consistently motivated group was the smallest for both
genders, albeit proportionally slightly more populated by men (10.4%) than women (6.7%). Figure 4
visualizes a four-cluster solution.

Table 4. Number of cases per cluster (n), means, and standard deviations per type of motivation
(sumscores) per cluster for a four-cluster solution.

Motivation
Intrinsic Integrated Introjected Externally Regulated Amotivation
n Means SD Means SD Means SD Means SD Means SD
Cluster 1 132 8.66 4.13 7.75 3.47 8.10 4.02 6.79 3.11 21.71 5.37
Cluster 2 268 15.80 2.99 15.49 2.87 15.90 2.73 14.65 3.39 16.45 2.86
Cluster 3 99 20.92 3.77 19.35 4.27 20.64 4.91 8.69 4.28 24.97 2.66
Cluster 4 51 22.61 3.61 22.45 3.47 22.39 3.55 21.55 3.58 10.53 4.07
F-value 266.98 299.85 254.49 323.17 278.92
df 3 3 3 3 3
p (< 0.05) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Taking into account all criteria, our findings pointed to four clusters being an optimal solution.
One group, which we call “consistently motivated”, showed high scores on all types of motivation
except for amotivation. A second profile was found with moderate scores on all subscales, i.e., the group
of “moderately motivated”. Cluster three, the “inconsistently motivated”, scored high on all types of
motivation except for externally regulated motivation. Finally, a fourth group consisted of students
showing low scores on all motivation types except amotivation. We called them “the unmotivated”.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 11 of 17

25.00

20.00
unmotivated (n = 132; 24.1% of m.; 23.3% of f.)
Means

moderately motivated (n = 268; 52.8% of m.; 38.7% of f.)

15.00 inconsistently motivated (n = 99; 12.7 % of m.; 31.3% of f.)
consistently motivated (n = 51; 10.4% of m.; 6.7% of f.)
10.00

5.00

Figure 4. Graphic representation of motivational mean scores per cluster for a four-cluster solution.

Figure 4. Graphic representation of motivational mean scores per cluster for a four-cluster solution.
4. Discussion
As suggested by Villacorta et al. [10], the present study focused on a further validation of the
4. Discussion
MTES [9] within a population of students in a secondary education setting outside Canada. We assessed
As suggested by Villacorta et al. [10], the present study focused on a further validation of the
if the Dutch version of the MTES could be considered a reliable and valid instrument for tapping into
MTES [9] within a population of students in a secondary education setting outside Canada. We
the motivation of Flemish senior secondary school students in Belgium, Europe. This population is of
assessed if the Dutch version of the MTES could be considered a reliable and valid instrument for
particular
tapping intointerest, since thisofisFlemish
the motivation the stage whensecondary
senior people are on thestudents
school verge ofinmaking important
Belgium, decisions
Europe. This
for themselves
population is ofand becoming
particular the new
interest, sincedecision-makers
this is the stage in society.
when Additionally,
people we sought
are on the verge to answer
of making
the question whether MTES profiles could be distinguished, expecting that a person-oriented
important decisions for themselves and becoming the new decision-makers in society. Additionally, approach
would yield complementary information [7].
we sought to answer the question whether MTES profiles could be distinguished, expecting that a
person-oriented approach would yield complementary information [7].
4.1. Reliability and Validity of the MTES
4.1. Reliability and Validity
In line with Pelletierof the
andMTES
colleagues [9] and Villacorta et al. [10], our data suggested that all
subscales
In lineofwith
the MTES
Pelletierreliably tap into the
and colleagues [9]different types of
and Villacorta et motivation.
al. [10], our Still, differencesthat
data suggested in strength
all
of the different
subscales of the motivation
MTES reliably types
tapshowed
into the when comparing
different Canadian toStill,
types of motivation. Flemish populations.
differences With the
in strength
exception
of of integrated
the different motivation motivation
types showed in Villacorta and colleagues’
when comparing Canadian[10], both Canadian
to Flemish populations.studies
With[9,10]
the exception of integrated motivation in Villacorta and colleagues’ [10], both
generally found higher intrinsic, integrated, and identified motivation than did Boeve-de Pauw andCanadian studies [9,10]
generally
Van Petegem found[16]higher intrinsic,
in Flanders. integrated,
Since and were
our results identified
very motivation
much in line than didthe
with Boeve-de
latter’s,Pauw
this mayandpoint
Van Petegem [16]
to differences in Flanders.
between Canada Since our results
and Flanders. were very much
Furthermore, in line population
our Flemish with the latter’s,
scoredthis may
considerably
point
highertoondifferences between Canada
external regulation and Flanders.
and amotivation than wasFurthermore,
reported inour bothFlemish population
Canadian studies. scored
Our results
considerably higher on external regulation and amotivation than
indicated higher amotivation than did Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem’s, which may was reported in both Canadian
be due to an
studies. Our results indicated
overrepresentation of male higher amotivation
respondents in thethan did Boeve-de
current study. Still,Pauwbearing
and VaninPetegem’s,
mind thatwhich Boeve-de
may be due to an overrepresentation of male respondents in the current study. Still, bearing in mind
Pauw and Van Petegem [16] only found small to medium differences in amotivation between male
that Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem [16] only found small to medium differences in amotivation
and female respondents, this may only partially explain this difference.
between male and female respondents, this may only partially explain this difference.
When looking at construct validity, measurement of identified motivation seemed problematic,
When looking at construct validity, measurement of identified motivation seemed problematic,
since it did not seem to distinguish clearly from integrated motivation. This is in line with
since it did not seem to distinguish clearly from integrated motivation. This is in line with findings
findings by several previous studies in academic motivation (e.g., [15,20,29,30]). In several of
by several previous studies in academic motivation (e.g., [15,20,29,30]). In several of these domains,
these
the domains,
simplex patternthewas
simplex
found topattern wasmostly
be flawed, foundintothe becorrelations
flawed, mostly between in integrated,
the correlations between
identified,
and introjected regulations (e.g., [9,15,16,20,29,30,31]). Several hypotheses were put forward in were
integrated, identified, and introjected regulations (e.g., [9,15,16,20,29–31]). Several hypotheses
put forward In
explanation. in their
explanation.
study on In their study
motivation foron motivation
learning a secondfor learning
language,a Noels,
secondPelletier,
language, andNoels,
Pelletier, and Vallerand [32], discussed earlier findings of their team on integrated
Vallerand [32], discussed earlier findings of their team on integrated and identified motivation. When and identified
motivation.
first When
constructing thefirst constructing
French version of the
the French
Academic version of theScale,
Motivation Academic Motivation
Vallerand Scale, Vallerand
and colleagues [33]
and found
had colleagues [33] distinction
no clear had foundbetweenno clearidentified
distinction andbetween
integrated identified and This
regulation. integrated
led themregulation.
to
This led them
hypothesize to hypothesize
that their populationthat was
theirprobably
populationtoowas probably
young to have too young to
achieved have achieved
a sense a sense of
of integration
integration regarding school activities. Based on these findings, Noels et al. [32] decided not to include
integrated motivation in their study on motivation for learning a second language.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 12 of 17

Stover et al. [30] saw identified regulation correlating higher with extrinsic than with intrinsic
motivation in a sample of Argentine adolescents. They sought an explanation referring to Cokley
et al. [31]. When validating the Academic Motivation Scale, Cokley and his colleagues found
higher correlations between intrinsic and introjected regulation, than between intrinsic and identified
motivations within a United States student sample [29]. They argued that introjected regulation might
be more autonomous than SDT would suggest. Interestingly, Ratelle et al. [20] found these breaches in
the simplex pattern within high school, but not within college students.
Whereas researchers previously sought to explain this discrepancy by pointing at the age of their
population [33], or suggested redefining introjected regulation as more autonomous than the original
SDT would expect [29], we suggest a deeper examination of identified regulation in itself. A hypothesis
worth verifying is that the explanation may lie in the time delay this instrumental aspect might imply.
Differences in time delay between the behavior and the final goal this behavior seeks to attain indirectly,
might make a difference in the strength, the level of energy, and the determination needed to maintain
this (instrumental) type of motivation. Identified regulation might differ from all other types of
motivation in this. Findings by Villacorta and colleagues [10], who studied motivation for learning in
high school and college students, showed differences in the simplex pattern. Identified motivation
broke up the pattern in a sample of high school students, but not in that of college students. This may
possibly support our hypothesis, since the temporal distance between behavior and outcomes differed
between these two populations. If students engage in learning activities for getting a diploma in order
to find a better-paid job, college students are facing a smaller temporal distance than high school
students. This might explain the unstable position of identified regulation on the continuum from
more autonomous to more controlled behavior. Comparison with all other types of motivation could
perhaps support this. With intrinsic motivation, the effect is immediate, as the pleasure of the behavior
itself is the goal. Integrated motivation, too, shows a rather simultaneous occurrence of behavior and
satisfaction of congruence with the self. With introjected motivation, the behavior leads to feelings of
guilt or embarrassment quite quickly. As for external motivation, punishments or rewards are expected
to follow without much delay. Identified motivation seems different in this respect. As the behavior is
instrumental, the individual acts in order to reach another goal, which can be attained either shortly
after the activity or be delayed. In a context of motivation toward the environment, this time delay
might have a rather strong effect, since pro-environmental behavior deployed now, may not even
produce the desired effects within the individual’s lifetime. Milfont, Wilson, and Diniz [34] found
that psychological distance is related to people’s level of environmental concern and intention to act
pro-environmentally. Temporal, social, spatial, and uncertainty dimensions of distance emerged as
factors that affected people’s attitudes and behavior toward the environment. This may also be the
case for motivation toward the environment. Since our sample consisted of students on the eve of
entering higher education or a professional activity, also the uncertainty dimension may explain the
higher level of amotivation in our sample. Further research is necessary to test this assumption.
Moving our attention towards amotivation, we saw no reason to exclude this type of motivation
from the MTES. The high scores we found for amotivation, were a reason for our interest, since our
respondents indicated they agreed rather strongly with statements tapping into amotivation (M = 4.63,
sd = 1.41; 42% were member of profiles with high amotivation scores). In sum, we conclude that for
our sample of senior secondary school students in Flanders, the Dutch version of the MTES was found
a valid and reliable instrument for tapping into motivation toward the environment when including
five subscales: intrinsic, integrated, introjected, externally regulated, and amotivation.

4.2. MTES Profiles

As shown in Figure 4, a moderate to high level of amotivation was found in three out of four
profiles, including the group of individuals who showed a high level of autonomous and internally
controlled motivation. According to Gawronski and Brannon, the latter may find themselves in a
highly uncomfortable position, showing feelings of aversion to this inconsistency [35] between being
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 13 of 17

intrinsically motivated as well as showing considerable levels of amotivation. Spence, Poortinga,

and Pidgeon already pointed at that phenomenon and its possible connection with climate change [36].
Although this finding seems unexpected, insights in amotivation developed by Pelletier et al. [17] may
offer some explanation. Even when a person is intrinsically motivated, performing pro-environmental
behavior may still be hindered by global helplessness beliefs, since the global scope of the problem (and
as we suggested earlier, possibly also temporal distance) can be intimidating, producing a paralyzing
effect. The same people may also doubt their ability to adopt effective strategies, as well as their
capacity to influence climate change positively. Finally, they may think it impossible to keep up the
effort necessary. The concept of global helplessness may again touch on the temporal and spatial
dimensions of psychological distance [34,36]. Our findings of simultaneous occurrence of high intrinsic
motivation and strong amotivation within the same person may hint at why people who are concerned
and aware of environmental issues, still fail to act [17].
Pelletier, Baxter, and Huta [37] suggest fostering self-determined motivation in people, since they
were found to deploy more effective strategies for reducing cognitive dissonance, i.e., the incongruence
between a pro-environmental attitude and lack of pro-environmental behavior. They recommend
providing accurate information and suggestions for concrete steps that could lead to a solution.
Moreover, offering opportunities for autonomy, relatedness, and competence is repeatedly described
as promoting more autonomous motivation (e.g., [4,37]).

4.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The present study shows some limitations. An earlier data collection offered opportunities for
our research. The data were gathered with research into STEM students’ academic or professional
career orientations in mind. The MTES items were added in order to explore certain reliability and
validity issues. Consequently, the MTES items were added at the end of the questionnaire. This may
account for a high percentage of missing cases (26%), which possibly biased results. Furthermore,
the focus was on STEM education at data gathering. STEM courses are traditionally more favored by
male students in Flanders [21]. This was also reflected in our sample in which female respondents
(26.2%) were underrepresented in comparison to male respondents (72.3%). Finally, our research was
limited to studying construct validity. Our purpose was to use the MTES for finding profiles, since the
external validity of the Dutch version of the MTES had already been established by Boeve-de Pauw
and Van Petegem [16].
Our focus was on last grade secondary students. They are looking at major changes in their
academic or professional career. It would be interesting to find out if this instability in their personal
situation causes feelings of insecurity and doubt. If further research would confirm our hypotheses
about time delay, this might call for adding extra dimensions, i.e., temporal distance and uncertainty.
It would be interesting to investigate whether temporal distance and uncertainty influence the level of
autonomy in identified motivation, or the strength of amotivation. Future research may want to focus
on gaining deeper insight in identified and amotivation toward the environment.

5. Conclusions
In sum, our evidence suggested that a five-scale version of the Dutch MTES (including intrinsic,
integrated, introjected, external, and amotivation) is both a reliable and valid instrument for measuring
senior secondary school students’ motivation toward the environment in Flanders. Furthermore,
four MTES profiles emerged: two smaller groups of consistently motivated and inconsistently
motivated students, a large group of moderately motivated students (nearly one in two), and a
relatively large group of unmotivated students (one in four). Low levels of amotivation were only
found within consistently motivated individuals, who also scored high on external regulation.
Since evidence in this study indicated that senior secondary school students show distinct
motivation profiles, environmental awareness and change programs can build on these findings.
Such programs have the option either to differentiate approaches, catering for each separate profile,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 14 of 17

or to focus on promoting membership of the most desirable, i.e., the consistently motivated profile,
which showed low levels of amotivation. Still, since such a vast portion of adolescents were amotivated,
all programs are well-advised to provide opportunities for autonomy, relatedness, and competence [4].
Additionally, change agents would do well providing their target audience not only with essential and
relevant knowledge about climate change, but also with viable solutions for mitigation in terms of
supporting their efficacy, strategy, and effort beliefs [17]. Based on our findings concerning identified
motivation, we suggest intervention programs focus on making the effect of actual behavior visible
in a relatively short time. This would allow people to enjoy the fruits of their efforts, which may
boost their effort beliefs so that they feel less helpless and more self-determined. Moreover, in order
to promote a more intrinsic motivation, elements of fun should be introduced in pro-environmental
activities. Thus, participants would experience that behaving pro-environmentally in itself provides
joy and well-being.
Furthermore, we would like to call for inclusion of amotivation in research into motivational
profiles, since a vast proportion of respondents (91%) showed moderate to high levels of amotivation,
and even self-determined and internally controlled individuals showed high levels of amotivation,
possibly preventing them from behaving pro-environmentally.
This study has contributed to a cross-cultural validation of the MTES, generally finding it a useful
instrument for tapping into motivation toward the environment. Adding a person-oriented approach
to a variable-oriented approach provided complementary information, showing that the inclusion of
amotivation in a cluster analysis produces interesting information for environmental awareness and
change programs.

Author Contributions: W.S., J.B.-d.P., and V.D. contributed to the conception and design of the work. P.V.P. and
J.B.-d.P. collected the data. W.S. and J.B.-d.P. analysed and interpreted the data. W.S. drafted the manuscript.
All authors participated in the revision and final approval of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the researchers involved in translating the MTES into Dutch.
We are also greatly indebted to all participating schools and students who kindly completed the questionnaires.
Furthermore, our gratitude goes to the constructive feedback we got from the anonymous reviewers on earlier
drafts of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix

Table A1. Descriptives for items and subscales (Cronbach’s alphas: means, and standard deviations of
the Dutch version).

Scale/Item Mean SD
MTES Intrinsic motivation α = 0.93 3.86 1.46
MTES1 For the pleasure I get in mastering new ways to help. 3.71 1.69
MTES2 For the pleasure I get in improving the quality of the environment. 4.00 1.59
MTES3 Because I like the feeling I get when doing things for the environment. 3.89 1.55
MTES4 For the pleasure of contributing to the environment. 3.85 1.56
Integrated regulation α = 0.92 3.71 1.44
MTES5 Because taking care of the environment is an integral part of my life. 3.68 1.60
Because it seems to me that taking care of myself and taking care of the
MTES6 3.72 1.59
environment are inseparable.
MTES7 Because it is part of the way I have chosen to live my life. 3.72 1.58
Because my environmental awareness has become a fundamental part
MTES8 3.68 1.62
of who I am
Identified regulation α = 0.89 4.26 1.39
MTES9 Because it is a sensible thing to do something about the environment. 4.43 1.61
MTES10 Because it is the way I have chosen to contribute to the environment. 3.92 1.54
MTES11 Because it is a reasonable thing to do something about the environment. 4.18 1.63
Because I think it is a good idea to do something about the
MTES12 4.43 1.65
environment.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 15 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

Scale/Item Mean SD
Introjected regulation α = 0.91 3.82 1.50
MTES13 Because I think I’d regret not doing something about the environment. 3.85 1.68
MTES14 Because I’d feel guilty if I didn’t do anything about the environment. 3.90 1.65
MTES15 Because I’d feel bad if I didn’t do anything about the environment. 3.75 1.64
MTES16 I’d be ashamed not to do anything about the environment. 3.75 1.80
External regulation α = 0.91 3.09 1.43
Because other people would be mad if I didn’t do anything about the
MTES17 3.23 1.61
environment.
MTES18 For the recognition I get for it from others. 3.21 1.60
MTES19 Because my friends insist that I do. 2.97 1.62
MTES20 To avoid being criticised. 3.03 1.63
Amotivation α = 0.87 4.63 1.41
I wonder why I’m doing anything about the environment, since the
MTES21 4.51 1.64
situation isn’t improving.
MTES22 I feel that doing something about the environment is a waste of time. 4.79 1.63
I can’t see how my efforts to be environmentally friendly are helping
MTES23 4.63 1.65
the environment.
MTES24 I can’t see what’s in it for me. 4.59 1.73

Table A2. The Dutch version of the MTES with descriptives (Cronbach’s alphas, means, and standard
deviations).

Scale/Item Mean SD
MTES Intrinsic motivation α = 0.93 3.86 1.46
Voor het plezier dat ik ervaar wanneer ik nieuwe manieren leer kenen
MTES1 3.71 1.69
om het milieu te helpen.
Voor het plezier dat ik ervaar wanneer ik de kwaliteit van het milieu
MTES2 4.00 1.59
verbeter.
Omdat ik hou van het gevoel dat ik krijg wanneer ik dingen doe voor
MTES3 3.89 1.55
het milieu.
MTES4 Voor het plezier dat iets doen voor het milieu me geeft. 3.85 1.56
Integrated regulation α = 0.92 3.71 1.44
Omdat zorg dragen voor het milieu een integraal deel uitmaakt van
MTES5 3.68 1.60
mijn leven.
Omdat het voor mij lijkt alsof zorg dragen voor mezelf en zorg dragen
MTES6 3.72 1.59
voor het milieu onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn.
Omdat het een deel uitmaakt van de manier waarop ik gekozen heb
MTES7 3.72 1.58
mijn leven te leiden.
Omdat mijn milieubewustzijn een fundamenteel deel is gaan uitmaken
MTES8 3.68 1.62
van wie ik ben.
Identified regulation α = 0.89 4.26 1.39
MTES9 Omdat het verstandig is om iets te doen voor het milieu. 4.43 1.61
Omdat het de manier is waarop ik gekozen heb om bij te dragen aan
MTES10 3.92 1.54
het milieu.
MTES11 Omdat het rationeel is om iets te doen voor het milieu. 4.18 1.63
MTES12 Omdat ik denk dat het een goed idee is om iets te doen voor het milieu 4.43 1.65
Introjected regulation α = 0.91 3.82 1.50
Omdat ik denk dat ik het me zou berouwen als ik niets deed voor het
MTES13 3.85 1.68
milieu.
MTES14 Omdat ik me schuldig zou voelen als ik niets deed voor het milieu. 3.90 1.65
MTES15 Omdat ik me slecht zou voelen als ik niets deed voor het milieu. 3.75 1.64
MTES16 Ik zou me schamen voor mezelf als ik niets deed voor het milieu. 3.75 1.80
External regulation α = 0.91 3.09 1.43
MTES17 Omdat andere mensen boos zouden als ik niets deed voor het milieu. 3.23 1.61
MTES18 Voor de erkenning die er voor krijg van anderen. 3.21 1.60
MTES19 Omdat mijn vrienden erop staan dat ik dat doe. 2.97 1.62
MTES20 Om te vermijden ik bekritiseerd zou worden. 3.03 1.63
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 16 of 17

Table A2. Cont.

Scale/Item Mean SD
Amotivation α = 0.87 4.63 1.41
Ik vraag mezelf af waarom ik dingen doe voor het milieu, de situatie
MTES21 4.51 1.64
wordt er immers niet beter op.
MTES22 Ik heb het gevoel dat iets doen voor het milieu tijdverspilling is. 4.79 1.63
Ik zie niet in hoe mijn inspanning om milieuvriendelijk te zijn iets
MTES23 4.63 1.65
kunnen betekenen voor het milieu.
MTES24 Ik zie niet in wat er voor mij persoonlijk inzit. 4.59 1.73

References
1. UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties. Adoption of the Paris Agreement; Proposal by the President; Framework
Convention on Climate Change; United Nations Office at Geneva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; Available
online: http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008831
(accessed on 4 January 2016).
2. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing learner behaviour through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ.
1990, 21, 8–21. [CrossRef]
3. Sheldon, K.M.; Elliot, A.J. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance
model. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 1999, 76, 546–557. [CrossRef]
4. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
5. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation Self-Determination in Human Behaviour; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 1985.
6. Vansteenkiste, M.; Lens, W.; Deci, E. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-contents in self-determination theory:
Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 41, 19–31. [CrossRef]
7. Vansteenkiste, M.; Sierens, E.; Soenens, B.; Luyckx, K.; Lens, W. Motivational profiles from a self-determination
perspective: The quality of motivation matters. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 671–688. [CrossRef]
8. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Cont. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Pelletier, L.G.; Tuson, K.M.; Green-Demers, I.; Noels, K.; Beaton, A.M. Why are you doing things for the
environment? The motivation toward the environment scale. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 1998, 28, 437–468.
[CrossRef]
10. Villacorta, M.; Koestner, R.; Lekes, N. Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale.
Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 35–486. [CrossRef]
11. Chawla, L. Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 31, 15–26. [CrossRef]
12. Statistics Canada. Human Activity and the Environment, Annual Statistics 2003; Catalogue No. 16-201-XIE;
Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003.
13. Demolder, H.; Peymen, J. Natuurindicatoren 2011. Toestand van de Natuur in Vlaanderen: Cijfers voor het Beleid;
INBO.M. 2011.2; Mededeling van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek: Brussel, Belgium, 2011.
14. Jang, H. Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity.
J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 798–811. [CrossRef]
15. Vallerand, R.J.; Pelletier, L.G.; Blais, M.R.; Brière, N.M.; Senécal, C.; Vallières, E.F. The academic motivation
scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in education. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1992, 52, 1003–1017.
[CrossRef]
16. Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Petegem, P. Because My Friends Insist or Because It Makes Sense? Adolescents’
Motivation towards the Environment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 750. [CrossRef]
17. Pelletier, L.G.; Dion, S.; Tuson, K.; Green-Demers, D. Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective
behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 1999, 29, 2481–2504.
[CrossRef]
18. Magnusson, D. The person approach: Concepts, measurement models, and research strategy. New Dir. Child
Adol. Dev. 2003, 101, 3–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2579 17 of 17

19. Raufelder, D.; Jagenow, D.; Hoferichter, F.; Mills Drury, K. The person-oriented approach in the field of
educational psychology. Prob. Psychol. 21st Century 2013, 5, 79–88.
20. Ratelle, C.F.; Guay, F.; Vallerand, R.J.; Larose, S.; Senécal, C. Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types
of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 99, 734–746. [CrossRef]
21. Onderwijs Vlaanderen. Statistisch Jaarboek van het Vlaams Onderwijs 2011–2012. Deel 1 Schoolbevolking,
Hoofdstuk 4: Secundair onderwijs, 4.1.2 Schoolbevolking per studierichting, 138–146. Available online:
https://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/statistisch-jaarboek-van-het-vlaams-onderwijs-2011-2012 (accessed on
6 July 2018).
22. Koller, M.; Aaronson, N.K.; Blazeby, J.; Bottomley, A.; Dewolf, L.; Fayers, P. Translation procedures for
standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of
Cancer (EORTC) approach. Eur. J. Cancer 2007, 43, 1810–1820. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Garson, G.D. Structural Equation Modeling; Statistical Associates Publishing: Asheboro, NC, USA, 2015;
Available online: http://www.statisticalassociates.com/sem_p.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2016.).
24. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1993, 21, 230–258.
[CrossRef]
25. Bahr, P.R.; Bielby, R.; House, E. The use of cluster analysis in typological research on community college
students. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2011, 67–81. [CrossRef]
26. Punj, G.; Stewart, D.W. Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for applications.
J. Mark. Res. 1983, 20, 134–148. [CrossRef]
27. Garson, G.D. Cluster Analysis; Statistical Associates Publishers: Asheboro, NC, USA, 2015; Available online:
http://www.statisticalassociates.com/clusteranalysis.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2016).
28. Milligan, G.W.; Cooper, M.C. An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data
set. Psychometrika 1985, 50, 159–179. [CrossRef]
29. Cokley, K.O. Examining the validity of the academic motivation scale by comparing scale construction to
self-determination theory. Psychol. Rep. 2000, 86, 560–564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Stover, J.B.; de la Iglesia, G.; Rial Boubeta, A.; Fernández Liporace, M. Academic motivation scale: Adaptation
and psychometric analyses for high school and college students. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2012, 5, 71–83.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Cokley, K.O.; Bernard, N.; Cunningham, D.; Motoike, J. A psychometric investigation of the academic
motivation scale using a United States sample. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2001, 34, 109–119.
32. Noels, K.A.; Pelletier, L.G.; Vallerand, R.J. Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations
and Self-Determination Theory. Lang. Learn. 2000, 50, 57–85. [CrossRef]
33. Vallerand, R.J.; Blais, M.R.; Brière, N.M.; Pelletier, L.G. Construction et validation de l’Echelle de motivation
en education (EME). Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1989, 21, 323–349. [CrossRef]
34. Milfont, T.; Wilson, J.; Diniz, P. Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis.
Int. J. Psychol. 2012, 47, 325–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Gawronski, B.; Brannon, S.M. What is cognitive consistency and why does it matter. In Cognitive Dissonance:
Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, 2nd ed.; Harmon-Jones, E., Ed.; American Psychological
Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
36. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32,
957–972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Pelletier, L.G.; Baxter, D.; Huta, V. Personal autonomy and environmental sustainability. In Cross-Cultural
Advancements in Positive Psychology 1; Chirkov, V.I., Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Eds.; Springer Science and
Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 257–277.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).