REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION

ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 10(4), WINTER, 2020

www.rigeo.org Research Article

An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological

and Materialistic Values of Turkish Teacher Candidates

Nevin ÖZDEMİR1
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun
TURKEY

1Assoc. Prof. Dr. Department of Social Science and Turkish Education, Ondokuz Mayıs University Education Faculty,
Samsun, Turkey. nvnozdmr@hotmail.com, ORCID: 0000-0001-9408-3238

Abstract

Materialistic values are important factors that guide individuals’ philosophy of life. For this reason, it is thought that
individuals’ environmental attitudes and ecological world views may be related to their materialistic values. Therefore,
the purpose of this study is to examine whether there is a relationship between the materialistic and ecological values
of prospective teachers. The study sample consists of 685 prospective teachers studying in a Faculty of Education at a
university in northern Turkey. In the 2016-2017 academic year, prospective teachers who participated in this study
were studying in first and last grade level of five different departments: Social Studies (n=115); Science (n=149);
primary education (n=151); Mathematics (n=134); and pre-school teaching (n=136). A questionnaire including the New
Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEPS), and the Material Values Scale (MVS) was used to gather data. The mean scores of
both scales were based on the interpretation of the research findings, and the relationship between materialistic and
environmental values of sample and variables such as gender, grade level, the field of teaching, and environmental
education were examined. The correlations among materialistic and environmental values and environmental
education were also examined. The results of the study demonstrated that prospective teachers have high levels of eco-
centric values and moderate levels of materialistic values; also, these values have significant relations with some of the
variables. The findings indicated there were negative or positive weak correlations between some variables.

Keywords
New Environmental Paradigm Scale, Materialism, Prospective Teachers, Environmental Education

To cite this article: Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic Values of
Turkish Teacher Candidates. Review of International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 10(4), 596-617.doi: 10.33403rigeo.645441
596
●Submitted: 11.11.2019 ● Revised: 28.08.2020 ● Accepted: 21.09.2020
 From the 19th Century to the 20th Century, several developments such as
industrialization, urbanization, tourism, transportation and population growth have
changed people's lifestyles. Such developments are due to the influence of
innovations in science and technology. Nowadays, due to the ongoing nature of
development, many changes have occurred to the production and consumption
habits of people. Through various channels, such as media in particular, people
living in both developed and developing countries have been virtually encouraged
to produce more and increase their consumption. Due to this rapid increase in
supply and demand, the pressure of humans on the natural environment has
gradually increased, and the natural environment has become increasingly
degraded (Atasoy, 2006).
The fact that environmental problems have reached dimensions threatening the
whole of humanity has revealed the necessity for discussing these problems across
international platforms. In particular, the importance of environmental education at
all levels of education has been highlighted by representatives from a great number
of international and intergovernmental organizations and agencies such as the 1971
Environmental Education Conference of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN); the 1975 International
Belgrade Workshop; the 1977 Tbilisi Conference; and 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, Earth Summit (Carter & Simmons,
2010; Palmer, 2002; Wheeler, 1985). The UNESCO-UNEP International
Environmental Education Program has described the preparation of teachers as “the
priority of priorities” for action to improve the effectiveness of environmental
education (UNESCO‐UNEP, 1990). Furthermore, the objectives of environmental
education as defined by the Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental
Education in 1977 have been declared as awareness, sensitivity, attitudes, skills,
participation (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Following such developments, certain
topics including environmental knowledge, environmental awareness,
environmental attitudes, environmental ethics, and environmental values have
become popular areas of interest for researchers who work across both the sciences
and social sciences (Rickinson, 2001; Wray-Lake, Flanagan, & Osgood, 2010).
The term sustainable development has been talked about frequently since the
1960s and became a popular concept in the 1987 Brundtland Report. The
Brundtland Commission's brief definition of sustainable development is understood
as the ability to make development sustainable, that is, to ensure the needs of the
present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs" (United Nations, 1987). The connotations of both of root
words in this definition, “sustainable" and "development", are generally viewed as
quite positive by most people. The combination of such words imbues the
understanding that sustainability is a worthwhile value and goal, and is a powerful
feature in diverse and conflict social contexts (Robert, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005).

597
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

It was pointed out that universities, and especially teacher training institutions
can be highly effective for environmental education (Bentham, Sinnes, & Gjøtterud,
2015). In the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(2005 – 2014), it is emphasized that sustainable development issues should be
integrated into education in a holistic and interdisciplinary manner (Achim, Stan, &
Dragolea, 2018; Wals, 2014). One of the objectives of Education for Sustainable
Development has focused on incorporating Sustainable Development into ordinary
educational activities and reorienting curricula from pre-school to university
(UNESCO, 2005). Furthermore, environmental education courses have been added
to the curriculum of many universities or schools (Kilbourne & Carlson, 2008). It is
thought that environmental education in school curricula and hence the teachers
who undertake training in environmental education have an important role to play
in developing attitudes and behaviors of students towards the environment
(Stevenson, 2007). In recent years, according to the results of discussions between
scholars and researchers about the "nature of environmental education”, it is
suggested that environmental education should focus on environmental education
for sustainability (EEFS) to improve the quality of life for all citizens (Tilbury, 1993).
Consequently, numerous theories and models have been developed about how
environmental education should be planned, developed and implemented.
Over the last 30 years, many psychologists and sociologists have tried to explain
the roots of the complex interactions occurring between humans and the
environment. Numerous researchers have investigated a variety of variables which
are hypothesized to be associated with responsible environmental behavior
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Consequently, many researchers who are many
researches interested in this subject have developed a series of theories and models.
For example, the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980); the model of
responsible environmental behavior (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987), the
model of ecological behavior created by Fietkau and Kessel in 1981
(Shamuganathan & Karpudewan, 2015). In the model created by Blake (1999), it
was defined as individuality, responsibility, and practicality that three barriers
between environmental concern and action.
The oldest and simplest models of pro-environmental behavior were based on
the fact that the increase in environmental knowledge leads to increased
environmental awareness and interest. As a result, pro-environmental behaviors
could occur in individuals (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
In other words, it was assumed that education about the environment leads to pro-
environmental behavior (Burgess, Harrison, & Filius, 1998). Although the findings
of many previous studies about environmental education supported this idea that
environmental awareness and interest showed a positive development since the
1970s, some studies draw attention to the mismatch between environmental
attitudes and behaviors (Albayrak, Caber, Moutinho, & Herstein, 2011; Alwitt &
Pitts, 1996; Kilbourne & Carlson, 2008). This means that individuals with pro-
environmental attitudes may not always have pro-environmental behaviors

598
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Wray-Lake et al., 2010). Many researchers have tried
to explain such a gap between attitudes and behaviors; and Rajecki (1982) defined
four causes: direct versus indirect experience; normative influences such as social
norms, cultural traditions, and family customs influence and shape people’s
attitudes; temporal discrepancy, which refers to the fact that people’s attitudes
change over time; and attitude-behavior measurement.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) reported that all of the models developed to
explain the attitude–action gap and investigate the barriers towards pro-
environmental behavior, have some validity in certain circumstances. Also, it was
pointed out that there are commonalities, contradictions, and omissions that can be
found in the different models (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Researchers
distinguished have the specific factors established as having some influence
(positive or negative) on the models of pro-environmental behavior. Such factors
were listed as “demographic factors, external factors (for example, institutional,
economic, social, and cultural factors) and internal factors (for example, motivation,
environmental knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes, emotion, locus of control,
responsibilities, and priorities)” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 248).
Environmental values amongst the above factors were one of the research topics
of environmental psychology that emerged primarily in the US in the 1960s (Bonnes
& Secchiaroli, 1995), and this term refers to value judgments guiding how people
interpret nature. This study focused on values and attitudes that have a very
important role in determining pro-environmental behavior. Callicott (2004, p. 36)
stated that “environmental values are located at two ends: intrinsic and
instrumental. An instrumental value approach forms the basis of a mechanistic
worldview and anthropocentric environmental values, and is based on the belief
that nature exists for the benefit of humans.” According to an instrumental
approach, all beings or other lifeforms in nature are valuable and important to the
extent of their benefits to people. In contrast, the intrinsic value approach forms the
basis of an ecological worldview and eco-centric environmental values, where all
the living beings in nature are valuable and their values come from their existence
(Justus, Colyvan, Regan, & Maguire, 2009). Values specific for this field are
determiners of environmental attitudes and behaviors ranging from vehicle use to
recycling (Barr, 2007).
There are also findings to say that individual values, such as materialism, can be
effective in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors. In the Oxford English
Dictionary, materialism is defined as an emphasis on or preference for that which is
material, at the expense of spiritual or other values (“Materialism”, n.d.). Richins and
Dawson (1992) defined materialism as an individual value, which included an
emphasis on material assets. Materialism includes features such as indulgence and
status, jealousy, insensitivity to and around social issues, selfishness, lack of
principle, insecurity, desire to own and discrimination (Richins & Fournier, 1991).
Also, Belk (1985) defined materialism as the importance a consumer attaches to

599
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

property acquisition. For people with strong materialist tendencies, the acquisition
of property is the main purpose of their lives, and this is seen as the source of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to the results of the same studies
conducted on environmental issues within the marketing discipline, it was revealed
that consumption patterns, materialistic tendencies or value judgments defining the
dominant social paradigm of western industrial societies have a negative influence
on environmentally friendly behaviors (Wals, 2014). For this reason, the influence
of materialism on environmental degradation, environmental attitudes, and
behaviors should be closely examined (Kilbourne & Pickett, 2008).
It is also stressed that “materialistic values are important to consider concerning
environmental attitudes and behavior for two reasons: first, there is considerable theoretical and
empirical support that this particular value may be negatively related to environmental outcomes,
and second, it is an individual difference which may be more readily influenced than personality
variables” (Hurst, Dittmar, Bond, and Kasser 2013, p. 257).

In this context, it would be appropriate to consider the materialist values of the

individuals. Although a negative correlation has been put forward between
individuals’ materialistic tendencies or values and their environmental attitudes
and behaviors by some studies (Hirsh & Dolderman, 2007; Hurst et al., 2013;
Kemmelmeier, Krol, & Kim, 2002), However, it is noteworthy there is a lack of
literature on the correlation between environmental values and materialistic values
of teachers and prospective teachers. This is important because teachers and
prospective teachers have an important role to play in the development of future
generations as eco-friendly citizens. Consequently, the present study was conducted
on the correlation between the environmental values and materialistic values of
prospective teachers in Turkey who are studying in different fields of teaching. Also,
the current study focuses on the following questions:
1. Is there any difference between the mean scores of environmental values and
materialistic values of prospective teachers in terms of the following
variables: gender, year of study, the field of teaching, and environmental
education?
2. What is the correlation between the environmental values and materialist
values of prospective teachers?

Methodology
Research Design
This study was conducted as a survey study in which “an attempt to obtain data
from members of a population to determine the current status of that population
concerning one or more variables” (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 1993, p. 17). This type
of research can be conducted with a specific target group or across multiple groups
along with comparative analysis. A correlation study was conducted. The
correlation research used one of the primary quantitative research methods to
correlate two or more variables using mathematical analysis methods (Kaptan,
1998; Karasar, 2002; Sönmez & Alacapınar, 2016). Accordingly, the current study

600
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

focused on whether or not there were significant differences in the scale dimensions
of some demographic variables, and the correlation that may or may not exist
between the environmental values and materialistic values of prospective teachers
who participated in the study.
Study Group
The study sample was determined by a random sampling method. The study
sample consisted of prospective teachers who volunteered to answer the paper
survey used as a data collection tool. A total of 685 respondents were studying in
different departments of the Faculty of Education. Demographic data of the sample
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
The Demographic Characteristics of The Study Group
Demography Groups F %
Male 182 27
Gender
Female 503 73
1 336 49
Grade level
4 349 51
Social studies teachings (SST) 115 17
Science teaching (ST) 149 21
Departments Primary school teaching (PST) 151 22
Mathematic teaching (MT) 134 20
Preschool teaching (PT) 136 20
Total 685 100

Data Collection Tool

A paper survey consisting of three parts was used as a data collection tool. The
first part of this survey contained personal information such as gender, year of
study, the field of teaching (or department). In this section there was also a question
about whether or not the participants had previously taken any environmental
education course.
In the second part of the survey, there was the New Ecological Paradigm Scale
(NEPS) which enabled us to make a distinction between an individuals’ eco-centric
and anthropocentric environmental views. The NEPS was first developed by Dunlap
and Van Liere in 1978 (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Later in 2000 it was revised to
improve the psychometric properties of the scale (Dunlap, Liere, Mertig, and Jones,
2000). Items in the NEPS emphasized the progress of impact on the new ecological
world, the prevailing social paradigm, the use of technology, and the environment
for growth. The revised scale was then called the New Ecological Paradigm Scale and
it was translated into Turkish by some researchers, with validity and reliability
studies being conducted with different samples at different times (Aytaç & Öngen,
2012; Erdoğan, 2009; Erkal, Kılıç, & Sahin, 2012). Of these 15 items, 8 items are
related to ecological eco-centric views, whereas 7 items are related to
anthropocentric views. Due to the 5 point-Likert-type scale, scores in the eco-centric
dimension of NEPS range from a minimum of 8 to a maximum of 40, whereas scores
in the anthropocentric dimension of NEPS range from a minimum of 7 to a maximum
of 35. If a participant has very strong eco-centric values, the participant will be able

601
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

to take a maximum of 48 points, whereas if a participant has very strong

anthropocentric values, the participant will be able to take a maximum of 42 points.
The alpha co-efficient of NEPS was reported as .83 (Dunlap et al., 2000). For the
current study, the Cronbach alpha co-efficient for eco-centric and anthropocentric
dimensions of NEPS and the whole scale were found as .69, .70, and .72 respectively.
In the third part of the survey, there was the Materialist Value Scale (MVS)
developed by Richins and Dawson (Richins & Dawson, 1992). This scale includes a
total of 18 items including the dimensions of centrality (items 1 to 6), success (items
7 to 13) and happiness (items 14 to 18). Researchers reported that “the seven
centrality items produced alpha co-efficient between .71 and .75; the six-item
success subscale alpha ranged from .74 to .78; and for the five happiness items, alpha
was between .73 and .83. When combined into a single scale, alpha for the 18 items
varied between .80 to .88” (Richins & Dawson, 1992, p. 310). The validity and
reliability study of the Turkish version of MVS was conducted by Turan (2007). The
researcher reported that the alpha co-efficient of the centrality, success, and
happiness dimensions were .77, .74, and .72 respectively. The alpha for the 18 items
was reported as .84. For the study at hand, alpha co-efficient were calculated as .82
for 18 items, and for these items’ alpha ranged between .79 and .82. Also, the alpha
co-efficient for success, centrality, and happiness sub-scales were calculated as .56,
.74, and .64 respectively.
Data Evaluation
The 5 point-Likert scale formats were used for both scales with response
categories of strongly disagree (SD=1), mildly disagree (MD=2), unsure (U=3),
mildly agree (MA=4), and strongly agree (SA=5). However, 8 of the items in MVS
(items 3,6,7,8,9,13,14,15) were reverse coded. The mean scores were taken into
consideration in the interpretation of data. Therefore, if the mean scores are close
to 1 it is understood that pre-service teachers' ecological values or materialist values
are weak, whereas if the mean scores are close to 5, their ecological values or
materialist value judgments are assumed to be strong. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-
S) test was calculated to determine whether the data do not follow a normal
distribution. As shown in Table 2, the test results indicated the data do not follow a
normal distribution.
Table 2
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) Test Results for the Overall Scales, and Sub-Dimensions
Statistic df Sig.
Eco-centric (EC) .116 685 .000
Anthropocentric (AC) .088 685 .000
Success (S) .081 685 .000
Centrality (C) .076 685 .000
Happiness (H) .069 685 .000
NEPS Total .116 685 .000
MVS Total .065 685 .000

602
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

It was decided to use non-parametric tests based on the test result. The Mann-
Whitney U test was employed to determine whether the points of scales varied
according to two independent variables such as gender, level of grade, and
environmental education. The Kruskal Wallis H was used to determine whether the
points varied according to the department of teaching. The correlation between the
scale dimensions was determined by the Spearman Rho Correlation Coefficient
(rho). Statistical calculations were based on a significance level of 0.05. The mean
scores of both scales were interpreted based on Tekin's formula (range extend/
number of groups) (Tekin, 1996) as follows: 1,00-1,80= strongly disagree (SD);
1,81-2,60= mildly disagree (MD); 2,61-3,40=unsure (U); 3,41-4,20= mildly agree
(MA); 4,21-5,00= strongly agree (SA).
Findings
The Results of NEPS And MVS Scores in Terms of Demographic Variables
Table 3 displays descriptive statistic results of the scores of NEPS total, eco-
centric (EC) and anthropocentric (AC) sub-scales of NEPS, and MVS total, success
(S), centrality (C), and happiness (H) subscales of MVS. The mean score of EC was
calculated at 3.90, and this means that prospective teachers mildly agreed with eco-
centric value judgments such as “we are approaching the limit of the number of
people the earth can support”. In turn, the mean scores of AC were 3.13, and it means
that prospective teachers were unsure about anthropocentric value judgments such
as “humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs”.
For all items of NEPS, the mean score was found 3.55 which corresponds to mildly
agree on options. On the other hand, the mean scores MVS total, and MVS’ subscales
were ranged from 2.60 (centrality) to 2.80 (happiness). These results revealed that
the materialist values of the prospective teachers were not very strong, and it was
to draw attention that they were unsure about materialistic thoughts.
Table 3
The Descriptive Statistics of NEP and MVS Dimensions
Dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Eco-centric (EC) 685 1.13 5.00 3.90 .56
Anthropocentric (AC) 685 1.43 5.00 3.13 .55
NEPS Total 685 1.60 4.87 3.55 .39
Success (S) 685 1.00 5.00 2.60 .66
Centrality (C) 685 1.14 5.00 2.59 .71
Happiness (H) 685 1.00 1.89 2.80 .72
MVS Total 685 1.00 4.39 2.65 .39

The Relation of NEPS And MVS Scores with Demographic Variables

In terms of the variables of gender, level of grade, and environmental education,
The Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to analyze whether there were statistically
significant differences between some independent samples. As shown in Table 4,
there was no significant difference by gender for NEPS total and subscale scores.
However, there was a significant difference between males and females in success

603
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

and happiness subscales of MVS. For the success subscale that included statements
such as “tending to judge their own and others' success by the number and quality
of possessions accumulated”, the test result indicated that the materialist values of
men (Mdn= 2.67) were stronger than of women (Mdn= 2.50). U= 40954.5, p= .03.
Similarly, for the happiness subscale that includes such “viewing possessions and
their acquisition as essential to their satisfaction and happiness”, the test result
indicated that the materialist values of men (Mdn= 3.00) were stronger than of
women (Mdn= 2.80), U = 39221.5, p = .00.
Table 4
The Mann-Whitney U Test Results of Both Scale Dimensions by Gender
Mean Sum of
Dimensions Gender n Mdn Rank Ranks U z p
Eco-centric Male 182 4.00 352.23 64105.50
44093.5 -.74 .46
Female 503 3.88 339.66 170849.50
Anthropocentric Male 182 3.14 363.70 66194.00
42005.0 -1.65 .09
Female 503 3.14 335.51 168761.00
NEPS Total Male 182 3.60 358.93 65325.00
42874.0 -1.27 .20
Female 503 3.53 337.24 169630.00
Success (S) Male 182 2.67 369.48 66146.00
42053.5 -2.11 .03*
Female 503 2.50 333.42 168809.50
Centrality (C) Male 182 2.43 320.43 62068.50
45415.5 -1.80 .07
Female 503 2.59 351.17 172886.50
Happiness (H) Male 182 3.00 379.00 68712.00
39487.0 -2.88 .00*
Female 503 2.80 329.98 166243.00
MVS Total Male 182 2.66 356.22 67523.00
40676.0 -1.05 .29
Female 503 2.61 338.22 167432.00

The pre-service teachers who participated in this study were studying in the first
(n=336) and last (n=349) grade level across different teaching departments at a
Faculty of Education. The Mann Whitney U test results summarized in Table 5
revealed the mean scores of the first-grade levels were calculated as being higher
than those of last-grade levels in all dimensions of two scales, except eco-centric and
happiness subscales. In other words, anthropocentric values and materialistic
values of those at the first-grade level are stronger than those in the last grade level.
However, the differences between scores in the dimensions of anthropocentric,
success, and centrality were statistically significant. Remarkably, materialistic
values in the success subscale and centrality subscale included statements such as
“placing possessions and their acquisition at the center of their lives” were stronger
in the first year of undergraduate education. Likewise, there was a significant
difference between the first (Mdn= 2.67 for MVS, and Mdn= 3.60 for NEPS) and last
grades (Mdn= 2.61 for MVS, and Mdn=3.53 for NEPS) for MVS (U = 51336, p = .00),
and NEPS (U = 53331.5, p = .04) scores.
An Environmental Education Course (EEC) is one of the general culture courses
in the departments of Social Sciences Teaching (SST), Primary School Teaching
(PST), and Science Teaching (ST) of some of the Faculties of Education at
universities in Turkey. So, the participants were asked whether they took any EEC.

604
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

Table 5
The Mann-Whitney U Test Results of Both Scale Dimensions by Level of Grade
Grade Mean Sum of
Dimensions level. N Mdn Rank Ranks U z p
Eco-centric 1 336 3.88 333.73 112133.5
55517.5 -1.23 .23
4 349 4.00 351.92 122821.5
Anthropocentric 1 336 3.14 369.74 124233.5
49646.5 -3.48 .00*
4 349 3.00 317.25 110721.5
NEPS Total 1 336 3.60 358.78 120548.5
53331.5 -2.05 .04*
4 349 3.53 327.81 114406.5
Success (S) 1 336 2.67 362.99 121964.0
51916 -2.60 .00*
4 349 2.50 323.76 112991.0
Centrality (C) 1 336 2.71 373.65 125548.0
48332 -3.98 .00*
4 349 2.43 313.49 109407.0
Happiness (H) 1 336 2.80 343.26 115336.5
58543.5 -.03 .97
4 349 2.80 342.75 119618.5
MVS Total 1 336 2.67 364.71 122544.0
51336 -2.82 .00*
4 349 2.61 322.09 112411.0

Table 6 displays that a total of 330 respondents answered this question as “yes”,
whereas 355 of them answered as “no” to it. The mean scores of the eco-centric
subscale of those who participated in EEC (Mdn=4.00) were higher than those who
did not (Mdn=3.88). However, the analysis results indicated that there was no
significant difference between “yes” and “no” answers, U= 54415.5, p= .11. In
contrast, there was a significant difference between “yes” (Mdn=3.00) and “no”
(Mdn= 3.14) answers in the anthropocentric sub-scale, (U= 49905, p= .00). Similar
to these results, there were significant differences for MVS total (U= 50856.5, p=
.00), success (U= 51002.5, p= .00), and centrality (U= 50246.5, p= .00) subscales.
These results suggested that the materialist tendencies of those who did not
participate in this course were stronger.
Table 6
The Mann-Whitney U Test Results of Both Scale Dimensions by Environmental Education
Course (EEC)
Mean Sum of
Dimensions Response N Mdn Rank Ranks U Z p
Eco-centric Yes 330 4.00 355.60 117349.5
54415.5 -1.613 .11
No 355 3.88 331.28 117605.5
Anthropocentric Yes 330 3.00 316.73 104520.0
49905.0 -3.362 .00*
No 355 3.14 367.42 130435.0
NEPS Total Yes 330 3.53 329.43 108712.5
54097.5 -1.734 .08
No 355 3.60 355.61 126242.5
Success (S) Yes 330 2.50 320.05 105617.5 -2.936
51002.5 .00*
No 355 2.67 364.33 129337.5
Centrality (C) Yes 330 2.43 317.76 104861.5
50246.5 -3.225 .00*
No 355 2.57 366.46 130093.5
Happiness (H) Yes 330 2.80 332.92 109864.0
55249.0 -1.290 .19
No 355 2.80 352.37 125091.0
MVS Total Yes 330 2.56 319.61 105471.5
50856.5 -2.984 .00*
No 355 2.61 364.74 129483.5

Table 7a displays the Kruskal Wallis H (KWH) results according to departments.

This analysis result revealed that there was a significant difference among 5

605
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

departments only in the eco-centric subscale of NEPS, X2 (sd=4, n=685) = 9.55, p= .04.
The mean rank of eco-centric scores was ranked between 364.44 (SST n=115) and
304,36 (MT n=136). Group scores were compared with the Mann Whitney U test to
determine which groups differed. These test results indicated that these differences
were between SST and MT groups, between ST and MT. This result recalls that the
eco-centric values of prospective Social Studies and Science teachers have stronger
than prospective teachers in other departments.
Table 7a
The Kruskal Wallis H Results of NEP Dimensions for Department Variable
Groups Significant
Dimensions * N x̄ Mean Rank X2 Sd p differences
SST 115 3,93 364,44
ST 149 3,93 361,40
SST-MT
Eco-centric PST 151 3,87 328,26 9,55 ,04*
ST-MT
MT 134 3,83 304,36
PT 136 3,97 359,15
SST 115 3,09 324,10
ST 149 3,17 349,27
Anthropocentric PST 151 3,12 340,12 7,28 4 ,12
MT 134 3,21 378,26
PT 136 3,07 320,57
SST 115 3,54 342,27
ST 149 3,58 356,75
NEPS Total PST 151 3,52 332,35 1,41 ,84
MT 134 3,54 347,58
PT 136 3,54 335,86
*Social Studies Teachings (SST), science teaching, (ST), primary school teaching (PST), mathematic
teaching (MT), preschool teaching (PT).
The KWH result indicated that there were significant differences among
departments for MVS total and sub-scales of MVS. The mean rank of success sub-
scale was between maximum 424.00 (SST) and minimum 309.25 (ST), and the U test
result for this sub-scale showed that significant differences were between SST and
other groups, and ST and MT, X2 (sd=4, n=685) = 28.92 p= .00. In other words, materialist
tendencies on the success of SST were stronger than other groups, while ST was
weaker than other groups. In the centrality sub-scale, similarly, the highest mean
rank was calculated in the SST group (Mean Rank= 437.9), whereas the lowest mean
rank was calculated in the ST group (Mean Rank= 282.36). This difference between
the mean scores of both SST and ST groups and the mean scores of other groups
were found to be statistically significant, X2 (sd=4, n=685) = 42.65, p= .00. The analysis
results for happiness subscale (X2 (sd=4, n=685) = 37.62, p= .00) and MVS total scores (X2
(sd=4, n=685) = 52.90, p= .00) were similar to success and centrality scores (Table 7b).

606
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

Table 7b
The Kruskal Wallis H Results of MVS Dimensions for Department Variable
SST 115 2,89 424,00
Success (S) ST 149 2,47 309,25
SST- all groups
PST 151 2,58 331,59 28,92 ,00*
ST-MT
MT 134 2,61 357,76
PT 136 2,49 309,61
SST 115 2,98 437,90
SST- all groups
ST 149 2,37 282,36
ST-PST
PST 151 2,56 332,86 42,65 ,00*
Centrality (C) ST-MT
MT 134 2,51 326,26
ST-PT
PT 136 2,61 356,94
4
SST 115 3,06 413,93
SST- all groups
Happiness ST 149 2,55 270,58
ST-PST
(H) PST 151 2,87 364,14 37,62 ,00*
ST-MT
MT 134 2,82 352,01
ST-PT
PT 136 2,77 330,02
SST 115 2,97 448,33
SST- all groups
ST 149 2,46 271,56
ST-PST
MVS Total PST 151 2,64 343,97 52,90 ,00*
ST-MT
MT 134 2,63 346,28
ST-PT
PT 136 2,61 327,89
*Social Studies Teachings (SST), science teaching, (ST), primary school teaching (PST), m
athematic teaching (MT), preschool teaching (PT).

The Correlations Relation to NEPS And MVS Scores, And EE Variable

The Spearman correlation analyses were computed among scales and EE
variables for 380 participants. As shown in Table 8, the results suggest that 19 out
of 27 correlations were statistically significant. The Spearman’s rho revealed
statistically significant negative correlations between EC and AC sub-scales of NEPS
(rs[380] = -.590, p < .01). Similarly, there were a significant negative correlation
between EC with MVS’ subscales S (rs[380] = -.114, p < .01) and C (rs[380] = -.161, p <
.01); between MVS total and EC (rs[380] = -.152, p < .01). However, the analysis
results indicated nonsignificant correlation between EC sub-scale and EE (rs [380] =
.062, p > .05). In return, these significant correlations were positive for AC sub-scale
of NEPS, while there was a negative significant negative correlation between AC and
EE, (rs[380] = -.129, p < .01). Although there was a negative correlation between NEPS
and MVS, and a positive correlation between NEPS and EE, these correlations were
not statistically significant. And, conversely, there was a significant negative
correlation between MVS and EE (rs[380] = -.114, p < .01).

607
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

Table 8
The Spearman Correlation Coefficients Between Variables

EC AC S C H NEPS MVS EE
EC 1.000 -.590** -.114** -.161** -.056 .703** -.152** .062
AC 1.000 .145** .097* .076* .666** .124** -.129**
S 1.000 .506** .439** .008 .799** -.112**
C 1.000 .357** -.071 .817** -.123**
H 1.000 .014 .711** .049
NEPS 1.000 -.039 .066
MVS 1.000 -.114**
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Discussion
The research findings revealed that the eco-centric values of the prospective
teachers were stronger than the anthropocentric values. On the other hand, the
results of the analysis of MVS showed that the participants were unsure about
materialism. The results of the analysis of the sub-dimensions of both scales proved
that there were significant relationships for some of the independent variables.
According to the analysis results of NEPS, the ecological attitudes of the participants
did not differ statistically significant in the context of gender. This result is
consistent with the results of some studies used NEPS to measure the environmental
attitudes of Turkish undergraduates (Alagöz & Akman, 2016; Sever & Yalçınkaya,
2012; Tekin, 2012; Yalçınkaya, Karataş, & Talas, 2014). However, in a review of
Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich (2000b) focused on gender differences in
environmentalism, it was reported that in the majority of studies which used NEPS,
the environmental concerns of women were greater than men. However, only a few
studies found there to be no significant difference between males and females about
environmental concern; and no study found that males had significantly greater
environmental concern than women. In the literature since the 1990s, similar
results were found. There were some studies suggesting that women hold stronger
pro-environmental values, beliefs, and attitudes, and participate more actively in the
private sphere of environmental behaviors than men (Blocker & Eckberg, 1997;
Casey & Scott, 2006; Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Erkal et al., 2012;
Müderrisoglu & Altanlar, 2011; Taşkın, 2009; Xiao, Dunlap, & Hong, 2019). On the
other hand, some theories have been developed to explain the relationship between
gender and environmental attitudes or behaviors, albeit in a limited number. Of
these theories, the most commonly used theory is related to processes of
socialization and resultant gender roles. According to this theory, gender differences
in environmental attitudes and behaviors may be the product of socialization rather
than biological differences (Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof,
1993). In almost all cultures, females are socialized as more interdependent,
compassionate, nurturing, cooperative, and in caregiving roles, whereas males are
socialized as more independent and competitive (Dietz, Kalof, & Stern, 2002; Smith,
2001; Vicente-Molina, Fernández-Sainz, & Izagirre-Olaizola, 2018; Zelezny, Chua, &
Aldrich, 2000a). However, meta-analytic research that compares past and present

608
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

studies on gender and environmental attitudes and behaviors is needed to clarify

the emergence of change over time so environmental attitudes may have changed
from past to present (Zelezny et al., 2000b). Moreover, investigating the relationship
between environmental attitudes and gender in 14 countries, Davidson and
Freudenburg (1996) reported that gender differences in attitudes towards the
environment are not universal. According to the findings of some research in China,
used in support of this thesis, there were no significant difference in pro-
environmental attitudes between Chinese men and women, whereas educated
Chinese men may have stronger pro-environmental attitudes than women (Shields
& Zeng, 2012; Xiao et al., 2019; Xiao & Hong, 2010, 2018). Logically, such findings
suggest that the socialization theory to explain the relationship between
environmentalism and gender may not be applicable in China or all of the other
cultures.
The low MVS scores may be related to the fact that the participants were students
and most of them did not have a regular income. However, the findings related to
MVS demonstrated that there were differences in happiness and success subscales
in terms of gender. In other words, the tendency to accept property acquisition as a
source of happiness and success was stronger in men than in women. This result
was consistent with the findings of some previous studies (Felix et al., 2013;
Kamineni, 2005; Karabati & Cemalcilar, 2010; Segal & Podoshen, 2013; Workman &
Lee, 2011). On the subject, Browne and Kaldenberg (1997) reported that males may
be more likely to feel that owning material goods increases their happiness. In
recent years, there has been a significant amount of literature that examines the
relationship between gender and materialism. The results of such studies revealed
that the relationship between gender and materialism was a controversial issue. In
some of these studies, there was no significant relationship between gender and
materialism (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Dittmar, 2005; Handa & Khare, 2013;
Richins & Dawson, 1992; Saunders, 2007), whereas, in other studies, females scored
higher on materialism than males, in contrast to many studies that reported that
men were more materialistic than women (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; O'Cass,
2001, 2004; Workman & Lee, 2011).
The research findings suggest that there may be a relationship between
environmental education and environmental attitudes or materialist values.
Significant differences between the first and last grades in the context of
anthropocentric, centrality, and success scores may be related to environmental
literacy. There was some evidence suggesting this in the research findings. Firstly,
the environmental education course was one of the courses in third or fourth-grade
levels in some departments of the Faculty of Education where participants were
studying. The results of the analysis for anthropocentric, centrality and success
scores revealed there were significant differences between those who took
environment course and those who did not. Moreover, the results from the
correlation analysis proved there was a negative correlation with the environmental
education variable of anthropocentric, centrality, and success scores. Secondly, the

609
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

lowest eco-centric and the highest anthropocentric scores were those of the
prospective mathematics teachers. This result may be related to the absence of any
course on environmental education among the available courses in the curriculum
of the Mathematics teaching department. Also, most of the prospective Mathematics
teachers who participated in the study reported that they had not previously
attended any courses on environmental education. Thirdly, the results of MVS
revealed that the highest scores were noteworthy for prospective Social Sciences
teachers when compared with their peers in other departments. This result can
partly be explained with environmental literacy because, in this department, the
MVS scores of those participated in environmental education course were lower
than of those who did not. On the other hand, when the groups were compared
based on the department variable, significant differences between MVS scores and
environmental education variables were determined only for the social studies
teacher group. In line with this, some of the previous studies reported that there was
a negative correlation between environmental beliefs and materialist tendencies
(Andersson & Nässén, 2016; Callicott, 2004; Hurst et al., 2013; Kilbourne & Pickett,
2008), whereas some of them have reported a positive relationship between
environmental literacy and environmental attitudes (Koç & Karatekin, 2013; Pe'er,
Goldman, & Yavetz, 2007; Yalçınkaya & Çetin, 2018).
Conclusion
As put forward by previous studies examining the relationship between the level
of income and materialism (Dávila, Casabayó, & Singh, 2017; Goldberg, Gorn,
Peracchio, & Bamossy, 2003; La Barbera & Gürhan, 1997; Larsen, Sirgy, & D. Wright,
1999), and between the level of income and environmental attitudes (Arcury, 1990;
Martinsson, Lundqvist, & Sundström, 2011; Özden, 2008; Scott & Willits, 1994),
people in low-income households can be more materialistic and weaker
environmental attitudes than those in higher-income families. Therefore, the results
of the present study can partly be related to the level of family income. However, it
was not possible to make a comparison among lower-middle and upper-income
groups because the students participating in the study reported their families'
monthly income as $600 or less. Therefore, the relationship between materialism
and environmentalism with examples from different income groups may be the
subject of research for further studies. The results of the study shown that a weak
negative correlation among eco-centric values, environmental education, and
materialistic values. These results suggest that if the environmental values of the
individuals are high, their materialistic values may be low; also, environmental
literacy may be an important determinant in this regard. Undoubtedly, it is not
possible to generalize with the findings of this research, therefore, different research
findings are needed to support this subject. However, if environmental literacy is
“the priority of priorities” for a sustainable environment (Fien & Tilbury, 1996;
Tilbury, 1993; UNESCO‐UNEP, 1990), then “environmental education at primary,
secondary and tertiary levels have an important role to play in the development of
students who are capable of understanding and who are motivated to respond to

610
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

the issues which give rise to an environmental crisis” (Cutter & Smith, 2001, p. 47).
In this context, it is an important issue that teachers who will train the next
generation are known to have environmental literacy, pro-environmental attitudes,
and behaviors. However, in the curriculums of most education faculties in Turkey,
courses on environmental education are among the elective courses in curriculums
of most departments. Furthermore, in some departments, such as mathematics
education, the prospective teacher does not have any lessons about the
environmental education.
Another important issue is related to the content and conduct of environmental
education courses (Uzun & Sağlam, 2007). Providing environmental education with
an understanding about a sustainable world at all levels of education, from primary
education to university, can make people more conscious and more sensitive about
the environment. Therefore, people can develop pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviors (Çolakoğlu, 2010). As might be expected, there are different views about
the proper role of environmental education. In this vein, some approaches have
been developed such as education about the environment, education in (or through)
the environment, and education for the environment (Cutter & Smith, 2001). As is
clear from research on the subject, the content of courses dealing with
environmental education in the majority of education faculties in Turkey, and
teaching strategies used in this course are conducted as “education about the
environment” (Ballantyne & Packer, 1996; Bentham et al., 2015; Hungerford & Volk,
1990; Özdemir, 2010; Stevenson, 2007; Ünal & Dımışkı, 1998). The primary
objective of environmental education should be to educate individuals who do not
hold their personal interest’s superior to those of nature, and who have a universal
ethical understanding and a nature-centered world view. It is considered that these
objectives can be achieved to a large extent through “education for the environment”
(Cutter & Smith, 2001; Fien, 2000). In this context, if teachers at all levels of
education are "trained for the environment", the education system can be expected
to produce environmentally friendly citizens. Hence, the materialist values of
environmentally sensitive citizens may not be strong. However, this assumption
needs to be supported by future studies that focus on the relationship between
materialist values and environmental values.
References
Achim, M., Stan, A., & Dragolea, L. (2018). Study on the importance of sustainable
development strategy for a community. Journal of Environmental Protection and
Ecology, 19(1), 152-162.
Alagöz, B., & Akman, O. (2016). Anthropocentric or ecocentric environmentalism? Vews of
university students. Higher Education Studies, 6(4), 34-53.
Albayrak, T., Caber, M., Moutinho, L., & Herstein, R. (2011). The influence of skepticism on
green purchase behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13),
189-197.
Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally
sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1), 49-64.

611
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

Andersson, D., & Nässén, J. (2016). Should environmentalists be concerned about

materialism? An analysis of attitudes, behaviors and greenhouse gas emissions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 1-11.
Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization, 49(4), 300-304.
Atasoy, E. (2006). Education for Environmental, Child-Nature Interaction (in Turkish). Bursa:
Ezgi Kitapevi.
Aytaç, M., & Öngen, B. (2012). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yeni çevresel paradigma
ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğinin incelenmesi. İstatistikçiler Dergisi: İstatistik ve Aktüerya,
5(1), 14-22.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (1996). Teaching and learning in environmental education:
Developing environmental conceptions. The Journal of Environmental Education,
27(2), 25-32.
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study
of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435-473.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(3), 265-280.
Bentham, H., Sinnes, A., & Gjøtterud, S. (2015). A teacher education for sustainable
development system: An institutional responsibility. International Journal of Higher
Education, 4(4), 158-177.
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.
Blocker, T. J., & Eckberg, D. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993
general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 841-858.
Bonnes, M., & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental psychology: a psycho-social introduction.
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Browne, B. A., & Kaldenberg, D. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to
materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31-44.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication and the
cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A, 30(8),
1445-1460.
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.
Callicott, J. (2004). Explicit and implicit values in the ESA. In G. Davies, Heal, and Scott (Eds.),
The endangered species act at thirty: Retrospect and prospects. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Carter, R. L., & Simmons, B. (2010). The history and philosophy of environmental education.
In Alec M. Bodzin, Beth Shiner Klein, & S. Weave (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental
education in science teacher education (pp. 3-16). Netherlands: Springer.
Casey, P. J., & Scott, K. (2006). Environmental concern and behavior in an Australian sample
within an ecocentric–anthropocentric framework. Australian Journal of Psychology,
58(2), 57-67.
Çolakoğlu, E. (2010). Haklar söyleminde çevre eğitiminin yeri ve Türkiye’de çevre
eğitiminin anayasal dayanakları. TBB Dergisi, 88, 151-171.

612
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

Cutter, A., & Smith, R. (2001). Gauging primary school teachers’ environmental literacy: An
issue of ‘priority’. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2(2), 45-60.
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A
review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339.
Dávila, J. F., Casabayó, M., & Singh, J. J. (2017). A world beyond family: How external factors
impact the level of materialism in children. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(1), 162-
182.
Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science
Quarterly, 83(1), 353-364.
Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying–a growing concern? An examination of gender, age,
and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology,
96(4), 467-491.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring
environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a
revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Erdoğan, N. (2009). Testing the new ecological paradigm scale: Turkish case. African Journal
of Agricultural Research, 4(10), 1023-1031.
Erkal, S., Kiliç, I., & Sahin, H. (2012). Comparison of environmental attitudes of university
students determined via the new environmental paradigm scale according to the
students' personal characteristics. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 21-
39.
Felix, R., Ahmed, Z. U., & Hinck, W. (2013). Gender issues in consumer materialism: The case
of Mexico. Journal of Transnational Management, 18(2), 82-100.
Fien, J. (2000). Education for the environment: A critique- an analysis. Environmental
Education Research, 6(2), 179-192.
Fien, J., & Tilbury, D. (1996). Learning for a sustainable environment: An agenda for teacher
education in Asia and The Pacific. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. ( 1993). How to design and evaluate research in
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., Peracchio, L. A., & Bamossy, G. (2003). Understanding
materialism among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 278-288.
Handa, M., & Khare, A. (2013). Gender as a moderator of the relationship between
materialism and fashion clothing involvement among Indian youth. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 112-120.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and
environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6),
1583-1593.

613
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., & Kasser, T. (2013). The relationship between materialistic
values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 36, 257-269.
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: intrinsic
versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(4), 187-191.
Kamineni, R. (2005). Influence of materialism, gender and nationality on consumer brand
perceptions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(1), 25-
32.
Kaptan, S. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma ve istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Tekışık Web Ofset.
Karabati, S., & Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with
Turkish university students. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(4), 624-633.
Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (11 Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G., & Kim, Y. H. (2002). Values, economics, and proenvironmental
attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-cultural Research, 36(3), 256-285.
Kilbourne, W. E., & Carlson, L. (2008). The dominant social paradigm, consumption, and
environmental attitudes: Can macromarketing education help? Journal of
Macromarketing, 28(2), 106-121.
Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern,
and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885-
893.
Koç, H., & Karatekin, K. (2013). Coğrafya öğretmen adaylarinin çevre okuryazarlık
düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Marmara Coğrafya
Dergisi(28), 139-174. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-
file/3350
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), 239-260.
La Barbera, P. A., & Gürhan, Z. (1997). The role of materialism, religiosity, and demographics
in subjective well‐being. Psychology & Marketing, 14(1), 71-97.
Larsen, V., Sirgy, M. J., & D. Wright, N. (1999). Materialism: The construct, measures,
antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 3(2), 78-110.
Martinsson, J., Lundqvist, L. J., & Sundström, A. (2011). Energy saving in Swedish
households. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes. Energy Policy,
39(9), 5182-5191.
Materialism. (n.d). In Oxford learner’s dictionaries. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/materialism?q=m
aterialism
Müderrisoglu, H., & Altanlar, A. (2011). Attitudes and behaviors of undergraduate students
toward environmental issues. International Journal of Environmental Science &
Technology, 8(1), 159-168.
O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion
clothing. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 9(1), 46-60.

614
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

O'Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion

clothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 869-882.
Özdemir, O. (2010). Yeni bir çevre eğitimi perspektifi: Sürdürülebilir gelişme amaçlı eğitim.
Eğitim ve Bilim, 32(145), 23-38.
Özden, M. (2008). Environmental awareness and attitudes of student teachers: An empirical
research. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(1),
40-55. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2167/irgee227.0?
needAccess=true
Palmer, J. A. (2002). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress
and promise. London and New York: Routledge.
Pe'er, S., Goldman, D., & Yavetz, B. (2007). Environmental literacy in teacher training:
Attitudes, knowledge, and environmental behavior of beginning students. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 39(1), 45-59.
Rajecki, D. (1982). Attitudes: themes and advances. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3296
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(3), 303-316.
Richins, M., & Fournier, S. (1991). Some theoretical and popular notions concerning
materialism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 403-414.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review
of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207-320.
Robert, K. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development?
Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment, 47(3), 8-21.
Saunders, S. A. (2007). A snapshot of five materialism studies in Australia. Journal of Pacific
Rim Psychology, 1(1), 14-19.
Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania
survey. Environment and Behavior, 26(2), 239-260.
Segal, B., & Podoshen, J. S. (2013). An examination of materialism, conspicuous consumption
and gender differences. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 189-198.
Sever, R., & Yalçınkaya, E. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının çevresel tutumlarının
incelenmesi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (26), 1-15.
Shamuganathan, S., & Karpudewan, M. (2015). Modeling environmental literacy of
Malaysian pre-university students. International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 10(5), 757-771.
Shields, T., & Zeng, K. (2012). The reverse environmental gender gap in China: Evidence
from “The China Survey”. Social Science Quarterly, 93(1), 1-20.
Smith, D. C. (2001). Environmentalism, feminism, and gender. Sociological Inquiry, 71(3),
314-334.
Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2016). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (4 ed.).
Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322-348.

615
© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 10(4), Winter 2020

Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose

and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139-153.
Taşkın, O. (2009). The environmental attitudes of Turkish senior high school students in the
context of postmaterialism and the new environmental paradigm. International
Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 481-502.
Tekin, E. (2012). Environmental awareness and concerns of pre-service teachers in a private
non-profit university (Master dissertation). Bilkent University, Ankara. Retrieved from
https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (319547.
Tekin, H. (1996). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (9 Ed.). Ankara: Yargı Yayınları.
Tilbury, D. (1993). Environmental education: Developing a model for initial teacher education
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2005421168?accountid=16701
Turan, G. (2007). Relationship between materialism and self construals (Doctoral
dissertation). Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. Retrieved from
https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/16933/index.pdf?sequence=1&
isAllowed=y
Ünal, S., & Dımışkı, E. (1998). UNESCO uluslararası çevre eğitim programına (IEEP) göre
ortaöğretim çevre eğitimi için öğretmenlerin yetiştirilmesi. M. Ü. Atatürk Eğitim
Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 30, 299-308.
UNESCO. (2005). Decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014):
international implementation scheme. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/
education/en/
UNESCO‐UNEP. (1990). Environmentally educated teachers: The priority of priorities?
Connect, 15(1), 1-3. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000153574
United Nations, (1987). Report of the World commission on environment and development
our common future, Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/TOSHIBA/Desktop/%C3%A7
al%C4%B1%C5%9Fmalar/R%C4%B0GEO/our_common_futurebrundtlandreport1
987.pdf
Uzun, N., & Sağlam, N. (2007). Orta öğretimde çevre eğitimi ve öğretmenlerin çevre eğitimi
programları hakkındaki görüşleri. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 26, 176-
187.
Vicente-Molina, M., Fernández-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a
difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country University
students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89-98.
Wals, A. E. (2014). Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review
of learning and institutionalization processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 8-15.
Wheeler, K. (1985). International environmental education: A historical perspective.
Environmental Education and Information, 4(2), 144-160.
Workman, J. E., & Lee, S. H. (2011). Materialism, fashion consumers and gender: A cross‐
cultural study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(1), 50-57.
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent
environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment
and Behavior, 42(1), 61-85.

616
Özdemir, N. (2020). An Investigation of The Relationship Between Ecological and Materialistic…..

Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China.
Population and Environment, 32(1), 88-104.
Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2018). Gender differences in environmental behaviors among the
Chinese public: Model of mediation and moderation. Environment and Behavior,
50(9), 975-996.
Xiao, C., Dunlap, R. E., & Hong, D. (2019). Ecological worldview as the central component of
environmental concern: Clarifying the role of the NEP. Society & Natural Resources,
32(1), 53-72.
Yalçınkaya, E., & Çetin, O. (2018). An investigation of secondary school students’
environmental attitudes and opinions about environmental education. Review of
International Geographical Education Online, 8(1), 125-148. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=cdfac71b-
ecf6-4976-8875-27e4aef4af8c%40sdc-v-sessmgr01
Yalçınkaya, E., Karataş, A., & Talas, M. (2014). A study on the environmental attitudes of
candidate teachers. mediterranean journal of humanities, 9(1), 275-284. Retrieved
from https://www.trdizin.gov.tr/publication/show/pdf/paper/TVRrd016azFOUT09
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000a). Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism-statistical data included. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443-445.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000b). New ways of thinking about
environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 443-457.
Biographical Statement
Nevin ÖZDEMİR is associate professor of geography education at Education Faculty of
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. She received her bachelor's degree (1986)
from Geography Department, Ankara University, and master's degree (1994) from Human
and Economic Geography of Atatürk University Social Sciences Institute. She also completed
her Ph.D. (2002) in Social Sciences Institute of Ankara University. She is interested in
geography education, environmental education, hazard education, experiential learning,
learning styles, and attitudes studies in education.

617