See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304676358

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Littering Prevention Behavior

Scale

Article  in  Ecopsychology · June 2016

DOI: 10.1089/eco.2015.0081

CITATIONS READS
7 755

1 author:

Oluyinka Akanmu Ojedokun

Adekunle Ajasin University
62 PUBLICATIONS   1,072 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Re/telling the War Story, Healing the Wounds: A Biliotherapeutic Reading of Recent African Novels View project

PhD. Thesis submitted to the University of Ibadan, Nigeria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oluyinka Akanmu Ojedokun on 11 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Development and Psychometric
Evaluation of the Littering Prevention
Behavior Scale
Oluyinka Ojedokun
Department of Pure and Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin
University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria.
Abstract
Littering is a human-made environmentally destructive behavior that is
prevalent in most countries. Littering prevention behavior is an inroad to
address the problem. Unfortunately, the measurement of littering pre-
vention behavior remains relatively unexplored, consequently creating
a gap in knowledge. To close this gap, a measure of littering preven-
tion behavior was developed in three stages (Stage 1, n = 25; Stage 2,
n = 300; and Stage 3, n = 1, 360) among residents of Ibadan. A se-
quential mixed-method design was adopted for data collection to vali-
date the scale. Data were analyzed using both exploratory factor analysis
and confirmatory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis yielded
one-factor solution of 41 items, which was further validated by means
of confirmatory factor analysis. The fit statistics indicated that the fit
was acceptable and confirms the one-factor solution of the 41-item
littering prevention behavior scale. RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, CFI, and
NNFI were .034, .042, .763, .963, and .991, respectively. Thus, the
one-factor solution found in Stage 2 was confirmed by Stage 3. Analyses
indicated that the final scale showed satisfactory internal consistency
a = .81), and provided a valid measure of littering prevention behavior.
(
Overall, the results provide satisfactory psychometric properties for the
littering prevention behavior scale. The scale could be useful for policy
makers, environmental program consultants, and scholars as a ‘‘stand-
in’’ measure for littering prevention behavior, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of behavior change interventions designed to increase lit-
tering prevention behavior. Key Words: Littering prevention behavior
scale—Psychometric properties.
138 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
1. Introduction
T
he prevalence of littering in most countries is a behavioral,
health, and environmental problem (Keep Australia Beau-
tiful Queensland, 2012; Oranjewoud, 2009). In Nigeria, lit-
tering is also a persistent problem (Ojedokun, 2011);
governments, environmental protection agencies, and other stake-
holders in public health are facing challenges in preventing littering
in urban areas (Rahji & Oloruntoba, 2009). Particularly, in the city of
Ibadan, the capital of Oyo State, littering continues to be a prob-
lematic issue (Ojedokun, 2011), where floods are linked to blockage
of drainage systems triggered by indiscriminate refuse dumping and
littering (Okpala, 1979; Oyo State Government, 2011; The Sun, 2014).
Littering is one of the human-made, environmentally destructive
behaviors that is harmful to living beings and impacts negatively on
the environment in terms of environmental quality, health concerns,
and social, aesthetic, and economic costs (Bator et al., 2011).
Litter, a piece of misplaced solid waste (Geller, 1980) and any
disposable items that are not properly disposed of or are placed in an
inappropriate location (Schultz et al., 2013), includes items of all size,
such as cigarette butts, candy wrappers, abandoned automobiles,
appliances, and even spacecraft (Schultz et al., 2013). Human ac-
tivities create litter, which is often left behind or abandoned in public
places (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Dropping waste on bare ground in public
places as opposed to disposing of it properly constitutes the human
act of littering (Ojedokun, 2015).
In Nigeria, some pragmatic efforts have been made in preventing
littering. These include anti-littering laws and penalties for littering
(Ogwueleka, 2003); public education, awareness campaigns, and
formal governmental structures (Oyo State Government Edict, 1997);
and environmental sanitation and protection policies (Federal Gov-
ernment of Nigeria, 1989, 2005). Yet the littering habit among the
residents is unabated. In fact, many cities in Nigeria have been
DOI: 10.1089/eco.2015.0081

described as dirty, unsanitary, and aesthetically displeasing in the
world (Mabogunje, 1996). Hence, addressing littering among citizens
is a priority of the government in Nigeria (Rahji & Oloruntoba, 2009).
Individually tailored littering prevention behavior appears critical to
mitigate the problem, because its adoption by many people has im-
plications for environmental quality.
Littering prevention behavior, discretionary actions individuals
engage in to make sure that litter does not end up in an inappropriate
place, belongs to the umbrella term of proenvironmental behavior
(Bator et al., 2011). Proenvironmental behaviors are individual ac-
tions that consciously seek to minimize harm to the environment, or
helping behaviors directed toward the environment (Griskevicius
et al., 2010; Inoue & Alfaro-Barrantes, 2015; Unsworth et al., 2013).
Individuals with more littering prevention tendencies are likely to
report/perceive themselves as taking discretionary actions that pre-
vent dropping of litter in an inappropriate location. Individuals may
perceive themselves as engaging in these personal initiatives in dif-
ferent ways, for example, pointing out to litterers that littering is not
good; volunteering to pick up litter; telling pedestrians, friends, and
family to pick up their litter; telling people to keep litter in their bag
until they get to a litter bin; placing a litter bin near their house or
shop in order to make disposing of litter easier; initiating actions that
prevent littering; preventing litter from blowing out of a trash bin;
and educating people on the environmental, social, financial, and
aesthetic implications of littering.
Littering prevention behavior is a bottom-up solution that focuses
on individual-level environmentally friendly behavior; its approach is
aimed at preventing rather than solving the consequences of littering.
This approach is necessitated because governments cannot face the
problem of littering alone; citizens need to act as well. This is a problem
in Nigeria because many citizens believe that environmental cleanli-
ness is not their responsibility (Abdulazziz & Duruzoechi, 2003;
Ugwuh, 2009) but a job for government and its agencies. Littering
prevention behavior is thus a proactive and self-sustaining behavior
aimed at reducing public expenditure on littering. While engagement
in littering prevention is individual in nature, its adoption by many
people can be a catalyst for improving environmental quality and by
extension mitigating the negative impacts of littering.
Given the importance of littering prevention behavior to envi-
ronmental quality, paradoxically, its measurement remains unex-
plored, and scales tapping littering prevention behavior are rare in
the environmental psychology literature. To produce a body of re-
search in this area and design interventions to promote littering
prevention behavior, it is necessary to devise a valid tool to measure
such behavior in a given population. For example, profiling the
ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.
LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE
antecedents of littering prevention behavior presupposes the exis-
tence of a reliable measure. Also, intervention aimed at promoting
littering prevention behavior presupposes that the behavior has been
benchmarked in a population. Practically, the development of a lit-
tering prevention behavior scale (LPBS) could be useful for multiple
purposes, including environmental psychology, environmental ed-
ucation, attitudes, behavior change, and further empirical research in
this area.
The scale development was necessitated by the need for a valid and
reliable measure of littering prevention behavior among residents of
Ibadan. Littering is a serious environmental pollution problem in
most urban cities in Nigeria, particularly among the residents of
high-density areas of Ibadan in Oyo State, and addressing the
problem is at a significant financial cost to the government. Popu-
lation increase, inadequate urban planning, and socioeconomic ac-
tivities have created booming amounts of waste, including litter in
these areas (Ojedokun, 2011).
2. Trends From the Literature
Researchers have developed measures of responsible/proactive/
proenvironmental behavior. Some of these are specific to waste
prevention behavior (Bortoleto et al., 2012), beach littering behavior
(Eastman et al., 2013), conservation behavior (Schultz et al., 2005),
environmental citizenship behavior (Boiral & Paille, 2012), and
proenvironmental behaviors (Cleveland et al., 2005; Gupta & Chopra,
2014). Others relate to general ecological behavior (Kaiser, 1998;
Oskamp, 1995; Verhallen & Van Raaij, 1981), responsible environ-
mental behavior (Cottrell, 2003), anti-ecological behavior (Martı́n
et al., 2014), proenvironmental behavioral intention (Halpenny,
2010), and civic engagement behavioral beliefs (Garling et al., 2003;
Halpenny, 2006).
While several of the mentioned scales have some items that are
indicators of aspects of environmentally friendly behavior, waste
prevention behavior, and littering generation, the author is not aware
of any published article to date that presents a measure of littering
prevention behavior. Therefore, given that littering is a problem in
most countries, an instrument capable of eliciting valid and reliable
responses concerning littering prevention behavior is warranted for
research and littering management purposes.
2.1. Measuring environmental behavior
In environmental psychology literature, measuring environmental
behavior is complex and difficult, but most studies in environmental
psychology rely on self-reports in response to questionnaire items.
Some authors (e.g., Corral-Verdugo, 1997; Gifford, 2007) have stated
 VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 139
OJEDOKUN
that self-reported behavior does not always tally up well with ob-
served behavior, while others (e.g., Fuji et al., 1985; Gifford & Nils-
son, 2014; Warriner et al., 1984; Yeager & Krosnick, 2010) have
posited that self-reports are adequate indicators of actual behaviors
especially when these behaviors represent dichotomized practices (‘‘I
do’’ or ‘‘I don’t’’) or circumstances (‘‘I own’’ or ‘‘I don’t own’’) (Hirst &
Goeltz, 1985). Nevertheless, Vining and Ebreo (2002) suggested that
as the measurement of people’s actual behavior may not always be
feasible, ways to collect valid and reliable measure of self-reported
behavior should be studied in more detail.
Based on the suggestion of Vining and Ebreo (2002), if it becomes
impracticable to observe the actual littering prevention behavior of
individuals, self-reports of littering prevention behavior would be the
nearest proxy. This assertion is consistent with the self-schema
theory (Markus, 1977), which explains that individuals use cognitive
structures about the self (i.e., self-conceptualization garnered
through experience about self, social roles, events, and behavior-
setting norms) to select and process self-related incoming informa-
tion from the social environment.
The present study sought to develop and test the construct validity
of a LPBS by adopting the self-schema theory. Schema is a cognitive
structure that consists in part, a representation of some defined
stimulus domain, including specification of the relationship among
its attributes, as well as specific examples or instances of the stimulus
domain (Taylor & Crocker, 1978). Self-schemas refer to the many
beliefs individuals possess about themselves. Self-schema theory is
one of the theoretical approaches for linking self-report behavior to
actual behavior, and research has yielded evidence that self-schemas
are linked to salient and stable individual traits and behavior
(Augoustinos et al., 2013, pp. 68–69). Research based on this theory
suggests that self-schemas can be thought of as the hypotheses of
the self-concept/self-theory.
The self-schema concept is therefore consistent with various psy-
chological conceptions of the self that emphasize the static, enduring,
and self-protecting nature of the self-concept (e.g., Augoustinos et al.,
2013, pp. 68–69). For example, if a person perceives himself or
herself as an ‘‘environmentalist,’’ this quality is considered to be self-
relevant to the individual, and most likely the individual has a well-
developed self-conception of this quality. The reason for this is not
far-fetched; people are self-schematic for qualities that are impor-
tant to their self-definition, in which they think of themselves as
extreme (high or low), and on which they are certain the opposite
does not hold.
In contrast, if people are self-schematic for a particular quality
they are not interested in or concerned about, the quality is not
140 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
relevant to self-conception. This means that when individuals are
exposed to information or contexts that remind them of a particular
quality they possess, the stronger that self-schema becomes. That is,
people who are schematic about the environment are more likely to
perceive themselves as protecting it. Therefore, as self-report be-
havior is critical for actual behavior, it is crucial to devise a valid
measure of self-report littering prevention behavior.
In light of the foregoing, this study aims at developing a valid
measure of littering prevention behavior. Developing a LPBS would
serve the threefold purpose of bridging theory, research, and practice.
First, the development of a LPBS will assist in closing the identified
gap within the current measures of proenvironmental behavior.
Second, a reliable and valid scale is valuable for research in the area
of littering prevention behavior. Third, a valid measure of self-report
littering prevention behavior could be a ‘‘stand-in’’ tool to evaluate
the impact of littering prevention interventions, provide support for
the usefulness of self-schema theory, and aid littering management
in a diverse range of settings.
3. Method
3.1. Setting
The study area is Ibadan, an indigenous town located in the humid
southwest of Nigeria. It is the largest city in West Africa. Its land mass
is about 7.5 miles (12 km) radius at an altitude ranging from ap-
proximately 500 to 700 ft (150 to 210 m) with isolated ridges and
peaks rising to about 900 ft (270 m). The city of Ibadan conforms to
most African cities known for having old town (inner core), transi-
tional, and peripheral areas. Administratively, the Ibadan metropolis
was under one local government before it was split into five distinct
local government areas (North-East, North-Central, North-West,
South-East, and South-West) in 1991. In the 2006 population census
(National Population Commission, 2009), Ibadan was estimated at
about 2.55 million. The population was projected to increase at 3.2%
annually (Oyo State Government, 2011). Ibadan is populated by
residents who engage in retail trading, small-scale business, and
employment in government and private organizations. It has several
public, private, and social amenities, and about 300 public and private
nursery, primary, and secondary schools.
3.2. Participants
The participants for item generation were a convenience sample of
25 (12 male and 13 female) residents of Ibadan. Their ages ranged
from 20 to 56 years, with a mean age of 22.8 years (SD = 9.0). In terms
of educational level, 5 (20%) respondents had secondary school ed-
ucation, 12 (48%) had a college of education certificate, and 8 (32%)

had a university degree or equivalent. The sample consisted of 18
(72%) respondents who were married and 7 (28%) who were single or
divorced. Fifteen (60%) respondents were Christians, and 10 (40%)
were Muslims.
To pretest the LPBS after item generation and development stages,
a cross-sectional survey was used to administer the questionnaires to
300 (150 male and 150 female, ranging in age from 19 to 59,
M = 21.53 years, SD = 6.59) residents. They were drawn in a multi-
stage sampling method using a probability proportional to size
technique from five communities in Ibadan that were not included in
the validation study. Concerning marital status, 69 (23%) of the re-
spondents were single, 204 (68%) were married, and 27 (9%) were
divorced or separated. Concerning education level, 20 (6.67%) had
primary school education, 79 (26.33%) had secondary school edu-
cation, 102 (34%) had diploma or college of education certificates,
and 99 (33%) had a university degree or above.
Regarding the adequacy of sample size in exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), suggestions for item-to-response ratios range from
1:4 (Rummel, 1970), 5:1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012), to at least 1:10
(Schwab, 1980) respondents to the number of items in the scale, and
Worthington and Whittaker (2006) suggested a sample of at least 300
for the pilot study. Based on Tabachnick and Fidell (2012), if 52 items
were retained to construct the LPBS, pilot-testing the 52-item scale
required a minimum of 260 respondents; hence 300 respondents
seemed to be adequate.
The pilot study was conducted to purify and refine the scale as well
as to make sure the items were clear and to estimate the survey
completion time. The participants were informed that the survey was
interested in some environment-related issues. After permission was
granted, individuals were given questionnaires to complete. The re-
spondents were asked to rate the 52 items in response to the following
question: ‘‘In the last three months before this research, how often, if
at all, have you performed any of the listed actions?’’ In addition, the
respondents were asked to comment freely on the format and layout
of the questionnaire and state any problems in completing the
questionnaire. The pilot sample was nearly free of missing data; only
five respondents missed two items.
Stage 3 was to validate the EFA using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), and data were obtained as part of a larger study. For CFA, a
minimum sample size of 200 has been recommended by Hoelter
(1983). The data were collected by a questionnaire survey from a
sample of 1,360 residents of Ibadan that comprises 770 (56.6%) males
and 590 (43.4%) females. A similar procedure adopted in the pilot
study was used to collect the data. The age of the respondents ranged
from 18 to 65 years, and the mean was 32.36 (SD = 10.98).
ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.
LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Littering prevention behavior. The 41-item LPBS was devel-
oped by the author. The items measure personal conscious actions
grouped under littering prevention behavior. It is a self-report
measure with response format in Likert scale ranging from never (1)
to always (5), and the higher the scores, the more the tendencies of
engaging in littering prevention behavior. The final version of the
measure is presented in Table 1.
3.3.2. Social desirability. Because respondents might try to present
themselves in a more favorable light when asked about littering pre-
vention behavior, socially desirable responses were controlled for
by including the 10-item short-form Marlowe-Crowne (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960) social desirability scale in the questionnaire. The items
describe culturally approved behaviors with a low probability of oc-
currence using a true or false response format. Participants were asked
to respond ‘‘True’’ or ‘‘False’’ to five items keyed in the true direction and
five items in the false direction. Higher scores represent a higher ten-
dency to answer questions that makes the participant appear in a fa-
vorable light. The objective of this scale was to collect evidence for
response bias. Strahan and Gerbasi (1972) reported that the scale has
moderate internal consistency, with alpha coefficients ranging from
.57 to .70. The alpha coefficient of the scale in the current study was .74.
The instrument also incorporated a demographic form that gath-
ered information on age, gender, marital status, education level, re-
ligious affiliation, and occupation.
3.4. Scale development
In scale development, Cohen and Swerdlik (2002) stated that the
process of developing scales falls into five stages. These are test
conceptualization, test construction, pilot study, item analysis, and
test revision. There are also various steps in the scale development
process recommended by different authors (e.g., Clark & Watson,
1995; DeVellis, 2012; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), often described
using differing labels for similar steps, but most can be seen in terms
of similar approaches.
The steps outlined by DeVellis (2012), Schwab (1980), and Spector
(1992) include scale conceptualization, item generation, item writing
and scaling, scale purification (i.e., item analysis, internal consis-
tency, and EFA), and validation using CFA. The development and
validation of the LPBS follows a procedure consisting of six steps,
namely, construct conceptualization, item generation, item writing
and scaling, item selection, scale purification (i.e., item analysis,
internal consistency, and EFA), and validation (i.e., CFA).
 VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 141
OJEDOKUN

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Item-Total Correlations, and Factor Loadings of the LPBS
FACTOR FINAL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS LOADING (l) FACTOR
ITEM-TOTAL SQ. MULTIPLE LOADING
ITEM MEAN (SD) SKEWNESS KURTOSIS CORRELATION CORRELATION 1 2 COMMUNALITIES 1
1. Tell litterers that littering 3.93 (1.37) -1.07 -0.27 .52 .47 .57 -.37 .46 .56
harms the environment

2. Show family and friends 3.29 (1.44) -0.09 -1.53 .56 .40 .48 .29 .31 .49
the difference between a
clean and littered
environment

3. Organise neighbours to 3.74 (1.43) -0.77 -0.83 .56 .42 .51 -.40 .43 .51
pick up litter in a public
area where litter has
accumulated

4. At work, throwing litter 3.86 (1.31) -0.96 -0.37 .53 .50 .58 -.36 .47 .58
in the litter bin

5. Take responsibility for 3.81 (1.37) -0.87 -0.51 .56 .43 .51 -.40 .43 .51
dealing with the litter I
generated

6. Create time to educate 3.11 (1.47) 0.10 -1.51 .54 .43 .46 .36 .34 .47
children on the
appropriate litter
disposal behaviour

7. Ask shop owners in my 3.94 (1.36) -1.02 -0.25 .51 .53 .57 -.47 .53 .56
neighbourhood to
provide litter bins in
front of their shops for
disposing litter

8. Whenever possible, 3.33 (1.52) -0.19 -1.52 .51 .43 .54 .35 .41 .55
stressing the importance
of disposing litter
appropriately to family
and friends

9. Educate family and 3.86 (1.31) -0.95 -0.37 .56 .57 .62 -.40 .55 .61
friends about littering
and how bad it is

10. When I see someone 3.81 (1.35) -0.86 -0.50 .58 .58 .63 -.38 .56 .63
littering, directing him/
her politely to use the
litter bin

11. Pick up litter that wasn’t 3.76 (1.34) -0.86 -0.52 .54 .52 .60 -.37 .50 .59
my own
(continued)

142 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016

 LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE

Table 1. Continued
FACTOR FINAL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS LOADING (l) FACTOR
ITEM-TOTAL SQ. MULTIPLE LOADING
ITEM MEAN (SD) SKEWNESS KURTOSIS CORRELATION CORRELATION 1 2 COMMUNALITIES 1
12. Tell litterers that 3.67 (1.38) -0.74 -0.79 .57 .44 .52 -.38 .42 .51
everyone likes a clean
environment

13. When I generated litter 3.31 (1.54) -0.20 -1.54 .56 .47 .49 .25 .30 .50
inside a market, keeping
it in my pocket/bag until
I can locate the litter bin

14. Oppose dropping of litter 3.49 (1.44) -0.53 -1.13 .57 .44 .40 -.39 .32 .40
in an inappropriate place
no matter who is
concerned

15. Report litter that has 3.55 (1.55) -0.44 -1.37 .57 .47 .48 .26 .30 .49
accumulated on public
and private land to
appropriate persons

16. Not throw any litter out 3.54 (1.53) -0.56 -1.24 .55 .40 .41 -.41 .34 .40
of vehicle windows

17. Ask neighbours to discard 3.26 (1.53) -0.09 -1.58 .53 .47 .59 .32 .45 .60
litter properly

18. Create time to remove 3.25 (1.49) -0.04 -0.56 .56 .47 .57 .32 .42 .58
litter in my surroundings

19. Encourage friends/family 3.36 (1.53) -0.24 -1.47 .58 .48 .46 .19 .24 .46
to pick up their litter and
use the litter bin

20. Keep litter generated 3.49 (1.54) -0.38 -1.48 .57 .47 .59 .28 .43 .60
inside a vehicle in my
pocket/bag rather than
throwing it out of vehicle
windows

21. Talk to a litterer in a 3.82 (1.45) -0.90 -0.68 .58 .42 .53 -.35 .40 .52
manner to make him/her
feel guilty

22. Point out the unfriendly 3.37 (1.54) -0.22 -1.56 .58 .47 .60 .28 .44 .61
environmental action to
a litterer

23. Wait until a litter bin is 3.65 (1.51) -0.70 -1.06 .51 .50 .52 -.37 .41 .51
found before discarding
my litter
(continued)

ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 143
OJEDOKUN

Table 1. Continued
FACTOR FINAL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS LOADING (l) FACTOR
ITEM-TOTAL SQ. MULTIPLE LOADING
ITEM MEAN (SD) SKEWNESS KURTOSIS CORRELATION CORRELATION 1 2 COMMUNALITIES 1
24. Make it a habit to discard 3.42 (1.53) -0.46 -1.32 .53 .49 .44 -.32 .31 .44
disposable bottles and
cans into the litter bin

25. Whenever possible, 3.64 (1.55) -0.71 -1.10 .56 .48 .47 -.35 .35 .46
encourage people around
me to take personal
responsibility for their
litter

26. Tell individuals who litter 3.33 (1.54) -0.17 -1.59 .54 .50 .57 .38 .47 .58
the public areas to pick
up the litter, and find the
litter bin

27. Cover the litter bin 2.82 (1.55) -0.22 -1.46 .14 .18 .13 .35 .47 .13

28. Make sure the shreds of 3.44 (1.53) -0.30 -1.50 .58 .50 .56 .36 .45 .57
paper generated by me
ended up in the litter bin

29. Carry litter bin or bag in 3.39 (1.50) -0.19 -1.56 .63 .54 .60 .40 .51 .60
the car

30. Not leaving litter on the 3.45 (1.50) -0.28 -1.53 .53 .59 .64 .40 .58 .65
bare ground in public
areas

31. Encourage friends and 3.39 (1.54) -0.25 -1.55 .51 .50 .56 .36 .45 .57
family to pick up their
litter

32. At a restaurant, tell 2.19 (1.46) 0.91 -0.68 -.41 .40 -.45 .33 .47 -.45
people not to sweep
litter under the table
after eating

33. Make waste papers into a 3.35 (1.53) -0.19 -1.48 .52 .48 .58 .37 .47 .59
bundle before dropping
them into a litter bin, so
that they don’t end up as
litter

34. Whenever possible, 3.38 (1.55) -0.27 -1.51 .55 .44 .44 .32 .29 .44
explain why people
should not litter public
areas
(continued)

144 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016

 LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE

Table 1. Continued
FACTOR FINAL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS LOADING (l) FACTOR
ITEM-TOTAL SQ. MULTIPLE LOADING
ITEM MEAN (SD) SKEWNESS KURTOSIS CORRELATION CORRELATION 1 2 COMMUNALITIES 1
35. Tell neighbours to take 3.50 (1.56) -0.39 -1.50 .53 .45 .58 .30 .43 .58
responsibility for litter in
their surroundings

36. Tell friends to drop 3.74 (1.47) -0.84 -0.79 .44 .49 .49 -.31 .32 .48
disposable bottles and
cans into the litter bins

37. Make conscious effort to 3.46 (1.52) -0.29 -1.53 .55 .42 .49 .21 .28 .49
put rotten fruits and
vegetables in the litter
bin

38. Make an effort to 3.52 (1.53) -0.39 -1.45 .59 .46 .58 .28 .42 .59
educate people on the
specific actions involved
in preventing littering

39. Carry litter with me till 3.14 (1.44) -0.78 -0.83 .29 .21 .33 -.21 .47 .33
locating a litter bin

40. Tell shop owners that 3.69 (1.44) -0.79 -0.83 .54 .43 .49 -.30 .32 .48
they are responsible for
litter around their shops

41. Whenever possible, 2.98 (1.53) 0.16 -1.52 .58 .45 .47 .31 .31 .47
caution individual/s who
litter the environment

42. Tell neighbours and 3.89 (1.37) -0.10 -0.37 .58 .46 .54 -.30 .37 .53
friends to provide litter
bins around their house

43. Ask fellow commuters to 3.81 (1.34) -0.93 -0.45 .51 .59 .54 -.29 .36 .53
use the litter basket
instead of throwing litter
through the vehicle
windows

44. Empty full litter bin 3.22 (1.48) -0.01 -1.56 .55 .44 .53 .36 .41 .53
instantly

To achieve these steps, three stages of procedure were adopted in
developing and validating the LPBS. In line with previous recom-
mendations (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996),
items generated in Stage 1 were purified and refined in Stage 2, and
data from Stage 3 were used for CFA.
3.4.1. Scale conceptualization. Evaluation of the existing proen-
vironmental behavior scales revealed that some of them contained
items that are indicators of littering behavior and waste prevention,
but they do not feature items that assess littering prevention be-
havior. In response to this gap, items were generated to capture

ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 145
OJEDOKUN
littering prevention behavior. The first step was to conceptualize
littering prevention behavior and generate items that are represen-
tative of the construct. Littering prevention behavior is defined as
voluntary conscious actions individuals embark on to make sure that
litter does not end up in an inappropriate location in everyday
practices.
3.4.2. Item generation. A pool of 75 items was generated through
the analysis of structured interview data collected from 25 residents
of Ibadan who were asked to write out 10 actions that they considered
to be littering prevention behavior. The statements were content
analyzed to classify the key words/themes by using frequency count
and percentage of repeated words. The suitability of each item was
based on its frequency in the pool of items. The minimum frequency
recorded for the selected items was 3, while the maximum frequency
was 73. The frequency count aimed at establishing agreement among
respondents on what actions they considered as littering prevention
behavior, thereby establishing the validity of such items.
The items generated were reviewed by 15 of the 25 interviewees to
assess them for representativeness and wording ambiguities. They
were asked to evaluate each item as clearly representative, somewhat
representative, or not representative of the information provided
during the structured interview. Interviewees’ item endorsement
frequencies for the 75 items were checked to ensure that there was
adequate item variance across interviewees. Nine items were re-
moved based on item endorsement frequencies that fell above 80% or
below 20%. That is, items rated clearly as representative by at least 12
of the 15 interviewees were retained, and this left 64 items from the
initial item pool. On the basis of the feedback from the interviewees,
the first revision of the items was compiled by reformatting phrases
and separating ambivalent items.
3.4.3. Item writing and scaling. The 64 items that reflect littering
prevention behavior were written in English that is reader-friendly
and at the reading level of the potential respondents. The statements
were also worded in a manner that makes reference to littering in
each item and referred to the individual’s voluntary conscious ac-
tions that prevent littering in general daily practices as the focus.
With respect to the scaling of responses, there are different scaling
techniques, but a Likert format is the most frequently used in survey
questionnaires and behavioral research (Cook et al., 1981; Kerlinger
& Lee, 2000) and is most suitable for use in factor analysis (Kaplan &
Saccuzzo, 2005, p. 163). Although researchers have used 7-point and
9-point scales, the Likert (1932) format of five equally appearing
intervals appears as the ideal number of categories to be used; hence
146 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
the items on the LPBS adapt the 5-point frequency-based format
scales. Also, coefficient alpha reliability with Likert-type scales has
been shown to increase up to the use of 5 points, and then it levels off
(Lissitz & Green, 1975). Responses on the LPBS vary from never (1),
seldom (2), not applicable (3), sometimes (4), and always (5).
3.4.4. Item selection. Following the step proposed by Bearden,
Netemeyer, and Teel (1989), an initial content validity check was per-
formed to assess item relevance, language, measurement scale adopted,
and the potential suitability of the 64 items. The items were content
validated by using a purposive and snowball sampling technique to
select five experts who specialized in social psychology and psycho-
metrics and who were not involved in the study. The 64 items with the
definitions of littering and littering prevention behavior were presented
to the experts, and they were asked to indicate content areas that had
been omitted but should be included and to note items that seemed
repetitive or had identical meaning to another item in the list. The
experts reviewed and rated each item in terms of its match or relevance
to the focal construct. Items were rated on a scale from very related (5) to
unrelated (1). Also, the items were labeled as unclear/ambiguous.
Besides rating the items, the experts were asked to identify the items
that they viewed as particularly important by indicating whether or not
the item is ‘‘essential’’ to the focal construct. To assess the content
validity of each item, a three-point rating scale (i.e., essential, useful
but not essential, and not necessary) by Lawshe (1975) was used to
evaluate agreement among judges regarding the item relevancy.
Lawshe’s content validity ratio (CVR) was then computed for each item,
and items were selected if they met the minimal CVR value of 0.99
suggested by Lawshe (1975). The CVR value ranges from -1 to +1, with
values closer to +1 indicating that more than half but not all the judges
agreed that the item is ‘‘essential’’ and therefore valid. Twelve items
that failed to meet the minimal CVR value were eliminated, and 52
items that met the criteria were retained. As suggested by Churchill
(1979), the recommendations of the judges were used for wording
revisions, thus contributing to the establishment of content validity for
the initial LPBS.
3.4.5. Scale purification. Following the item development process,
a scale that comprised 52 items was developed and pilot-tested to
purify the items, with a view to investigating the following aspects:
language, item relevance, clarity, and feasibility of the items, and to
evaluate the performance of the remaining items of the newly de-
veloped scale so that items that performed poorly could be eliminated
from the scale and items that performed more desirably could be
retained for further validation.

To identify items to include in further analyses, guidelines suggested
by DeVellis (2003) and Curbow et al. (2006) were followed. These
included the evaluation of item mean scores, standard deviation, and
corrected item-total correlations. Items with a high value of corrected
item-total correlation and a minimum significance level of 0.05 were
selected for inclusion in further analyses. Positive corrected item-total
correlations indicated that the item is probably measuring the same
construct with the other items on the scale or the item shared more
common variance with the other items (DeVellis, 2012). Items with
squared multiple correlations of less than .40 (Clark & Watson, 1995)
and corrected item-total correlations of less than .50 were removed
(Nunnally, 1978). Eight items with item-total correlations from -.10 to
.29 were removed. For internal consistency, Nunnally and Bernstein
(1994) suggested that reliability estimates in the range of .70 and .80
are good enough for most purposes in basic research. The items on the
LPBS showed high internal consistency, with a = .73. After completing
this step, 44 items were retained for EFA.
3.4.6.Exploratory factor analysis. The first step of the analyses in-
volved screening the data for skewness and kurtosis. According to
Kline (2005), variables with an absolute value of skew of less than
three and kurtosis of less than eight are useful. All the items are
within the acceptable range in terms of both skewness and kurtosis
values. In addition to skewness and kurtosis, mean and standard
deviation values for each item were also examined.
The reliability of a scale depends on the extent to which all the items
measure the focal construct. Although experts in scale development set
out to develop scale items that are consistent, often some items do not
measure the given construct. Leaving these items in the scale reduces
its reliability. To ensure that the items measure the same thing,
Bartholomew and Knott (1999), Loehlin (1998), and Tabachnick and
Fidell (2012) suggested factor analyzing items on a new scale, and
that scales are most reliable if they are unidimensional. That is, one
factor accounts for consistently more of the variance than any other
factor. Items that do not load on this factor might be deleted.
The second step of the analyses involved examining the 44 items
in an EFA using the principal component analysis (PCA), oblique
rotation (oblimin). PCA is adopted because the method of analysis
mixes common, specific, and random error variances (Ford et al.,
1986; Rummel, 1970). Although there are different methods of de-
termining the number of factors to retain, the eigenvalue greater than
1 criterion (EV >1, Kaiser, 1960) and the scree test of the percentage of
variance explained (Cattel, 1966) were adopted in this study. The
criteria for retaining items include items with loadings of .40 or
higher with no cross loadings (Ford et al., 1986).
ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.
LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE
No restriction was applied to the number of factors to be estimated
in the first run. The initial EFA run resulted in a 7-factor solution that
accounted for 54.7% of the variance with eigenvalues of 12.03 (41
items), 5.07 (2 items); 1.89 (2 items); 1.50 (2 items); 1.35 (2 items);
1.19 (2 items); and 1.05 (2 items). The first factor accounted for
27.33% of the variance, factor two explained 11.5% of the variance,
factor three explained 4.3% of the variance, factor four explained
3.4% of the variance, factor five explained 3.1% of the variance,
factor six explained 2.7% of the variance, and factor seven explained
2.4% of the variance.
However, there were a number of problems when the factor
loadings were examined. Firstly, 41 items with values ranged from
.41 to .64 loaded on the first factor. Secondly, fewer than three items
loaded on factors two to seven. Thirdly, two items that loaded on
factor two had loadings below the .40 cutoff, and one of them cross-
loaded on factor five. Fourthly, one item cross-loaded on factors five
and six with low loading. This suggests that the seven factor solutions
were not interpretable. Because the scale failed to rotate based on
more than 25 iterations, extracting seven factors is unnecessary
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
After reviewing the scree plot and factor loadings, the analysis was
rerun forcing two factors, and the two-factor model explained
38.84% of the variance with eigenvalues of 12.03 (41 items) and 5.07
(3 items). Factor one accounted for 27.33% of the variance, and factor
two accounted for 11.5% of the variance. Three items had low
loadings, and two of them cross-loaded on factors one and two. This
suggested that factor loadings were strongest on a single factor.
Therefore, these items were removed, and the EFA was rerun. After
rerunning the analysis, the PCA of the remaining 41 items produced a
one-factor solution that explained 28.59% of the variance with an
eigenvalue of 11.72, based on both the EV >1.0 and the Cattel’s scree
plot, shown in Fig. 1. The retained 41-item LPBS was used for the CFA
of Stage 3. The scale and its properties are shown in Table 1.
3.5. Procedure
Yoruba is the common language of communication in Ibadan, the
setting of this study. Therefore, a multistage translation process
(Shanahan et al., 2001) was adopted to translate the 41-item LPBS,
social desirability scale, and demographic information from English
into Yoruba and then back into English using two linguistics experts.
The translators were informed of the targeted respondents and that
the translation had to be clear and reader-friendly. The back-
translated questionnaire was compared with the original question-
naire to identify discrepancies indicative of ambiguous wording in
the original questionnaire. Using the data from Stage 3, the
 VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 147
OJEDOKUN
Fig. 1. Composite analysis: EFA scree plot.
convergent validity of the two versions of the questionnaire was
tested, and the result indicated a positive relationship (r = .86; p < .05)
between the two versions. The survey took 15 min to complete.
Data for the validation stage were collected from a sample of
residents residing in two purposively selected local government areas
in the Ibadan metropolis. A multistage sampling technique was used
to identify the core and transitory areas within the selected local
governments. After this identification, the list of communities in
these areas was collated using the census tracts produced by the
Nigeria National Population Commission. The simple random tech-
nique (i.e., odd or even numbers) was used to select 50% of the
communities from each local government area. A probability pro-
portional to size technique based on the residential census results was
used to allot questionnaires to the selected communities. Following a
brief explanation about the research, a skip-interval sampling
method (every second resident was selected to participate in the
survey) was used to administer the questionnaires.
Respondents who consented to participate in the study were left
with copies of the questionnaire and a cover letter detailing in-
structions for filing out the survey. Some questionnaires were filled
and returned immediately while others were retrieved after repeated
visits. Two thousand questionnaires were distributed, yielding a total
of 1520 completed questionnaires. The returned questionnaires were
148 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
screened for completeness, after which 1360 questionnaires were
found usable for data analysis. Incomplete or unusable question-
naires were discarded. Data collection lasted 4 months. Participants
participated voluntarily, with no financial incentive. Participation in
the study was anonymous.
3.6. Data analysis
All data from completed questionnaires were entered into SPSS
(version 22). The analysis began by computing descriptive statistics
for each item. Then item-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the overall scale were computed, after which the re-
tained items were run in an EFA. The structural validation of the scale
was tested using CFA in AMOS (version 22; SPSS, 2014).
4. Results
Prior to further analyses, an initial bivariate analysis was conducted
to test whether the responses on the LPBS were influenced by social
desirability. The result revealed no significant relationship between the
41-item LPBS and social desirability scores (r = -35; p > .05).
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Hinkin (1998) recommended that a CFA be conducted using data
collected from an independent sample. The justification for this is
 LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE

that differences in item variances are lost in the analysis of correla- results on the adequacy of the final 41-item LPBS to measure littering
tions because all variables are standardized to a common variance prevention behavior.
(Harvey et al., 1985). To determine the validity of the one-factor (final
41-item) solution, CFA was conducted in a structural equation 5. Discussion
modeling using Analysis of Moment Structures, adopting maximum Littering is a human-made environmentally destructive behavior
likelihood estimation. that is prevalent in many countries and may remain so if a behavioral
The CFA requires the use of several fit indices. Some researchers solution is not adopted. Littering prevention behavior, which aims at
recommended a w2 statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the non- preventing rather than solving the consequences of littering, is a
normed fit index (NNFI), the root mean square error of approximation bottom-up solution that may remedy the problem. Littering pre-
(RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). vention behavior describes the discretionary conscious actions in-
According to the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010) and Mak and Sockel dividuals engage in to make sure that litter does not end up in the
(2001), at least one absolute fit index and one incremental fit index wrong place. But defining littering prevention behavior is one thing;
are used in addition to the w2 statistic and the associated degree of measuring it is another matter altogether. Even though littering
freedom. When model fit is adequate, the w2 is nonsignificant. prevention behavior is an inroad to solving the problem of littering
However, because the w2 is oversensitive to sample size, alternative fit and its attendant environmental pollution problems, its measurement
indexes are generally assessed. Hu and Bentler (1999) and Byrne remains poorly studied in environmental psychology. This study’s
(2010) recommended a range of values between 0 and 1. The cutoff findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge by providing a
criteria of RMSEA (£ .05), SRMR (£ .05), GFI (£ .08), AGFI, NNFI, and reliable and valid avenue for measuring littering prevention behav-
CFI (‡ .95) values are considered good model fit. The result of the CFA ior. Therefore, the current effort is the first attempt at developing and
is presented in Table 2. validating a measure of littering prevention behavior using an in-
The quality of the model in this study was evaluated based on the digenous Nigerian sample. The study relied on a three-stage proce-
w2 to degrees of freedom (w2/df) ratio (CMIN/DF), the CFI, NNFI, the dure and involved six steps.
goodness of fit index (GFI), RMSEA, and SRMR. The results of the In general, the results from exploratory and confirmatory factor
41-item CFA showed a good fit to the model (w2 = 593.397, df = 90, analyses supported the one-factor structure, item validity, internal
p < .001, RMSEA = .034, SRMR = .042, CFI = .963, NNFI = .991, TLI = consistency, and structural validity of the 41-item LPBS. Specifically,
.983, GFI = .763). These findings further support and strengthen EFA the unidimesionality of the 41-item LPBS ( a = .81) was established.
Therefore, a CFA using the 41 items as indicators of latent construct
of littering prevention behavior was conducted. The findings indi-
cated that the model fit was acceptable and confirm the one-factor
solution of the LPBS. The findings provided the evidence that scales
Table 2. Summary of Model Fit Statistics of the AMOS are reliable if they are unidimensional (Bartholomew & Knott, 1999;
CFA Solution for the One-Factor Model of the LPBS Loehlin, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). The findings are also
MODEL FIT DESIRED consistent with the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010) and Mak and
INDEX OBSERVED VALUE VALUE REMARK Sockel (2001), suggesting that at least one absolute fit index and one
incremental fit index are used in addition to the w2 statistic and the
w2 (df, p) 593.397 (90, < .001) P > .0.05 The model is rejected
associated degree of freedom.
CMIN/DF 5.456 CMIN/DF <3 Good model fit The findings have implications for measuring self-reported envi-
RMSEA 0.034 RMSEA <0.05 Good model fit ronmental behavior from the perspective of the self-schema theory.
Most studies in the area of environmental behavior rely on correla-
SRMR 0.042 SRMR <0.05 Good model fit
tional designs. The contribution of this study to the existing proen-
GFI 0.763 GFI >0.90 Good model fit vironmental behavior literature is that when access to actual
CFI 0.963 CFI >0.90 Good model fit environmental behavior is impossible, such designs might profit
from self-report data, and available evidence (e.g., Augoustinos et al.,
NNFI 0.991 NNFI >0.90 Good model fit
2013, pp. 68–69) indicated that self-schemas are linked to salient and
stable individual traits and behavior. In other words, valid measured

ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 149
OJEDOKUN
self-reports of environmental behavior are better than having no data
at all in research in which absolute accuracy is not imperative. It is
expected that scores on the LPBS should be related to the scores on
the Big Five personality traits, environmental sensitivity, environ-
mental control, and environmental perception. This can open up new
lines of research where researchers can empirically profile the per-
sonality characteristics of individuals who have more or fewer ten-
dencies to engage in littering prevention behavior. The LPBS could
also be used to assess changes in littering prevention behavior over
time and to create baseline data for strategies and environmental
education programs targeted at littering prevention. The LPBS de-
veloped in this study can be used to conduct empirical research
within Nigeria and beyond.
The findings generally supported the psychometric properties of
the LPBS and confirm that littering prevention behavior can be as-
sessed on one continuous dimension ranging from less littering
prevention behavior to more littering prevention behavior. But the
findings in Table 1 indicated that the respondents reported a fairly
higher level of littering prevention behavior than what was actually
obtainable in Ibadan. This discrepancy raises the concern that social
desirability bias could play a role. Concerning the tendency that over/
underreporting might be a serious issue, the inclusion of the social
desirability scale in the study allays such fear. The relationship be-
tween the social desirability scale and the LPBS was found to be
negative and nonsignificant.
6. Conclusion
Overall, the study findings provide satisfactory psychometric
properties for the LPBS. The findings contribute to the existing body
of knowledge by providing a reliable and valid basis for measuring
littering prevention behavior. Measurement of the LPBS can con-
tribute to the development of theory and empirical research and be
used in practice.
Given that littering is a behavioral problem, an important practical
application would be to demonstrate whether the LPBS can predict
actual behavior. Although self-reports of behavior and actual mea-
sures of behavior are often strongly correlated (Fuji et al., 1985;
Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Warriner et al., 1984; Yeager & Krosnick,
2010), a field experiment demonstrating that the LPBS can predict
actual littering prevention behavior would address convergent va-
lidity and underscore the scale’s utility in benchmarking littering
prevention behavior. As with all research, the author would like to
clarify that the present effort is exploratory in nature.
A research agenda for the LPBS would be to identify the personal
and social factors that influence littering prevention behavior in
150 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
diverse settings. The former might include personality and self-
construal, sense of control, self-efficacy, values, political view and
worldview, cognitive biases, goals, felt responsibility, place attach-
ment, knowledge and education, age, gender, and chosen activities.
The latter might involve religion, urban-rural differences, norms,
social class, proximity to littered site, and cultural and ethnic vari-
ations. Gifford and Nilsson (2014) have stressed the need for more
research devoted to an understanding of personal and social factors
in proenvironmental behavior, and it will be gratifying to see more
work on this front in the years to come.
Competing Interests
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Abdulazziz, A., & Duruzoechi, F. (2003, June 23–24). Criticisms of waste
management in Nigeria: Need for improvement. IRMTI Conference, Jos, Nigeria.
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2013). Social cognition: An integrated
introduction (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Bartholomew, D. J., & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis
(2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Bator, R. J., Bryan, A. D., & Schultz, W. (2011). Who gives a hoot? Intercept surveys
of litterers and disposers. Environment and Behaviour, 43, 295–315.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
473–481.
Boiral, O., & Paille, P. (2012). Organisational citizenship behaviour for the
environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109,
431–445.
Bortoleto, A. P., Kurisu, K. H., & Hanaki, K. (2012). Model development for household
waste prevention behaviour. Waste Management, 32, 2195–2207.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioural Research, 1, 245–276.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2005). Shades of green: Linking
environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 22, 198–212.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment—An
introduction to tests and measurement (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (1997). Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behaviour: Self-reports vs
observations of re-use and recycling behaviour. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17, 135–145.

Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of socio-demographics and environmental attitudes
on general responsible environmental behaviour among recreational boaters.
Environment and Behaviour, 35, 347–375.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Ungaretti, A., McDonell, K., & Breckler, S. (2006). Development
of the child care worker job stress inventory. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 18, 310–330.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eastman, L. B., Núñez, P., Crettier, B., & Thiel, M. (2013). Identification of self-reported
user behaviour, education level, and preferences to reduce littering on beaches—A
survey from the SE Pacific. Ocean & Coastal Management, 78, 18–24.
Federal Government of Nigeria. (1989). National policy on environment. Lagos,
Nigeria: Federal Government Press.
Federal Government of Nigeria. (2005). National environmental sanitation policy.
Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Government Press.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Fuji, E. T., Hennesy, M., & Mak, J. (1985). An evaluation of the validity and reliability
of survey response data on household electricity conservation. Evaluation
Review, 9, 93–104.
Garling, T., Fujii, S., Garling, A., & Jakobsson, C. (2003). Moderating effects of social
value orientation on determinants of pro-environmental behaviour intention.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 1–9.
Geller, E. S. (1980). Applications of behavioural analysis for litter control. In D.
Glenwick & L. Jason (Eds.), Behavioural community psychology: Progress and
prospects (pp. 254–283). New York: Praeger.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.
Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a
precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modelling, 3, 62–72.
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (4th ed.).
Victoria, Canada: Optimal Books.
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-
environmental behaviour concern and behaviour: A review. International
Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen:
Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 392–404.
Gupta, G., & Chopra, P. (2014). Eco-tourists and environment protection: A pro-
environment behavioural segmentation approach. Amity Global Business
Review, 9, 90–95.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education International.
Halpenny, E. A. (2006). Environmental behaviour, place attachment, and park
visitation: A case study of visitors to Point Pelee National Park (Unpublished
PhD thesis). University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.
LITTERING PREVENTION BEHAVIOR SCALE
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect
of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409–421.
Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S, & Nillan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of Job
Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 461–468.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organisational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Hirst, E., & Goeltz, R. (1985). Accuracy of self-reports: Energy conservation surveys.
The Social Science Journal, 22, 19–30.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices.
Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.
Inoue, Y., & Alfaro-Barrantes, P. (2015). Pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace: A review of empirical studies and directions for future research.
Business and Society Review, 120, 137–160.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to fastor analysis.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 147–151.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behaviour. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 28, 395–422.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications,
and issues (6th ed., p. 163). Belmont, CA: Thomson Custom Publishing.
Keep Australia Beautiful Queensland. (2012). Cigarette butt littering: Fact sheet.
South Brisbane, Australia: Keep Australia Beautiful Queensland. Retrieved
from http://www.keepqueenslandbeautiful.org.au/resources/fact%20sheets/
cigarette%20butt%20litter.pdf
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research (5th ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and
evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel
Psychology, 28, 536–575.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitude scales. Archives of
Psychology, 22, 140.
Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on
reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variables models: An introduction to factor, path and
structural analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mabogunje, A. L. (1996, September). Planning paradigm in the context of a newly
emerging state society relations. Paper presented to the Expert Panel Meeting on
Capacity Building and IHS in the Post Habitat II Era, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mak, B. L., & Sockel, H. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee
motivation and retention. Information Management, 38, 265–276.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.
Martı́n, A. M., Hernández, B., Frı́as-Armenta, M., & Hess, S. (2014). Why ordinary
people comply with environmental laws: A structural model on normative and
attitudinal determinants of illegal anti-ecological behaviour. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 19, 80–103.
National Population Commission. (2009). Nigeria demographic and health survey,
2008. Abuja, Federal Republic of Nigeria: National Population Commission;
Calverton, MD: ICF Macro.
 VOL. 8 NO. 2  JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 151
OJEDOKUN
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ogwueleka, T. C. (2003). Analysis of urban solid waste in Nsukka, Nigeria. Journal of
Solid Waste Technology and Management, 29, 239–246.
Ojedokun, O. (2011). Attitude towards littering as a mediator of the relationship
between personality attributes and responsible environmental behaviour.
Waste Management, 31, 2601–2611.
Ojedokun, O. (2015). The littering attitude scale (LAS): Development and structural
validation using data from an indigenous (Nigerian) sample. Management of
Environmental Quality, 26, 552–565.
Okpala, D. (1979). Abating flood disasters with particular reference to Ibadan.
Savanna: Journal of Environmental Social Science, 8, 66–69.
Oranjewoud. (2009). Annual report on national litter measurement. Project
reference 183376. Retrieved from http://www.oranjewoud.nl/projection
Oskamp, S. (1995). Resource conservation and recycling: Behaviour and policy.
Journal of Social Issues, 51, 157–177.
Oyo State Government. (2011). Government of Oyo State report on the assessment
of the 26th August 2011 flood disaster in Ibadan metropolis. Ibadan, Oyo State,
Nigeria: Oyo State Task Force on Flood Prevention and Management.
Oyo State Government Edict. (1997). Ibadan: Ministry of information, community
development, sport and culture. Gazette, Vol. 22, No. 8.
Rahji, M., & Oloruntoba, E. (2009). Determinants of households’ willingness to pay
for private solid waste services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Management and
Research, 27, 961–965.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Schultz, P. W., Bator, R. J., Large, L. B., Bruni, C. M., & Tabanico, J. J. (2013). Littering
in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behaviour.
Environment and Behaviour, 45, 35–59.
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M.
(2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and
conservation behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behaviour. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Shanahan, S. F., Anderson, S. J. & Mkhize, N. J. (2001). Assessing psychological
distress in Zulu-speakers: Preliminary findings from an adaptation of the SCL-
90-R. South African Journal of Psychology, 31, 1–12.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
SPSS. (2014). SPSS 22.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
152 ECOPSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2016
View publication stats
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1978). Schematic bases of social information processing.
In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario
Symposium (pp. 39–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Sun. (2014, July 10). Ibadan floods: The mystery, buck-passing and politics. The
Sun, p. 2.
Ugwuh, U. S. (2009). A glance at the world: The state of solid waste management in
Nigeria. Waste Management, 29, 2787–2790.
Unsworth, K., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing
the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental
behaviour change. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 34, 211–229.
Verhallen, T. M. M., & Van Raaij, W. F. (1981). Household behaviour and the use of
natural gas for home heating. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 253–257.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives
on conservation behaviour. In R. B. Betchel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook
of environmental psychology (pp. 552–558). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Warriner, G. K., McDougall, G. H., & Claxton, J. D. (1984). Any data or none at all?
Living with inaccuracies in self-reports of residential energy consumption.
Environment and Behaviour, 16, 503–526.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counselling Psychologist,
34, 806–838.
Yeager, D. S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). The validity of self-reported nicotine product
use in the 2001–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination survey.
Medical Care, 48, 1128–1132.
Address correspondence to:
Oluyinka Ojedokun, PhD
Department of Pure and Applied Psychology
Adekunle Ajasin University
Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State
Nigeria
E-mail: oluyinka.ojedokun@aaua.edu.ng
or yinkaoje2004@yahoo.com
Received: December 23, 2015
Accepted: February 24, 2016