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

net/publication/249038461

Effects of Educational Background on Students' Attitudes,

Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment

Article in The Journal of Environmental Education · January 2000

DOI: 10.1080/00958960009598640

CITATIONS READS

544 7,379

3 authors, including:

Markku Kuitunen
University of Jyväskylä
75 PUBLICATIONS 3,430 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Markku Kuitunen on 02 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen]
On: 19 April 2012, At: 04:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

Parent-Child Similarity in Environmental

Attitudes: A Pairwise Comparison
a b a
Jaana M. Leppänen , Anu E. Haahla , Anssi M. Lensu & Markku T.
a
Kuitunen
a
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
b
City of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Available online: 21 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Jaana M. Leppänen, Anu E. Haahla, Anssi M. Lensu & Markku T. Kuitunen
(2012): Parent-Child Similarity in Environmental Attitudes: A Pairwise Comparison, The Journal of
Environmental Education, 43:3, 162-176

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.634449

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 43(3), 162–176, 2012
Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0095-8964 print/1940–1892 online
DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2011.634449

Parent-Child Similarity in Environmental Attitudes:

A Pairwise Comparison
Jaana M. Leppänen
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Anu E. Haahla
City of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Anssi M. Lensu and Markku T. Kuitunen

University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Are adolescents’ environmental attitudes similar to their parents’ attitudes? The main objective of
this study is to examine what quantitative associations, if any, exist in parent-child environmental
attitudes within the family. The survey data was collected assessing attitudes toward the environment
and nature from 15-year-old students (n = 237) and their parents (n = 212) in Finland. A significant
positive correlation emerged in environmental attitudes between mothers and fathers. Interestingly,
the results revealed some indicative evidence that girls’ environmental attitudes could relate more to
their father’s than mother’s attitudes. Girls were as positive in their environmental attitudes as their
parents and in contrast boys were noticeably more negative than either their parents or girls of the
same age. The parental level of education was not found to be significantly related to the level of
environmental attitudes of their adolescent offspring. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords adolescents, environmental attitudes, intergenerational influence, parents

For decades the environmental attitudes of children have been the major focus of many
environmental education (EE) programs (Ballantyne, Fien, & Packer, 2001; Duvall & Zint, 2007;
Uzzell, 1994). This is primarily because the development of environmental attitudes in childhood
is seen as an important element in the formation of pro-environmental behavior in later life
(Ballantyne, Connell, & Fien, 2006; Chawla, 1999; Meinhold & Malkus, 2005; Palmer, Suggate,
Bajd, & Tsaliki, 1998).
One of the ways researchers and environmental educators can promote environmentalism is
to understand the relationship between demographic variables, and environmental attitudes and
behaviors, and the implications these human-environment relationships may have on social action
and policy (e.g., Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Much research has examined the relationships
between demographic variables (e.g., education, age, socioeconomic status) and environmental

Correspondence should be sent to Jaana M. Leppänen, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences,
University of Jyväskylä, P. O. Box 35, Jyväskylä FI-40014, Finland. E-mail: jaana.m.k.leppanen@jyu.fi
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 163

attitudes (Zelezny et al., 2000). However research on intergenerational transmission of antecedents

of pro-environmental behavior has been limited and little has been done concerning pairwise
associations of environmental attitudes within family.
The importance of family processes should not be overlooked as a means of “multiplying” the
impact of such processes as EE programs on pro-environmental behavior in everyday lives (e.g.,
Ballantyne et al., 2006; Ballantyne et al., 2001). Therefore researchers (e.g., Ballantyne et al.,
2006; Duerden & Witt, 2010; Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009; Payne, 2010) have argued that more
research is needed to identify the factors affecting the processes of intergenerational learning
concerning environmental domain.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

This study is one response to this need. The starting point for this study is that the family
is a particular type of small group, with special functions (such as socialization), which involve
both long-term interpersonal influence as well as continual negotiations regarding conformity and
change between generations (Bengtson & Black, 1973). Earlier studies indicate that environmental
attitude, similar to other attitudes; seem to form as a result of the socialization processes (Acock &
Bengtson, 1980; Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009; Guastello & Peissig, 1998; Maccoby, 2007). Thus
the close interaction within families and, in particular, the parents’ role as primary socialization
agents for their children, might lead to some level of correspondence of environmental attitudes
between generations (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009). Hence the socialization perspective should
form the first step to any attempt to examine similarities and differences and intergenerational
influence between generations in environmental domain. The more that is known about important
patterns of identity processes between family members over a wider range of people, the more
focused EE programs can be created.
Analyzing the similarity of children’s and their parents’ attitudes in terms of means (elevation)
and correlations (pattern) could yield seemingly contradictory results. Comparing means across
the four groups (father, mother, daughter, and son) it should be possible to discover whether
the younger generation is different from their parents’ generation in the variables of interest
(generation gap). However, even if a generation gap is found, there may still be substantial
consistency between paired parents and children. For example, the younger generation as a group
may have a more negative environmental attitude than their parents, but across children and their
parents there may be clear consistency in environmental attitudes when compared to the attitudes
of their respective cohorts (Guastello & Peissig, 1998; Grønhøj & Thøgersen 2009; Tedin,
1974).
Drawing on attitude theory (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), environmental attitude was defined
as being based on values, composed of beliefs and affects toward the environment and nature.
The overall objective of this study is to examine whether a generation gap exists in environmental
attitudes in Finland. Survey data regarding student-parent environmental attitudes was collected
to determine what quantitative associations exist, if any, in environmental attitudes between 15-
year-old students (n = 237) and their parents (n = 212) in Finland. The aim of this study is to
examine:
1. The pairwise similarity in environmental attitudes between family members; by using
a. correlation, and
b. pairwise comparisons.
2. The generation gap in environmental attitudes, by using groupwise comparison.
3. Whether parental educational background influences their children’s environmental atti-
tudes, by using one-way ANOVA.
 164 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

The results contribute some preliminary findings to the growing field of inquiry into environ-
mental socialization and significant life experiences (SLE) concerning environmental domain.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Since 1980 the importance of the family in promoting a pro-environmentally active citizenry is
underlined in the significant life experiences (SLE) approach (Tanner, 1980). SLE is based on
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

narrative studies of identity, which focuses on a single individual and how she or he integrates
life experiences (Kroger, 2000), rather than the understanding of isolated values, accomplish-
ments, or other personality features. In most previous SLE research, when subjects explain the
formative influences fostering their environmental attitudes and sensitivity to action, a similar set
of responses recurs; extended time spent outdoors in natural areas (often in childhood), family,
involvement in environmental organizations, books, discussions at home, watching nature films,
and the loss of a beloved natural place (e.g., Chawla, 1999; Tanner, 1980). Numerous other studies
in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa have replicated these findings (Arnold, Cohen, &
Warner, 2009; Palmer, Suggate, Bajd, et al., 1998a, 1998b; Shih-Jang, 2009). However, several
critiques of the research have focused on the narrative approach of identity studies (Marcia &
Strayer, 1996), mostly about lack of scientific criteria for an analysis; responses were subjected
to content analysis, often without integrated reliabilities, and the results were mostly reported
as descriptive statistics (Bixler, Floyed, & Hammit, 2002; Chawla, 1999; Tanner, 1998). Kroger
(2000) proposes a following solution to the general critiques of narrative approach. By focusing
on a single individual, SLE gains deep insight into the processes of identity that later might be
empirically tested across broader samples of individuals.
The social, psychological, and political sciences widely use the theory of socialization when
studying general processes of identity development (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986; Grønhøj
& Thøgersen, 2009; Maccoby, 2007; Tedin, 1974). The focus of socialization refers to processes
by which young people are taught the necessary skills, values, attitudes and behavioural pat-
terns to become well-functioning members of social groups and the culture in which they live
(Maccoby, 2007). The socialization theory posits that in early childhood the family is the strongest
socialization agent (Maccoby, 2007), but through childhood and adolescence, many external so-
cialization agents (e.g., media, peers, and school curricula) exert their influence (e.g., Maccoby,
2007). These may account for discontinuities and inconsistencies, or vice versa strengthening
the influence of family. Research has revealed that the socialization processes within a family
are interactive and reciprocal (Ballantyne et al., 2006; Glass et al. 1986; Kuczynzky & Parkin,
2007). However to some extent each generation constructs its own values and acceptable behavior
(Grusec & Davidov, 2007). Thus direct parental influence is not the only possible explanation
for parent-child correspondence. One alternative explanation holds that parents and children
have similar attitudes because each individual in the family is exposed to the same social and
(biological) influences (e.g., Glass et al., 1986).
As stated earlier, little research currently exists on intergenerational transmission of environ-
mental attitudes within families. There is empirical evidence that, to some extent, environmental
concern and commitments are transferred from parents to children (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009;
Guastello & Peissig, 1998; Sutherland & Ham, 1999; Vaughan, Gack, Solorazano, & Ray, 2003).
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 165

Guastello and Peissig (1998) studied the degree of ideological consistency across two succes-
sive generations assessing environmentalism. They observed an overall generation gap, but also
noted significant ideological consistency within families. For example, environmentalism was
found to correlate significantly only for students with their fathers. However, within families,
studies pointed out that mothers and students were more environmentally concerned than fathers.
Consistently Grønhøj and Thøgersen’s (2009) study suggests that family socialization exerts a
significant influence on young consumers’ pro-environmental orientations.
Earlier studies of the generation gap in different cultural contexts indicate a negative rela-
tionship between age and environmental attitudes, whereas it is more common to find a positive
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

relationship between age and pro-environmental behavior (Diamantopoulos, Schelegelmilch,

Sinkovich, & Bohlen, 2003; Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell, 2004; Guastello & Peissig, 1998).
Contrary to the mainstream of earlier research, Grønhøj and Thøgersen’s (2009) findings reveal
that parental generation in the Danish population holds more favorable attitudes to environmental
issues.
Another research issue regarding formation of environmental attitudes concerns the influence
of gender. Most authors favor the hypothesis that males and females are socialized differently (e.g.,
Bandura, 1977; Gilligan, 1982; Hornsey, McAuliffe, & Hogg, 2006), with the main emphasis
in male socialization on autonomy and mastery and in female socialization on communion and
connectedness (to value needs of others, such as nature). Consistent with the socialization theory
there is strong empirical evidence that females tend to be more positive in their environmental
attitudes (Kaila-Kangas, Kangas, & Piirainen, 1994; Szagun & Pavlov, 1995; Tikka, Kuitunen,
& Tynys, 2000; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Similarly Kaila-Kangas et al. (1994) report
that across the Finnish population as whole, women are more concerned about environmental
problems than men. This gender difference is also found in studies of younger cohorts (Järvinen,
1995; Skogen, 1996; Szagun & Pavlov, 1995; Tikka et al., 2000; Cantell & Larna, 2006).

METHODS

Setting

Finland, a fairly sparsely populated country, is situated in the Northern Europe. Approximately
5.2 million people are living in an area of some 338,000 km2. About 82% of the population
is concentrated in urban areas. The portion of foreign citizens in Finland is 2.5%, among the
lowest in the European Union. Overall, the Finnish society is relatively homogenous, for example
concerning religion, nationalities, language, and education.
The main aim of the Finnish education system is to offer all citizens equal opportunities to
receive education irrespective of age, domicile, financial situation, sex, or mother tongue. In-
terestingly previous TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA
(The Programme for International Student Assessment) studies have indicated that the variance
in achievement between schools in Finland is very low (<10%; Reinikainen, 2007). This equality
also stretches across geography, meaning there is very little difference in school achievement
between rural and urban schools, and across regions such as North and South. The principle of
equality also clarifies the low impact of socioeconomic background of Finnish students com-
pared to other OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries
 166 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

(Reinikainen, 2007). EE has been a cross-curricular theme in the national core curriculum since
1990 (Finnish National Commission of Sustainable Development, 2006).

Participants and Procedure

This study was conducted in two cities in Finland during 2002. Uyeki and Holland (2000) noticed
differences in environmental attitudes between people living in urban areas compared to those
living in the countryside. So, to strengthen the validity of the study two middle-sized cities situated
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

close to agricultural areas were chosen. These cities, Jyväskylä (80,000 inhabitants at the time of
study) and Lappeenranta (58,000 inhabitants), closely resemble each other in sociodemographic
factors, infrastructure, industry, and commerce (the pulp and paper industry is a common means
of income), the natural environment, and recycling infrastructure.
All the secondary schools (11) in both cities participated in the study. One or two classes,
which, by chance, had their regular science lesson at the time of testing, were studied. All the
children took part regardless of their family structure; the demographic questions did not ask
whether the child’s biological parents were both present in the same household. The students had
45 minutes to complete the questionnaire in the classroom and were able to ask for advice from a
member of the research team during the test. The parent questionnaires, with ID codes, to enable
the data to be analyzed as pair-wise comparisons, were distributed to the students at the end of
the lesson. The children were also able to give the questionnaire to a parent who possibly was not
living in their home.
In total 237 students; 113 (47.7%) girls and 124 (52.3%) boys, representing 13 classes were
surveyed. Of the questionnaires, given by students to parents, 212 were returned, 128 (60.4%) by
mothers and 84 (39.6%) by fathers. In 88 households neither parent returned the questionnaire.
The final sample consisted of 56 son-mother dyads, 39 son-father dyads, 68 daughter-father
dyads, 42 daughter-mother dyads, and 62 father-mother dyads (no sibling dyads). The mean ages
of the adolescents, the mothers, and the fathers were 15, 43, and 46, respectively.

Measures

The questionnaire was a slightly modified, updated version of a questionnaire earlier used by
Kuitunen and Törmälä (1994) and Tikka et al. (2000). The original parts of their questionnaire
are based on the items of international scales (Kellert, 1987; Maloney, Ward, & Braucht, 1975;
Dunlap & van Liere, 1978; Kuhlemeier, van den Bergh, & Lagerweij, 1999) and partly on Finnish
scales (Tulokas, 1998). The questionnaire was in Finnish and to ensure the face validity of the
scale, it was checked by researchers at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research.
A scoring scale was created for the 31-item questionnaire, which was designed to elicit both the
children’s and their parents’ attitudes toward the nature and the environment. For the purposes of
this study, attitude was defined as an enduring positive or negative feeling about the environment
or nature (affective domain). The adolescents’ and their parents’ attitudes were evaluated on
a Likert-type scale with four alternatives (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = mildly disagree, 3 =
mildly agree, 4 = strongly agree). The responses to negative questions were recoded in order
to make the calculation of average scores possible. Such scores were calculated for all family
members.
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 167

TABLE 1
Correlations Between Environmental Attitude Scores of Family Members

Daughters-mothers Daughters-fathers Sons-mothers Sons-fathers Mothers-fathers

Environmental r = .206 r = .378◦ r = .035 r = −.256 r = .429∗∗

attitude N = 68 N = 42 N = 56 N = 39 N = 62
p = .270 p = .053 p = .801 p = .232 p = .005

Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient-test ◦p < .10, ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01 (with Holm-Bonferroni
Correction).
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

The statements were of the type: “It is not worth ordinary people protecting nature, if everybody
else does not behave likewise” (agreement = low score) or “large predators are the real danger for
ordinary people” or “industry is the biggest polluter, not ordinary people” or “people will have
to change their way of life radically in order to save the environment” (agreement = high score).
The demographic questions were concerned with the respondent’s age, gender, home town or
municipality, and educational background.

Analysis

The results showed that the reliability of the attitude scale was satisfactory for all groups (Cronbach
α coefficient; mothers’ α = .835; fathers’ α = .815; daughters’ α = .860; sons’ α = .814),
hence no variables were omitted from the data analysis. The normality of the attitude scores
for the groupwise comparisons of each group was checked by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test. The results indicated that the scores obtained from the answers given by boys, girls, and
fathers were normally distributed, but the scores obtained from the answers given by mothers
were not. Consequently the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to test for groupwise
differences by gender and generation. The Mann-Whitney U-test is used for assessing whether
two independent samples of observations come from populations with the same distribution.
When the multiple comparisons are made within the same data, it is appropriate to use the
Bonferroni-Holm method to adjust the pre-set alpha level or the obtained p-values to account for
the possibility of testwise inflation (Tables 1–3).

TABLE 2
Groupwise Attitude Differences Between Family Members

Group Mean SD N Group Mean SD N Mann-Whitney U p

Girls 2.95 .34 111 Mothers 2.98 .33 127 6452.00 .260
Girls 2.95 .34 111 Fathers 2.85 .32 84 3978.00 .158
Girls 2.95 .34 111 Boys 2.51 .34 121 2610.50 .000∗∗∗
Boys 2.51 .34 121 Mothers 2.98 .33 127 2353.00 .000∗∗∗
Boys 2.51 .34 121 Fathers 2.85 .32 84 2364.00 .000∗∗∗
Mothers 2.98 .33 127 Fathers 2.85 .32 84 3900.00 .001∗∗

Mann-Whitney U test ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001 (with Holm-Bonferroni Correction).
Note the minimum index value was 1, and the maximum index value was 4.
 168 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

TABLE 3
Pairwise Attitude Differences Within Family

Pair t-value df p

Girl ↔ mother −1.53 67 .131

Girl ↔ father 0.73 41 .469
Boy↔ mother −6.38 56 .005∗∗
Boy ↔ father −4.65 39 .004∗∗
Mother ↔ father 3.11 61 .030∗
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

Paired -samples t-test ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001 (with Holm-Bonferroni Correction).
Note the minimum index value was 1, and the maximum index value was 4.

The pairwise differences in the attitude scores between the family members should also be
normally distributed and this was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. All the
pairwise differences were normally distributed, and consequently paired samples t-test could be
used to compare the environmental attitudes within family (see Tables 1 and 3, Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to determine how much consistency in
environmental attitudes existed between students and their parents within the family.

RESULTS

Consistency Between Generations (Generation Gap)

Mothers’ environmental attitudes were significantly more positive than those of the fathers
and their sons (Mann-Whitney U test, U = 2353.0, M (mothers) = 2.98, M (boys) = 2.51,
∗∗∗
p < .001; Table 2). Fathers’ attitudes were also more positive than those of the sons (Mann-
Whitney U test, U = 2364.0, M (fathers) = 2.85, M (boys) = 2.51, ∗∗∗ p < .001; Table 2).
Daughters’ environmental attitudes were also noticeably more positive than those of the sons
(Mann-Whitney U test, U = 2610.0, M (girls) = 2.95, M (boys) = 2.51, ∗∗∗ p < .001; Table 2),
but did not differ significantly from the scores of their parents.

r =.429** N=62

Mothers Fathers
r=
N .
=5 035
6

2 r =.256
r =.206 =4
*N N =39
78
N =68
=.3
r

Daughters Sons

FIGURE 1 Correlations between environmental attitude scores of the family members.

 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 169
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

FIGURE 2 Correlation between mother-father dyads in the means of environmental attitude scores. Note minimum
index value is 1, and maximum index value is 4.

Consistency Within Families

The most significant positive correlation was found in environmental attitudes between the parents
within the family (Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, r = .429, n = 62, ∗∗ p = .005).
The results show indicative consistency between girls and their fathers at the 0.053 level (r =
.378, n = 42, p = .053). However, the other relationships were not statistically significant (see
Table 2 and 3; Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Environmental attitudes varied significantly between mothers and fathers. Mothers, in general,
showed more positive attitudes than their husbands (Paired samples t-test, t = 3.11, df = 61, ∗∗ p =
.006). In their attitudes, girls were as positive as both of their parents. Boys were noticeably more
negative than their parents. A statistically significant difference in attitudes was found between
boys and their mothers (Paired samples t-test, t = −6.38, df = 56, ∗∗∗ p < .001) and fathers
(Paired samples t-test, t = −4.65, df = 39, ∗∗∗ p < .001) (Table 3).
Because on average mothers had more positive environmental attitudes than fathers within
family, we considered how the attitudes of boys and girls varied in relation to the difference in
environmental attitudes between their mothers and fathers. Interestingly in those families where
 170 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

FIGURE 3 Correlations between father-daughter dyads in the means of environmental attitude scores. Note minimum
index value is 1, and maximum index value is 4.

the mothers had more positive attitudes than their husbands, the daughters’ attitudes toward
the environment were more negative than in those families where the father was more positive
(r = −.431, N = 34, ∗ p = .011; Figure 4). With boys the situation was different: boys displayed
no statistically significant difference in attitudes toward the environment in families where their
fathers’ attitudes were more positive than their mothers.’ In turn, the boys’ attitude score was
slightly higher the larger the difference was between their parents (r = .110, N = 26, p = .593;
Figure 5). However this relation was not statistically significant.

Influence of Parents’ Educational Level on Environmental Attitudes

Finally, by using the one-way ANOVA we studied whether parents’ level of education had any
effect on the environmental attitudes of their children. The results showed that the educational
background had an influence on the environmental attitudes of mothers (ANOVA, F = 2.87; df =
4, 120; ∗ p < .05). Mothers with a university education had the most positive environmental
attitudes and mothers with the lowest education had the most negative environmental attitudes.
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 171
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

FIGURE 4 Differences in the means of environmental attitude scores between mothers and fathers (mother’s score minus
father’s score) as compared to the daughters’ means for environmental attitude within the same family. Note minimum
index value is 1, and maximum index value is 4.

However, the educational background had no effect on the environmental attitudes of fathers
(ANOVA, F = .54; df = 4, 78; p = .70). Moreover, the educational background of neither
mothers (girls/ANOVA, F = .48, df = 4, 62 p = .75; boys/ANOVA, F = .54; df = 4, 51; p =
.71) nor fathers (girls/ANOVA, F = 1.012, df = 3, 38; p = .40; boys/ANOVA, F = 1.54, df = 4,
33; p = .21) had a significant effect on the environmental attitudes of their children.

DISCUSSION

This study compares the environmental attitudes of two generations: the early 2000 generation
of adolescents and their parents in Finland. The study proposes some interesting preliminary
findings of gender and cross-sex similarities and differences within family in studied scale.
Consistent with earlier Finnish studies (Tulokas, 1998, 2002), this study revealed a generation
gap with regard to environmental attitudes. The younger generation in Finland holds less positive
 172 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

FIGURE 5 Differences in the means of environmental attitude scores between mothers and fathers (mother’s score minus
father’s score) as compared to the sons’ means of environmental attitude scores within the same family. Note minimum
index value is 1, and maximum index value 4.

environmental attitudes than their parents. This result may reflect the fact that environmental issues
no longer offer young people an opportunity to rebel. Their parents, born in the 1960s, belong
to the first environmentally aware generation in Finland. Another possible explanation is that the
relationship between humans and nature has changed radically over time. This change could be
seen as involving alienation from nature among the younger generation. Contrary to our findings,
many earlier international surveys have reported the younger generation as having more positive
environmental attitudes than their parents (e.g., Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Uyeki & Holland,
2000). These differences are likely to be due to different cultural context. However, the likely
reason behind the lower attitude scores could be life-stage barrier and there is no reason to conclude
that more negative environmental attitudes will be characteristic for this particular generation.
Interestingly, in this study the groupwise comparisons suggest that boys very clearly display
more negative environmental attitudes than the other groups. The pairwise comparisons yielded
a similar result, but the difference was statistically weaker, which may in part indicate intergener-
ational transfer in environmental attitudes within the family. The groupwise difference between
daughters and sons could be due to boys having more individualistic norms (Hornsey et al., 2006;
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 173

Zelezny et al., 2000) as a consequence of the gender difference in socialization. On the other
hand, adolescents are in the developmental stages of identity and intimacy, which could also
explain the differences in environmental attitudes between them and their parents.
Consistent with Guastello and Peissig’s (1998) findings, the pairwise comparisons indicated
that mother’s and father’s environmental attitudes may have cross-gender effects on their children.
Although this study did not find ideological consistency in environmental attitudes across two
successive generations; nevertheless, it found some indicative evidence in pairwise comparison
between fathers and their daughters, but not between the other dyads. One reasonable explanation
for this finding is consistent with Brody, Moore, and Glei (1994), who found that the extent
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

to which adolescents were actively involved in decision making, and where their relationship,
especially with their fathers, was warm, parent-adolescent attitudes showed greater similarity.
Another contributing factor could be, as found previously by Weiss, Isermann, Oswald, and Kuhn
(1998), that the youngest people talk more about societal issues with their fathers than with
their mothers. The discrepancies between studies could be explained by differences in family
environment and by cultural and sociodemographic factors.
Not unexpectedly, the pairwise comparisons revealed a clear consistency in the environmental
attitudes of both parents. Most previous studies have likewise demonstrated a significant similarity
in attitudes between parents. Davis and Rusbult’s (2001) theory of attitude alignment could also
explain the alignment of attitudes between children and their parents. An alternative explanation
for parental alignment is that people, in general, choose a partner with similar attitudes and a
similar approach to life.
These findings support gender socialization theory as explanation for gender differences;
females in general had more positive attitudes than males within the family. Similarly, most of the
previous research indicates that females tend to be more positive in their environmental attitudes,
including the studies of younger cohorts (Guastello & Peissig, 1998; Kaila-Kangas et al., 1994;
Zelezny et al., 2000). In this study more positive environmental attitudes found among daughters
and mothers are likely to indicate that gender is still an operative factor. Although the division of
labor between the sexes continues to diminish, the traditional way of thinking about gender roles
may still affect our attitudes.
There is some evidence that mothers’ and fathers’ beliefs and behaviors may have differential
effects on their children (Sigel, Stinson, & Flaughner, 1991). In line with this earlier finding
our study indicates that in families where the mothers had more positive attitudes than their
husbands, their daughters’ attitudes toward the environment were more negative than in families
where the father was more positive. With boys the situation was the reverse: boys were slightly
more negative in their attitude toward the environment in families where their fathers’ attitudes
were more positive than their mothers’ but this relation was not statistically significant for this
sample. These results are preliminary and the reasons for this phenomenon remain unclear; hence
further research in different cultural contexts is needed. Again, one possible explanation is that
boys are more independent in their environmental attitudes, including the families where their
parents’ environmental attitudes differ widely in absolute terms.
These findings suggest that parents’ level of education had no significant effects on the envi-
ronmental attitudes of their children. This result may reflect the fact that the Finnish educational
system is the same for all irrespective of financial situation or social class. In contrast, Peer,
Goldman, and Yavetz (2007) reported that a mother’s level of education had an influence on their
sons and daughters environmental attitudes.
 174 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

Limitations of the Study

The obvious limitation in this study is that the direction of transmission within family cannot be
determined from correlational analysis only. Hence parent-child similarities may also be caused
as a reverse socialization process (Glass et al., 1986; Vaughan et al., 2003; Sutherland & Ham,
1999) and from external socialization agents. Further, the sampling strategy, which partially
utilizes non-probability sampling, might affect the results, e.g., reduce variation, but it should
not have a strong potential for biasing the results, because the differences in school achievement
between schools in Finland are small (Reinikainen, 2007).
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes preliminary insight to quantitative similarity in attitudes between family
members in environmental domain. The study suggests that to some extent environmental attitudes
might be transferred between family members and there might be some cross sex differences.
There is no valid explanation for the preliminary finding that girls’ environmental attitudes were
more related to their father’s than mother’s attitudes. Thus in future same-sex and cross-sex
correspondence within family, stability of the finding, key features behind these findings, and
possible consistency across countries deserve further consideration. Further it would be fruitful
to examine possible gender differences in environmental attitude profiles, also using qualitative
approaches such as SLE (a narrative approach). This suggest that, when targeting the promotion of
pro-environmental practices and messages to adolescents the possible gender differences should
be considered, instead of treating adolescents as one group.
Pairwise comparison offered one effective technique for studying the role of differing factors in
environmental awareness and the IG transfer at the level of a small group such as the family. This
finding gives the idea that further research is needed to study the long-term effect of EE programs
and school curricula on environmental awareness within families. Finally we emphasize that by
understanding the power of socialization in everyday lives better, the effects of EE programs and
school curricula can be improved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Michael Freeman, George Hogg, Pekka Hokkanen, and Anna-Liisa Kiiskinen
for their valuable help and comments regarding this article. We also wish to thank the Maj and
Tor Nessling Foundation for economic support.

REFERENCES

Acock, A. C., & Bengtson, V. E. (1980). Socialization and attribution processes: Actual vs. perceived similarity among
parents and youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 40, 519–530.
Arnold, H., Cohen, F., & Warner, A. (2009). Youth and environmental action: Perspectives of young environmental
leaders on their formative influences. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 27–36.
Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (2006). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework researching
intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12, 413–427.
Ballantyne, R., Fien, J., & Packer, J. (2001). Program effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environ-
mental education: Lessons from the field. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8–15.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 LEPPÄNEN ET AL. 175

Bengtson, V. L., & Black, D. K. (1973). Intergenerational relations and continuities in socialization. In P. Baltes & W.
Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and socialization (pp. 207–234). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Bixler, R., Floyd, M., & Hammitt, W. (2002). Environmental socialization, quantitative tests of the childhood play
hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34, 795–818.
Brody, G. H., Moore, K., & Glei, D. (1994). Family processes during adolescence as predictors of parent young adult
attitude similarity. A six-year longitudinal analysis. Family Relations, 43, 369–373.
Cantell, H., & Larna, R. (2006). Ympäristövastuulisuus nuorten sanoissa ja teoissa [Environmental responsibility of young
people in intentions and actions]. Helsinki, Finland: Publications of the City of Helsinki Education Department.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

Davis, J., & Rusbult, C. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81(1), 65–84.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schelegelmilch, B., Sinkovich, R., & Bohlen, G. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role
in profiling green consumers? A review of evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56,
465–480.
Duerden, M., & Witt, P. (2010). The impact of socialization on youth program outcomes: A social development model
perspective. Leisure Sciences, 32, 299–317.
Dunlap, R., & van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.
Duvall, J., & Zint, M. (2007). A review of research on the effectiveness of environmental education in promoting
intergenerational learning. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 14–24.
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, Sub-committee for Education. (2006). Strategy for Education
and Training for Sustainable Development and Implementation Plan 2006–2014. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National
Board of Education.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glass, J., Bengtson, V., & Dunham, C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families: Socialization, status
inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685–698.
Grønhøj, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and
behaviours in environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 414–421.
Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2007). Socialization in the family. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization: Theory and research (pp. 284–308). New York, NY: Guilford.
Guastello, D., & Peissig, R. (1998). Authoritarianism, environmentalism, and cynicism of college students and their
parents. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 297–410.
Hornsey, J. J., McAuliffe, B. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2006). The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on
evaluations of dissenting group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 57–68.
Järvinen, M. (1995). Ympäristöystävä vai vapaamatkustaja? Tutkimus nuorten ympäristöasenteista [To be environmen-
tally responsible or a free rider? The study of the environmental attitudes of young people]. Helsinki, Finland: The
Finnish Environment–Environmental Politics 1, and The Finnish Enviroment Institute, 71.
Johnson, C., Bowker, J., & Cordell, H. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of
the new environmental paradigm in social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157–186.
Kaila-Kangas, L., Kangas, R., & Piirainen, H. (1994): Ympäristöasennebarometri [Environmental attitudes survey].
Helsinki, Finland: Publications of the National Board of Waters and the Environment, Series A: National Board of
Waters and the Environment.
Kellert, S. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour toward wildlife among industrial superpowers: United States,
Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53–69.
Kroger, J. (2000). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kuhlemeier, H., van den Bergh, H., & Lagerweij, N. (1999). Environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in Dutch
secondary education. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 4–14.
Kuitunen, M., & Törmälä, T. (1994). Willingness of students to favor the protection of endangered species in a trade-off
conflict in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 111–118.
Kuczynzky, L., & Parkin, M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings
(Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). New York, NY: Guilford.
 176 PARENT-CHILD SIMILARITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.),
Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 13–41). New York, NY: Guilford.
Maloney, M. P. Ward, M. O., & Braucht, N. G. (1975). Psychology in action. A revised scale for the measurement of
ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologists, 30, 787–790.
Marcia, J., & Strayer, J. (1996). Theories and stories. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 346–350.
Meinhold, J., & Malkus, A. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors. Can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy
make a difference? Environment and Behavior, 37, 511–532.
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998a). Significant influences on the development of adults’ environ-
mental awareness in the UK, Slovenia and Greece. Environmental Education Research, 4, 429–444.
Palmer, J., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., Hart, P., Ho, R., Ofwono-Orecho, J., . . . Van Staden, C. (1998b). An overview of
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto], [Jaana Leppänen] at 04:20 19 April 2012

significant influences and formative experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine
countries. Environmental Education Research, 4, 445–465.
Payne, P. (2010). Moral spaces, the struggle for an intergenerational environmental ethics and the social ecology of
families: An “other” form of environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 16, 209–231.
Peer, S., Goldman, D., & Yavetz, B. (2007). Environmental literacy in teacher training: Attitudes, knowledge, and
environmental behaviour of beginning students. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 45–59.
Reinikainen, P. (2007). Sequential explanatory study of factors connected with science achievement in six countries:
Finland, England, Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Russia. PhD thesis, Institute for Educational Research, Research
Reports, 22, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Shih-Jang, H. (2009). Significant life experiences affect environmental action: A confirmation study in eastern Taiwan.
Environmental Education Research, 15, 497–517.
Sigel, I., Stinson, E. T., & Flaughner, J. (1991). Socialization of representational competence in the family: The distancing
paradigm. In L. Okagaki & R. Stenberg (Eds.), Directors of development: Influences on the development of children’s
thinking (pp. 121–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skogen, K. (1996). Young environmentalists. Post-modern identities or middle class culture. Sociological Review, 44,
452–473.
Sutherland, D., & Ham, S. (1999). Child-to-parent transfer of environmental ideology in Costa Rica Families: An
ethnographic case study. Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31.
Szagun, G., & Pavlov, V. (1995). Environmental awareness: A comparative study of German and Russian adolescents.
Youth and Society, 27(1), 93–112.
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental
Education, 11(4), 20–24.
Tanner, T. (1998). Choosing the right subjects in significant life experiences research. Environmental Education Research,
4, 399–418.
Tedin, K. (1974). The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents. American Political Science Review,
63, 1579–1592.
Tikka, P., Kuitunen, M., & Tynys, S. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and
knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 12–19.
Tulokas, R. (1998). Suomalaiset ja ympäristö [The Finns and the environment] Helsinki, Finland: Official Statistics of
Finland.
Tulokas, R. (2002). Suomalaiset ja ympäristö [The Finns and the environment] Helsinki, Finland: Official Statistics of
Finland.
Uyeki, E., & Holland, L. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 646–662.
Uzzell, D. (1994). Children as catalysts of environmental change (Final rep.) London, England: European Commission
Directorate General for Science Research and Development Joint Research Centre.
Vaughan, C., Gack, H., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. (2003). The effect of environmental education on schoolchildren, their
parents, and community members: A study of intergenerational intercommunity learning. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(3), 12–21.
Weiss, K., Isermann, K., Oswald, H., & Kuhn, H. (1998, June). Parental influences on political attitudes of adolescents
in Eastern Germany. Paper presented at the 6th biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on
Adolescence, Budapest, Hungary.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 443–457.

View publication stats