Adaptación de la escala Dragones de Inacción Barreras Psicológicas (DIPB) en población colombiana

Abstract

The environmental damage that has been generated by human activity is a cause for concern, so pro-environmental behavior has been identified as one of the possible solutions. However, it has been seen that there are psychological barriers that prevent or hinder this behavior. For this reason, in order to have an instrument to evaluate these psychological barriers in our context, the objective of this research was to adapt the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale to the Colombian population. The sample was made up of 810 university students from Bogotá and Chía, Colombia; 367 males and 443 females between 15 and 48 years of age (M = 19.67, SD = 2.414). In general, an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis were carried out, which demonstrated the existence of a five-factor structure with 20 items. Item and reliability analyses were performed, which demonstrated that the instrument has a high internal consistency; and two invariance studies were carried out, which showed that the factor structure is invariant for all study groups. In addition, the total instrument was scored. In conclusion, this adaptation of the DIPB presents adequate validity and reliability, and allows guiding future research on inaction barriers in the Latin American context, while providing an input for a first diagnosis of this construct in Colombia.

Keywords:

pro-environmental behavior environmental psychology environment factor analysis psychometrics

References

Abad, F., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Editorial Síntesis.

Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). A classification system for research designs in psychology. Annals of Psychology, 29(3), 1038-1059. https://doi.org/10.60 18/analesps.29.3.178511

Barbero, M. I. (2010). Psicometría: Teoría, formulario y problemas resueltos.

Sanz y Torres. Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599

Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits, and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003

Chen, A., & Gifford, R. (2015). “I wanted to cooperate, but…”: Justifying Suboptimal Cooperation in a Commons Dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(4), 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1037/ cbs0000021

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2009). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15328007SEM0902_5

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (3. ª ed.). Sage Publications.

De los Santos-Roig, M., & Pérez-Meléndez, C. (2014). Items analysis and reliability evidences of ERCE scale. Annals of Psychology, 30(2), 438-449. https://doi.org/10.6018/ analesps.30.2.164021

Díaz-Marín, J. S., & Geiger, S. (2019). Comportamiento Proambiental: actitudes y valores en una muestra poblacional colombiana. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 12(1), 31-40. https://reviberopsicologia.ibe ro.edu.co/article/view/rip.12103

Dietz, T., Dan, A., & Shwom, R. (2009). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185-214. https://doi. org/10.1526/003601107781170026

Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6(1), 27-36. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/302438451_Validez_ de_contenido_y_juicio_de_expertos_Una_aproxima cion_a_su_utilizacion

Finney, S., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and Categorical data in structural equation modeling. En G. Hancock y R. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (pp. 269-314). Information Age Publishing.

Geiger, N., Middlewood, B., & Swim, J. (2017). Psychological, social, and cultural barriers to communicating about climate change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.377

Gifford, R. (2011). The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290-302. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0023566

Gifford, R., & Chen, A. (2017). Why aren’t we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices. Climatic Change, 140(2), 165-178. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10584-016-1830-y

Herrera-Mendoza, K., Acuña, M., Ramírez, M., & De la Hoz, M. (2016). Actitud y conducta pro-ecológica de jóvenes universitarios. Opción, 32(13), 456-477. https:// produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/opcion/article/ view/21609/21413

Herrero, J. (2010). El análisis Factorial Confirmatorio en el estudio de la Estructura y Estabilidad de los Instrumentos de Evaluación: Un ejemplo con el Cuestionario de Autoestima CA-14. Psychological Intervention, 19(3), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2010v19n3a9

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. https://doi. org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Lacroix, K., & Gifford, R. (2018). Psychological barriers to energy conservation behavior: The role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environment and Behavior, 50(7), 749-780. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916517715296

Lacroix, K., Gifford, R., & Chen, A. (2019). Developing and validating the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.03.001

Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9

Ley 1090 de 2006. Por la cual se reglamenta el ejercicio de la profesión de Psicología, se dicta el Código Deontológico y Bioético y otras disposiciones. Diario oficial N. 46383 de 6 de septiembre de 2006. Congreso de la República de Colombia. https://www.fun cionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma_pdf. php?i=66205

Lloret-Segura. S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and up-dated. Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/ analesps.30.3.199361

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers Perceived to Engaging with Climate Change Among the UK Public and Their Policy Implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3/4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004

Martínez, M. R., Hernández, M. J., & Hernández, M. V. (2014). Psicometría. Alianza Editorial.

Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

Muñiz, J., Elousa, P., & Hambleton, R. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición. Psicothema, 25(2), 151-157. https://doi. org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24

Otzen, T., & Manterola, C. (2017). Técnicas de Muestreo sobre una Población a Estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.4067/ S0717-95022017000100037

Oviedo, H., & Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 34(4), 572-580. https://www.redalyc.org/ar ticulo.oa?id=80634409

Páramo, P. (2017). Reglas proambientales: una alternativa para disminuir la brecha entre el decir-hacer en la educación ambiental. Suma Psicológica, 24(1), 42-58. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sumpsi.2016.11.001

Páramo, P., Sandoval-Escobar, M., Jakovcevic, A., Ferreiro, J., Mustaca, A., Jengich, A., Brenes, J., Ortega-Andeane, P., Vivas, F., Moros, O., Méndez, C., Pasquali, C., Aparecida, M., Anicama, J., Castillo, B., Denegri, M., & Urzúa, A. (2015). Assessment of environmental quality, degree of optimism, and the assignment of responsibility regarding the state of the environment in Latin America. Universitas Psychologica, 14(2), 605-618. https://doi. org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-2.aeqd

Preuss, S. (1991). Umweltkatastrophe Mensch. Ueber unsere Grenzen und Moeglichkeiten, oekologisch bewusst zu handeln. Roland Asanger Verlag.

Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59-64. https://doi. org/10.4102/sajip.v30i4.168

Resolución 8430 de 1993. Por la cual se establecen las normas científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la investigación en salud. 4 de octubre de 1993. Ministerio de Salud, Bogotá, Colombia. https://www.minsalud. gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/ RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF

Rigo, D., & Donolo, D. (2018). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales usos en investigación psicológica y educativa. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 52(3), 345-357. https://journal.sipsych.org/index.php/IJP/article/view/388

Ruiz, M., Pardo, A, & San Martín, R. (2010). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 34-45. http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1794.pdf

Sandin, B., Valiente, R. M., Chorot, P., & Santed, M. A. (2007). ASI-3: Nueva escala para la evaluación de la sensibilidad a la ansiedad. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 12(2), 91-104. https://doi. org/10.5944/rppc.vol.12.num.2.2007.4036

Sandoval-Escobar, M., Páramo, P., Orejuela, J., González, I., Cortés, O., Herrera, K., Garzón, C., & Erazo, C. (2019). Paradojas del comportamiento proambiental de los estudiantes universitarios en diferentes disciplinas académicas. Interdisciplinaria: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 36(2), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.16888/ interd.2019.36.2.11

Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. En S. Clayton (ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 556-580). Oxford University Press.

Stern, P. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi. org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied Multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 107-117. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3

Swim, J., Howard, G., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Doherty, T. J., Stern, P. C., Gifford, R., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa. org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx

Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling. En B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (eds.), Using multivariate stadistics (5. ª ed.) (pp. 653-711).

Allyn & Bacon. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (2016). Resumen de las evaluaciones regionales GEO-6. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/han dle/20.500.11822/7688/-Resumen_de_las_evalua ciones_regionales_del_sexto_informe_sobre_las_pers pectivaas_del_medio_ambiente_mundial_GEO-6_ Resultados_principales_y_mensajes_.pdf?sequence=3& isAllowed=

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

Villasenor-Alva, J., & Estrada, E. G. (2009). A Generalization of Shapiro-Wilk’s Test for Multivariate Normality. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 38(11), 1870-1883. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920802 474465

Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Constructing and evaluating quantitative measures for social psychological research: Conceptual challenges and methodological solutions. The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 145-172). SAGE Publications. http://dx. doi.org/10.4135/9781412976190.n7

Reference by