ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-AWARENESS AS A VALUE-SEMANTIC COMPONENT OF THE PERSONAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psyspu/2026.1.2Abstract
The article presents a theoretical and empirical study of environmental self-awareness as a value-semantic component of an individual’s resource potential. The relevance of the study is determined by the growing scale of global environmental challenges and the need to identify psychological mechanisms underlying the formation of pro-environmental behavior. The aim of the study is to conceptualize environmental self-awareness as an integrative personal resource and to empirically examine its relationships with psychological resourcefulness and self-reflection. The methodology is based on a cross-sectional correlational research design. The sample consisted of 142 higher education students of Bogdan Khmelnitsky Melitopol State Pedagogical University. Data were collected using validated psychometric instruments, including the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, the Pro-environmental Social Responsibility (PSR) scale, the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS), and a psychological resourcefulness questionnaire. The internal consistency of the instruments was confirmed (Cronbach’s α = 0.78–0.84). The results indicate that medium and high levels of environmental beliefs, environmental responsibility, self-reflection, and psychological resourcefulness prevail in the sample. Statistically significant positive correlations were found between environmental beliefs and environmental responsibility (r = 0.42; p < 0.01), psychological resourcefulness (r = 0.35; p < 0.01), as well as between self-reflection and resourcefulness (r = 0.47; p < 0.01). A relative asymmetry between the cognitive-worldview and value-normative components was identified, manifested in the higher development of normative orientations compared to the depth of their cognitive internalization. The scientific novelty lies in the interpretation of environmental self-awareness as an integrative value-semantic resource that combines cognitive, normative, and reflexive components into a unified system of self-regulation. The practical significance of the findings is associated with their potential application in the development of environmental education programs and psychological interventions aimed at enhancing personal resourcefulness and promoting pro-environmental behavior
References
Bamberg S., Möser G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social
determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2007. Vol. 27, № 1. P. 14–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
Capaldi C.A., Dopko R.L., Zelenski J.M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A metaanalysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014. Vol. 5. Art. 976. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
Clayton S. Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature / ed. S. Clayton, S. Opotow. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003. P. 45–65.
Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues. 2000. Vol. 56, № 3. P. 425–442. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176.
Gifford R., Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology. 2014. Vol. 49, № 3. P. 141–157. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12034.
Grant A.M., Franklin J., Langford P. The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale: A new measure of private selfconsciousness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2002. Vol. 30, № 8. P. 821–836. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.821.
Kollmuss A., Agyeman J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research. 2002. Vol. 8, № 3. P. 239–260. DOI: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
Schultz P.W. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human–nature relations. Psychology of sustainable development / ed. P. Schmuck, W.P. Schultz. Boston: Springer, 2002. P. 61–78.
Steg L., Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2009. Vol. 29, № 3. P. 309–317. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
Stern P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 2000. Vol. 56, № 3. P. 407–424. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Stern P.C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G.A., Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review. 1999. Vol. 6, № 2. P. 81–97.
The Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024. United Nations Development Programme. 2024. URL: https://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote-2024 (дата звернення: 10.03.2026).
Climate change remains top global threat across 19-country survey. Pew Research Center. 2022. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/(дата звернення: 10.03.2026).
