Análisis de factores que influyen en el desarrollo de normas ambientales y en la conducta anti-ecológica

  1. Martha Frías Armenta
  2. Víctor Corral Verdugo
  3. Ana María Martín Rodríguez
Revista interamericana de psicología = Interamerican journal of psychology

ISSN: 0034-9690

Year of publication: 2009

Volume: 43

Issue: 2

Pages: 309-322

Type: Article


This paper is aimed at evaluating the impact of variables presumably related to the development of environmental norms, assuming that environmental transgressions are a particular manifestation of antisocial behavior. 186 undergraduate students responded to a questionnaire assessing their self-reported anti-ecological behavior (considered as dependent variable, DV), their personal norms, their social norms, their perception of authority�s and legal processes� legitimacy, and the dissuasion they detected in legal structures. Data were analyzed using a structural equations model, which revealed that personal and social norms directly affected anti-ecological behavior, being negative the effect of the former and positive the influence of the latter; while dissuasion indirectly and negatively influenced such behavior, through social norms. Perceived legitimacy had an indirect and negative effect on the DV, mediated by dissuasion and social and personal norms. These results are coherently connected with previous studies regarding the obedience of ordinary norms, in which social norms and dissuasion exert their effects through the internalization of ordinary norms, which are manifested as personal moral norms.

Bibliographic References

  • Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 195-228). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Álvarez, M. (1995). Introducción al derecho. México, DF: McGrawHill.
  • Barratt, M. J., Chanteloup, F., Lenton, S., & Marsh, A. (2005). Cannabis law reform in western Australia: An opportunity to test theories of marginal deterrence and legitimacy. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 321-330.
  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS, Structural Equations Program Manual.
  • Encino, CA: Multivariate Statistical Software.
  • Bridgeman, J. (2004). Public perception towards water recycling in California. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 18(3), 150-154.
  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Código Penal del Estado de Sonora. (2007, July 12). Boletín Oficial, 4, sección III, Hermosillo, México. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from
  • Código Penal Federal. (2008). Diario Oficial de la Federación (México, DF). Retrieved April 7, 2008, from
  • Corral, V. (2001). Comportamiento pro-ambiental. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España: RESMA.
  • Corral, V., & Figueredo, A. J. (1999). Convergent and divergent validity of three measures of conservation behavior: The multitraitmultimethod approach. Environment y Behavior, 31, 805-820.
  • Corral, V., Frías, M., & González, D. (2001). Análisis cuantitativos de variables latentes. Hermosillo, México: UniSon.
  • Corral Verdugo, V., & Frías-Armenta, M., (2006). Personal normative beliefs, antisocial behavior and residential water conservation. Environment And Behavior, 38(3), 407-421.
  • Corral Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Tapia Fonllem, C. (2006). Rasgos de la conducta antisocial como correlatos del actuar anti y proambiental. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7(1), 89-103.
  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. R. Interam. Psicol. 43(2), 2009
  • García Máynez, E. (2000). Introducción al estudio de derecho. México, DF: Porrúa.
  • Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending to deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837-861.
  • Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in the organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
  • Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and no-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310-319.
  • Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Höger, R. (2001). Responsibility and environment. Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment & Behavior, 33, 830-852.
  • Jackson, T. (2008). The challenge of sustainable lifestyles. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the world. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on causes of corruption. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  • Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente. (1988, January 28). Diario Oficial de la Federación (México, DF).
  • Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. (2007, July 5). Diario Oficial de la Federación (México, DF). Retrieved April 7, 2008, from
  • Ley del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente del Estado de Sonora. (2008). Boletín Oficial del Gobierno del Estado (Hermosillo). Retrieved April 7, 2008, from
  • Martín, A. M., Hernández, B., & Ruiz, C. (2007). Variables predictoras de la norma personal en transgresiones de las leyes medioambientales. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8, 137-157.
  • Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Science and the Law, 23, 183-198.
  • McAndrew, F. T. (1998). The measurement of ´rootedness’ and the prediction of attachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 409-417.
  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2008). Data and statistics. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved March 31, 2008, from
  • Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? American Psychologist, 55, 496-508.
  • Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., & Paternóster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in the national youth survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22, 1-30.
  • Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence. Experimental investigations and case studies. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh, The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on causes of corruption (pp. 217-240). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  • Santiago-Nino, C. (1987). Introducción al análisis del derecho. Barcelona, España: Ariel.
  • Sigala, M., Burgoyne, C., & Webley, P. (1999). Tax communication and social influence: Evidence from a British simple. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 237-241.
  • Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 67-82).Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  • Schultz, P. W., & Tyra, A. (2000, April). A field study of normative beliefs and environmental behavior. Poster presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
  • Starke, L. (Ed.). (2008). State of the world. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Tal, I., Hill, D., Figueredo, A. J., Frías, M., & Corral, V. (2006). An evolutionary approach to explaining water conservation behavior. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7, 7-27.
  • Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behavior: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247-261.
  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.
  • Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1-22.
  • Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
  • Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
  • Wenzel, M. (2003). Tax compliance and the psychology of justice: Mapping the field. In V. Braithwaite (Ed.), Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasión (pp. 41-70). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot.
  • Wenzel, M. (2004a). An analysis of norm processes in tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 213-228.
  • Wenzel, M. (2004b). The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 547-567.
  • Wenzel, M., & Jobling, P. (2006). Legitimacy of regulatory authorities as a function of inclusive identification and power over ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 239-258.
  • Wilson, D. P. (2004). Additional law enforcement as a deterrent to criminal behavior: Empirical evidence from the National Hockey League. Journal of Socio-Economics, 34, 319-330.
  • World Wildlife Foundation. (2008). WWF en el mundo. México, DF:Author. Retrieved April 01, 2008, from