Predictors of Personal Responsibility to Protect the Marine Environment Among Scuba Divers

This paper examines predictors of personal responsibility for the protection of the marine environment among scuba divers (n=300, 97% response rate) in the Florida Keys, summer 2002. A predictive framework of personal responsibility was used as a guide for this investigation. A diver personal responsibility index was created from four measures of feelings of personal responsibility for appropriate diving behavior. Eighteen independent variables categorized, as diver background, environmental attitudes and specific issue variables comprised those indicators hypothesized to predict personal diver responsibility. Regression analysis found five predictors of personal diver responsibility accounting for 38% of the total variance. No diver background variables predicted personal diver responsibility. Perceived knowledge about marine environmental issues was the strongest predictor, followed by motivation, environmental beliefs, and attitude about enforcement and dive expectations. Results imply that belief in a balance between humans and nature, certain experience preferences pertinent to the recreational activity, positive attitudes toward enforcement and perceived knowledge of environmental issues are sociopsychological factors that may influence personal responsibility to act pro-environmentally while engaged in diving as a leisure activity. 1 This paper is a result of research supported by the Florida National High Adventure Sea Base, Boy Scouts of America. Introduction Personal responsibility refers to the quality or state of being responsible such as moral, legal, or mental accountability; something for which one is responsible (Stubbs, 2003 online). In psychology and in mental health circles, buzzwords are used; personal responsibility is one such buzzword for the 1990s. What does personal responsibility mean and how does one become responsible? Personal responsibility is something that all individuals have for their actions, whether conscious of that fact or not. Consequently, feelings or attitudes toward responsible behavior vary in context and degree. All societies consist of people that have difficulty being accountable for their actions. “It wasn’t me; or it was my alter ego. ” “My actions are not a major problem and I can’t control what others do. ” Those are just a few of the many reasons given. Whatever actions or behaviors we do, we are still accountable and personally responsible for those actions. More importantly whether we own the responsibility or not, it exists and belongs to each of us respectively. As it pertains to the pro-environmental behavior literature, personal responsibility refers to perceived feelings of duty or obligation of the respondent toward the environment (e.g., personal responsibility felt for reducing water pollution) (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987). Hines et al. argues that people who feel some degree of personal responsibility toward the environment are more likely to engage in appropriate behavior than people with no such feelings of responsibility. For example, if a person understands that taking a piece of coral from the reef could result in further damage to the vary resource that he/she came to see, then they might take a personal interest or responsibility to not partake in that behavior. Schwartz (1968) implies that for an action to occur, some degree of ascription of responsibility (AR) is necessary. Along with AR he argues that an awareness of the consequences (AC) of the action as it affects the welfare of others is also necessary. It is only when awareness of interpersonal consequences and acceptance of responsibility occur together that norms governing these consequences are likely to influence behavior, except insofar as other pressures supporting them are brought to bear. He argues that the opinions of others (peer influence) about an individual’s Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-317 252 Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-317 253 actions will greatly increase an ascription to responsibility, which, in turn, will significantly influence actual behavior. For example, compliance with regulations regarding appropriate diving behavior may depend to a significant degree on whether divers are aware of the impacts their actions may have on the environment and on the health and safety of other divers, and whether they are willing to accept responsibility for those impacts. Given the varying strength of AC and AR in explaining environmental behaviors, researchers have explored other variables that might influence a behavioral model’s predictive power (Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Tarrant & Cordell, 1997). For example, in situations where individuals feel committed to resolving impact problems, they are likely to engage in responsible behavior (Hines et al., 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Sivek & Hungerford, 1989/90). Individuals who are aware of the consequences of their actions and feel some level of responsibility are likely to identify with the issues and develop a personal interest in helping to solve the problem. Thus, behavioral commitment (sub-dimension of personal responsibility) refers to an action strategy that might be reflected in financial donations to help resolve a problem situation, or specific actions designed to reduce impacts on the environment. Personal (behavioral) Commitment Once some level of personal responsibility develops towards an object, it is more likely an individual will personally commit to that object. According to Hungerford and Volk (1990) and Hines et al. (1987), personal commitment to an issue or an action strategy refers to the degree to which individuals identify with issues, thereby depicting a feeling of ownership or personal interest in the issue. What generates or empowers individuals to acquire a feeling of ownership? Bardwell (1991) argues that people are not inherently apathetic towards getting involved and that people are, indeed, eager to understand and interact with their surroundings. She states “people’s active participation, however, depends on several factors: concern-how one understands and responds to the issue; competence-whether one feels capable of addressing the issue; imagery-what ideas or alternatives one has for what to do” (p. 6). People are more apt to respond to an object or situation that encompasses some degree of familiarity to them. Thus, they are more likely to develop an interest in something if the information touches on their past experience, leading to concern. However, Bardwell (1991) argues that action is based on more than concern. She states “knowledge of action strategies leads to feelings of competence which influences participation” (p. 7). The lack of any one of these factors could lead to a feeling of helplessness or apathy. Personal commitment is treated in this study as an underlying dimension of personal diver responsibility with one commitment item loading on the personal diver responsibility factor (e.g., I make an effort to enhance my skills with practice before diving to have better control when diving). Locus of Control According to Marcinkowski (1988, p. 114)), “a review of the social learning theory, expectancy theory, and locus of control literature . indicates that locus of control has been shown to correlate with, as well as have a substantial effect on, intention and behavior” as well as on responsible environmental behavior. Locus of Control, both external and internal, “. refers to an individual’s belief in being reinforced for a certain behavior” (Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 12) and “. to an individual’s perception of their ability to bring about change in a particular situation” (Marcinkowski, 1988, p. 60). Internal locus of control refers to someone’s belief that what he or she does will make a difference. External locus of control alludes to a persons’ belief that his or her action(s) will not make a difference (p. 12). Hines et al. (1887, p. 5) state that “those individuals who have an internal locus of control were more likely to have reported engaging in REB than were individuals exhibiting a more external locus of control. ” Although not directly used as a variable in this study, some indicators of locus of control are used in the operationalization of personal diver responsibility (e.g., I feel I can influence through my behavior and effort the solution to the protection of the marine environment). In conclusion, developing attitudes about an issue depends upon the strength of those variables within the cognitive component. In essence, attitudes portray one’s beliefs. The stronger the belief tendency the greater the level of personal responsibility will be to an issue (e.g., I feel