Examining the influences of experience, personality and attitude on SCUBA divers' underwater...

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1521e1534

Contents lists available

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Examining the influences of experience, personality and attitude on SCUBA divers’underwater behaviour: A structural equation model

Tah Fatt Ong a,*, Ghazali Musa b,1

a Faculty of Sports Science and Recreation, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, MalaysiabMarketing Department, University Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 March 2011Accepted 15 February 2012

Keywords:Underwater behaviourDiving attitudePersonalityDiving experience

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ60 603 55442945.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.F.

(G. Musa).1 Tel.: þ60 603 79067061.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.007

a b s t r a c t

This study examines and extends the empirical evidence of the causal relationships among experience,personality and attitude on the behaviour of scuba divers. The empirical data were collected from divers(n ¼ 413) in the five most popular islands for scuba diving in Malaysia. Measurements of diving attitude,experience and underwater behaviour were developed based on the literature and expert opinions. The‘Big Five’model was utilised to measure the personality of divers. Data were analysed using the structuralequation modelling to examine the relationships among the constructs. Past experience was found to bethe most important factor in explaining divers’ underwater behaviour, followed by diving attitude andpersonality. Diving attitude partially mediates the relationships between experience and underwaterbehaviour. The paper discusses some of its theoretical and managerial contributions which could facil-itate the design and management of potential detrimental impacts caused by divers in the marineenvironment.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Coastal areas have long been popular with tourists, but withincreasing incomes, greater accessibility, more leisure time anda recreation industry promoting adventurewater based sports suchas diving and kite surfing, an increasing numbers of coastal regionsare being utilised for recreation and tourism on a scale not previ-ously experienced. The over development of tourism facilities in theareas has raised concerns about the detrimental impacts it iscausing to the marine environment. Impacts could also be theresult of activities undertaken by tourists in the area. Amongtourists’ activities which harmful to the environment are unsus-tainable fishing, improper rubbish disposal, the use of sun-lotion,oil spilled, jet boating, snorkelling and reef walking. However,since the invention of self-contained underwater breathing appa-ratus in 1942 by Jacque Yves Cousteau and Emily Gagnon, anotherrecreational activity which has potential to inflict severe impact onmarine environment is SCUBA diving (Musa, 2002).

Today, SCUBA diving is one of the world’s fastest growingrecreational sports. Dive tourism is now rapidly developing to be

Ong), [email protected]

All rights reserved.

a multi-billion dollar industry at the global level. For the past twodecades, there has been a huge increase in the number of certifieddivers worldwide. According to the Professional Association of DiveInstructors (PADI), globally the number of certified divers in 2008was 17.8 million, compared with 2.5 million in 1988 (PADI, 2008).This increasing trend together with the growing demand for newdiving destinations has stimulated a rapid development of SCUBAdiving tourism in a relatively short period of time. Among factorswhich contribute to the popularity of recreational SCUBA diving arethe development of safer and affordable diving equipment (Davis &Tisdell, 1995), the advances in technology that producemarine craftwhich enable easy access to remote coral reef areas (Parker, 2001)and the rising interest in nature (Harriott, Davis, & Banks, 1997).

Divers travel to diving destinations for various reasons. Todd,Graefe, and Mann (2002) identified six diving motivationalfactors which are adventure, learning, escape, social interaction,status and personal challenge. Dimmock (2009) on the other handrevealed four motivations among divers which are physical, social,psychological and visual. However, the majority of the researchersagreed that the most significant motives are related to the divingenvironment or to the thrill of diving itself (Dearden, Bennett, &Rollins, 2006; Meyer, Thapa, & Pennington-Gray, 2003; Musa,Kadir, & Lee, 2006). These motivations include ‘experiencingunderwater flora and fauna’, ‘exploring new things’, ‘experiencingthe adventure of diving’, ‘having stimulating and exciting experi-ence’, and ‘learning about the underwater environment’.

mailto:[email protected]


www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.007



T.F. Ong, G. Musa / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1521e15341522

Recreational SCUBA diving however is not without costs to themarine environment. As mentioned by Saphier and Hoffmann(2005), some of the visible and unseen anthropogenic stresses tothe coral reef ecosystem caused by SCUBA diving activities includediver contact, anchor damage, copper emission from antifoulingpaint, oil discharge, untreated sewage and toxic cleaning products.Coral reefs are fragile and vulnerable to damage. Their carbonatesub-structure grows slowly and is relatively brittle, and easilycrushed by careless divers (Tratalos & Austin, 2001). Divers’ impactson the coral reefs have been widely documented in many differentparts of the world (e.g. Dixon, Scura, & van’t Hof, 1993; Hawkins &Roberts, 1992; Riegl & Velimirov, 1991). In the Northern Red Sea,Riegl and Velimirov (1991) found significant coral breakages andhigher rate of tissue loss occurred in areas frequently visited bydivers. Similarly, Hawkins and Roberts (1992) discovered signifi-cant increase in coral colonies damage had occurred in heavilyvisited dive sites in Egypt. Diving activities also affect the biologicaldiversity of coral communities in the Caribbean Island of Bonaire(Dixon et al., 1993).

Studies on the impacts of divers on the marine environmenthave been examined via four approaches. These are the examina-tion of the carrying capacity of dive sites (Davis & Tisdell, 1995;Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Zakai & Chadwick-Furman, 2002), the identification of divers’ demographic andbehaviour characteristics that may have greater negative impactsthan those of other divers (Barker & Roberts, 2004; Rouphael &Inglis, 2001), the focus on the types of intervention that may alterdivers‘ underwater behaviour (Barker & Roberts, 2004; Medio,Ormond, & Pearson, 1997) and the positive impacts of recrea-tional divers’ involvement in themarine environmental monitoringprogram (Goffredo et al., 2010; Goffredo, Piccinetti, & Zaccanti,2004; Hodgson, 1999; Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens, 2003).

Although many of the impacts of divers’ underwater behaviourshave been investigated, understanding on the influence of socio-psychological variables on divers’ underwater behaviour is stillrelatively unexplored. This is the main aim of this study. Thefindings of the study are crucial in the understanding of personalattributes of divers which are likely to influence their behaviourunderwater. Appropriate educational and management strategiescould then be instituted to minimize the impacts of divers on themarine environment.

2. Background to the study

According to Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano (1998), research onpro-environmental behaviour can be categorised into two majorstreams. These are socio-demographic and socio-psychologicalstreams. Variables related to the socio-demographic streaminclude education, age, genders, among others (Dietz et al., 1998;Jones & Dunlap, 1992). On the other hand, the socio-psychologicalstream consists of variables such as values, attitudes, and beliefs.Interestingly, Boldero (1995) claimed that the socio-psychologicalvariables are better predictors of pro-environmental behaviour,compared with socio-demographic variables. Attitude especiallyhas been recognized as having a major influence on behaviours(Newhouse, 1990).

In an attempt to further explain the influences on pro-environmental behaviour, Stern (2000) has proposed four typesof causal variables, which includes personal capabilities, attitudinalfactors, habit or routine, and external or contextual factors. Thepersonal capabilities consist of the individual’s knowledge, skill,available time and money, social status, and power. Attitudinalfactors are environmental and non-environmental attitudes,beliefs, values, and personal norms. Habit or routine represents thetendency to act without thoroughly considering the behavioural

choice. Stern (2000) pointed out that attitudinal factors and habitor routine may be classified as psychological factors. Lastly, theexternal or contextual factors comprise physical, social, economic,and political variables. The importance of psychological factors overand above socio-demographic and contextual factors has beendemonstrated in the context of pro-environmental travel behaviour(Hunecke, Haustein, Grischkat, & Böhler, 2007; Steg, Vlek, &Slotegraaf, 2001).

A review of literature reveals that much research has beenconducted on identifying the predictors of general responsibleenvironmental behaviour such as energy conservation (Black,Stern, & Elworth, 1985), recycling (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz,1995) and green consumerism (Thøgersen, 2006). There seems tobe limited research involved in identifying predictors of specificresponsible environmental behaviour (SREB), such as SCUBAdiving. Several theorists (e.g. Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973; Cottrell &Graefe, 1997; Heberlein & Black, 1976) have indicated that morespecific-issue variables are better predictors of overt behaviour inspecific-issue situations. In a study on specific responsible envi-ronmental behaviour of recreational boaters, among the prominentpredictors identified were boating experience, awareness of theconsequences of sewage discharge, knowledge of regulations, andknowledge of water pollution (Cottrell & Graefe, 1997). The findingsof the study demonstrated the importance of the socio-psychological variable (attitude) and the personal capabilitiesvariable (boating experience) in explaining specific responsibleboating behaviour.

In SCUBA diving literature, it was reported that the degree ofactual impact with coral is influenced by level of experience andskill of divers (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Harriott et al., 1997). Severalrecent studies have also demonstrated fairly strong for support therelationship between experience level and divers’ underwaterbehaviour (Musa, Seng, Thirumoorthi, & Abessi, 2011; Thapa,Graefe, & Meyer, 2006; Todd, Cooper, & Graefe, 2000). With refer-ence to the above literature, experience as a general variable anddiving attitude representing specific-issue variable, have beenconsidered as antecedents to explain divers’ specific underwaterbehaviour in the present study.

Additionally Hwang, Kim, and Jeng (2000) supported the notionthat by introducing new variables in the research model, there arestrong possibilities of changing the relationships among environ-mental behaviour-related variables. Evidence of psychology litera-ture showed that people’s personalities greatly influence theirbehaviour (Furnham, 1990; Phares, 1991). Personality, as a multi-faceted concept, has been shown to positively influence environ-mental behaviour in various consumer behaviour studies (e.g.Balderjahn, 1988; Fraj & Martinez, 2003; Ramanaiah, Clump, &Sharpe, 2000). Specifically, Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic, Snelgar,and Adrian Furnham (2011) found that higher personality traits of‘conscientiousness’ are associated with better pro-environmentalwaste management behaviour. Literature in examining the rela-tionship between underwater responsible behaviour and person-ality traits among SCUBA divers is almost non-existent with theexception of Musa et al. (2011).

Musa et al. (2011) studied the relationships of divers’ experienceand personality on SCUBA diving behaviour. The study was uniqueas it was the first to examine the influence of personality on divers’responsible behaviour underwater. However, Musa et al.’s (2011)study has several limitations. The use of convenience sampling(snowballing) and the sampling which was not on the site mayhave rendered the information on SCUBA diving behaviour as lessvalid. There was also the possibility that the convenience samplingmay have attracted divers with certain type of personality (e.g.agreeableness). The study also used a limited list of responsiblebehaviour items which resulted in only one factor-responsible

T.F. Ong, G. Musa / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1521e1534 1523

underwater behaviour-derived from factor analysis. The currentstudy attempts to address these limitations, along with the inclu-sion of the examination of SCUBA diving attitudes which have notbeen examined by previous research.

The overall aim of this study is to examine the causal effect oftheoretical model which is the influence of socio-psychologicalantecedents of experience, personality and attitude on respon-sible behaviour of divers underwater using the structural equationmodel. This could be achieved through the following objectives:

(i) to identify the personality and the levels of experience, atti-tude and responsible underwater behaviour of SCUBA divers,

(ii) to examine the causal relationship of personality, experienceand attitude with responsible underwater behaviour amongSCUBA divers, and

(iii) to investigate the mediating role of diving attitude in theinfluence of experience and personality on divers’ responsibleunderwater behaviour.

There are several contributions made by this study. Firstly, itexplores the dimensions of SCUBA diving attitude which has notbeen attempted in any previous studies. Secondly, it expandsfurther the dimensions of self-reporting responsible underwaterbehaviour which was weakly examined by Musa et al. (2011). Lastbut not least, it proposes the SCUBA diving underwater behaviourmodel from the socio-psychological perspective using the struc-tural equation model (SEM).

This paper is organized as follows. Following an introductorysection, a review of related literature is presented. This includesSCUBA diving impacts and the related socio-psychological variablesthat are applied in this study. In the next section, the conceptualframework that establishes relationships among the constructs ispresented, and a set of research hypotheses is proposed. Datacollection process and instrumentation are discussed in thefollowing section. Next, the research model is examined and testedwith the structural equation model (SEM) approach. The results arepresented following which discussions and concluding remarksgiven.

3. Literature review

As stated earlier, the main purpose of this study is to developand test a theoretical model which represents the variables thatinfluence SCUBA divers’ underwater behaviour. This literaturereview will examine the concepts and knowledge of the constructsin the proposed model: SCUBA diving experience, personality,SCUBA diving attitude and underwater behaviour.

3.1. Underwater behaviour

In this study underwater behaviour refers to specific responsiblebehaviour that needs to be carried out underwater in order toensure divers’ safety as well as for the protection of marine envi-ronment. Certain behaviours underwater are known to cause harmto the coral reef. Among them are holding, trampling, kneeling oncoral as well as kicking of fins and hitting of coral by loose equip-ment (Barker & Roberts, 2004; Hawkins et al., 1999; Leujak &Ormond, 2008; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Walters & Samways,2001). Comparatively, fins cause most damage to the reef, fol-lowed by hands, knees and diving equipment (Rouphael & Inglis,1997). Indirect damages to the coral reef can also be caused by finkicks of divers, which stir up benthic sediment that covers andsuffocates the coral polyps (Rogers, 1990; Rouphael & Inglis, 1995;Zakai & Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Studies have shown that theoverwhelming majority of divers (70e90%) do contact the reef

during the dives (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001;Talge, 1992). Even though the impact of the individual diver may beminor, the cumulative impacts of them however could besubstantial (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001;Townsend, 2000).

Tominimize the detrimental impacts of divers on coral reefs andmarine ecosystem, several guidelines for recreational diving wereproposed by marine conservation organisations. According tostandard requirements for recreational SCUBA diving proposed byICRAN MAR 1 (2006), divers must obey all applicable local andnational laws and regulations on diving activity. The guidelinesinclude, avoid interactions with marine life, maintain an awarenessof fins, use of equipment and handling of underwater cameras,adjust buoyancy and secure equipment from contacting corals orstirring up sediments while diving. Divers are not allowed to touchor contact corals or other reef dwelling organisms. They are also notto stand and rest on coral reefs. Spearing any marine life or chasing,harassing or riding on them (e.g. turtles, manatees and whalesharks) and feeding fish are strictly prohibited. Even collectingshells and corals as souvenirs is not allowed. In addition, META(Marine Ecotourism for the Atlantic Area, 2001) advocated thatdivers need to regularly review and update their diving skills suchas buoyancy control, finning and positioning.

Several researchers have emphasized that much of the damageon coral reefs by divers is unnecessary and can be avoided bymodifying the behaviour of divers (Allison, 1996; Hawkins &Roberts, 1997; Medio et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 1995). Medioet al. (1997) found that a 45-min diver education session fol-lowed by in-water demonstration has significantly reduced theamount of damage inflicted by divers underwater. On the otherhand, Barker and Roberts (2004) noted that short briefing (i.e. one-sentence environmental reminder) given by local staff had no effecton contact rates of divers. They proposed that underwater inter-vention by dive-masters could greatly reduce the negative impactsof divers on the marine environment.

Researchers have employed both observational (e.g. Barker &Roberts, 2004; Medio et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997;Tratalos & Austin, 2001) and self-reporting techniques (e.g. Musaet al., 2011; Thapa, Graefe, & Meyer, 2005) to examine divers’behaviour underwater. Using self-reporting method, Thapa et al.(2005) revealed three dimensions of marine-based environmentalbehaviour from a total of fourteen items. These were contactbehaviour, general diving behaviour and general educationbehaviour which explained 49% of the variance. As stated earlierMusa et al.’s (2011) study discovered only one dimension ofresponsible underwater behaviour from ten items which explained73% of the variance. The inconsistency in the dimensions of divers’behaviour indicates the needs for a better measurement of SCUBAdiving behaviour.

3.2. SCUBA diving experience

Past experience is defined as the sum of accumulated lifeexperience a recreationist has within a particular recreationalactivity or “style of participation” (Virden, 1992, p. 6). The influenceof past experience on an individual is reflected in the skill level ofthe recreationist, as well as how the recreationist feels, behaves andmakes decisions. Several researchers (e.g. Shinew, 1993; Williams,Schreyer, & Knopf, 1990) have contended that an individual’s pastexperiences do influence their present leisure behaviour.

A review of literature indicated that there is a relationshipbetween experience and irresponsible behaviour underwater. Mostobservational studies conducted in SCUBA diving revealed thatmore experienced divers made significantly less contact with thereef than less experienced divers (Barker & Roberts, 2004; Davis &


Tisdell, 1995; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Talge, 1992). Additionalevidence was discovered by Walters and Samways (2001) ina direct observational study on 89 recreational divers. They repor-ted that novice divers made one damaging contact per 6 dives,while moderately experienced and experienced divers madecontact about once every 14 dives and once every 23 divesrespectively. Roberts and Harriott (1994) noted that experienceddivers were less likely to cause damage to the reef compared toinexperienced divers (those who logged less than 100 dives).

Experience involves behaviour related to skill and knowledge.More experienced divers are more exposed to the underwaterenvironment and acquire higher level of training, which improvestheir diving competency and skill. Advanced divers tend to havebetter underwater buoyancy control and finning techniques whichsubsequently cause less impact on the marine environment (Davis& Tisdell, 1995; Roberts & Harriott, 1994). They also have greatercapabilities to adapt to various challenging diving situations, suchas strong currents, poor visibility and different diving environ-ments (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997). Thapa et al.(2006) found that there is a positive relationship between levelsof specialization and marine based environmental behavioursamong divers. In another self-reported study by Musa et al. (2011),four experience parameters which greatly influence the behaviourof divers underwater were duration of involvement, total numberof dives, self-rating experience, and frequency of diving in a year.

Harriott et al. (1997) however, found no significant differencesin the total number of contacts or impacts made by divers withdifferent levels of experience. Their reason was that less experi-enced divers are more cautious in their diving activity. Thisobservation was also reported by Rouphael and Inglis (2001) whofound there is no strong relationship between dive experience anddamaging behaviours of divers. Since there are contradictions ofevidence on the influence of experience on behaviour of diversunderwater, this study includes this measurement in order to re-examine its relationship.

Researches on SCUBA divers’ experience have employed indi-cators such as number of dives completed in a lifetime, level ofcertification, or self-rating experience to represent level of experi-ence (Musa et al., 2011; Todd, 2000; Todd et al., 2000). In thepresent study, the measurement of experience level incorporatesthe two dimensions of behavioural and cognitive components inthe recreational specialization concept (Bryan, 1977). The behav-ioural component is represented by the total number of divesmade,while the cognitive component is measured by level of certificationand self-rating experience. The following section examines the roleof personality on behaviour.

3.3. Personality

An individual’s personality is defined as “a set of points fallingalong several behavioural dimensions, each corresponding toa trait, resulting in a unique profile, different from that of otherindividuals” (Pervin, 1989, p. 7). According to Ryckman (2007),personality is a dynamic and organized set of characteristicspossessed by a person that uniquely influences his/her cognitions,motivations and behaviours in various situations. This explanationis forwarded on the premise that similarities exist among people,and yet each of us possesses special properties that distinguish usfrom all others. Research linking personality to leisure behaviourhas relied heavily on trait theory (Driver & Knopf, 1977; Howard,1976). Allport (1937) viewed traits as residing in the individualand as having the potential to cause behaviour when activated.Traits may also be viewed as constructs that describe behaviour.Over the past decades, the Five Factor Model (FFM) has emerged asthe dominant framework for studying personality (Digman, 1990;

McCrae & John,1992). The FFM is a version of trait theory that viewshuman nature from the perspective of consistent and enduringindividual differences. As noted by Digman (1990), a majoradvantage of the FFM is that it provides a comprehensive yetparsimonious taxonomy of personality traits at the highest hier-archical level of trait description. Thus, the present research utilizesthe FFM as a measurement of personality of divers. The fivepersonality dimensions of the FFM as highlighted by Costa andMcCrae (1992) are neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness toexperience (O), agreeableness (A), and conscientiousness (C).

Extraversion represents cheerfulness and optimism. An extro-vert is a friendly personwho seeks companions, desires excitement,takes risk, and acts on impulse (McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, &DeMarie, 2007). Neuroticism is sometimes referred to emotionalstability. Individuals who are neurotics appeared to bemore fearful,sad, embarrassed, distrustful, and have difficulties in managingstress. Agreeableness individuals are generally altruistic, consid-erate, caring, generous, helpful, and willing to share their interestswith others. People who are categorised as openness to experienceare intellectually curious, appreciate art and more willing toexplore new ideas. McElroy et al. (2007) defined conscientiousnessas the tendency to be self-disciplined, strong-willed, deliberate,and reliable. Besides that, conscientiousness people appear to bemore active in planning, organizing, and carrying out tasks.

Several researchers have indicated that a positive relationshipexists between personality and environmental behaviour.Balderjahn (1988) discovered that personality influences pro-environmental behaviour related to energy saving, and onpurchase and ecological use of products. Witt (2002) agreed thatextravert and responsible people will try to improve their envi-ronmental conduct. Fraj and Martinez (2003) revealed that extro-version, solidarity and responsibility characteristics were goodpredictors of the consumers’ real commitment with the environ-ment. A study on SCUBA divers by Musa et al. (2011) reported thatneuroticism and agreeableness are two significant predictors ofdivers’ underwater behaviour among the five personality traits.This study revealed that highly agreeable divers are less irrespon-sible underwater, while highly neurotic divers are found to be moreirresponsible underwater. It was explained that agreeable peopleare more responsible (Letzring, 2008), thus depict a positiveunderwater behaviour. The following section examines the conceptof attitude and its roles in influencing behaviour.

3.4. Attitude

In most of the behavioural theories that explain the process ofenvironmental behaviour formation, attitude is recognised as oneof the most important influences on behaviour (Newhouse, 1990).Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined attitude as a psychologicaltendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity withsome degree of favour or disfavour (p. 1). It is generally understoodas a psychological state that predisposes a person to act favourablyor unfavourably to an event or situation. Thus, environmentalattitude describes an individual’s favourable or unfavourable feel-ings with regard to particular aspects of the environment (Hines,Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Newhouse, 1990). Ajzen andFishbein (1980) suggested that attitude includes general attitudestowards objects, as well as more specific attitudes towards certainissues. Two types of attitudes about environment have beenexamined by researchers: (a) attitudes towards ecology and envi-ronment as a whole; and (b) attitudes towards taking environ-mental action (Hines et al., 1987). It was found that a slightlystronger relationship exists between specific attitude towardsaction and environmental behaviour than between general attitudeon environment and environmental behaviour.


In general, research has indicated a positive relationshipbetween environmental attitudes and behaviour. Hines et al. (1987)concluded that the relationship is moderate. In their meta-analyticreview of 51 studies of environmental attitude and behaviourrelationship, a corrected correlation value of r ¼ 0.37 was found.This indicates that individuals who expressed a higher level ofenvironmental concern are more likely to engage in activities suchas recycling, petitioning, and energy conservation. Hines et al.(1987) also found that the attitude and behaviour relationship isstronger (0.59) when the measure is taken from environmentalgroups as opposed to samples from the general population(r ¼ 0.33).

In the diving literature, advanced divers are found to be moreinclined to be responsible for their own actions (Thapa et al., 2005).Based on general environmental dispositions, McCawley and Teaff(1995) noted that divers who are concerned about negative envi-ronmental impacts have a tendency to be more concerned withpreservation and demonstratemore support and understanding forrules and regulations.

Attitudes are multidimensional, consisting of a number ofinterrelated constructs. Studies by several researchers have shownthat environmental attitude can be represented by three compo-nents. These are cognitive (knowledge), affective (feelings), andconative (intentions) components (Maloney & Ward, 1973;Maloney,Ward, & Braucht,1975; Rosenberg,1960; Schahn & Holzer,1990). The cognitive component consists of the knowledge facet ofan attitude and personal thoughts and ideas. The affectivecomponent includes those variables that measure feelings andbeliefs about certain issues. The conative component refers to theaction or behavioural tendencies of an individual regarding anobject. In the present study, specific attitude towards diving isrepresented based on the three components attitudinal model(McGuire, 1992), which consist of knowledge of specific-issues(cognitive component), awareness of behaviour consequences(belief/affective component), and personal commitment to issueresolution (conative component). The following section discussesmethodology employed in this study.

4. Research design and methodology

4.1. Model specification

From literature review, a research framework was developed.The framework consists of three antecedentseexperience,personality and diving attitudeeall of which are expected toinfluence the dependent variable which is divers’ underwaterbehaviour. For the relationship between experience and under-water behaviour, Rouphael and Inglis (1997) have indicated thatthere is a direct relationship between experience level and under-water behaviour among divers. Hence, it was hypothesized that

Experience H

H4

Diving Attitude

H5

Personality H

Fig. 1. Conceptual fram

a direct causal relationship exists between experience and under-water behaviour among divers. In addition, a direct relationshipbetween personality and underwater responsible behaviour wasproposed based on Balderjahn’s (1988) suggestion that relationshipexists between personality and environmental behaviour. Thisrelationship was also supported by several environmental studies(Fraj & Martinez, 2006; Musa et al., 2011; Ramanaiah et al., 2000;Witt, 2002).

In terms of relationship between experience and diving attitude,Todd et al.’s (2000) examination on divers’ level of development,based on self-rated experience, have confirmed the positive rela-tionship between diver experience and diving attitudes. Based ontheir empirical finding, it was hypothesized that there is a causalrelationship between experience and diving attitude of divers.Hines et al. (1987) meta-analytical review of studies on environ-mental attitude and behaviour relationship has indicated a positiverelationship between the two variables. Thus, it is hypothesizedthat diving attitude has a direct causal relationship with under-water behaviour among divers.

The direct relationship of personality and underwater behaviouramong divers was noted by Musa et al. (2011). However, inexplaining exercise behaviour using the theory of planned behav-iour (TPB), Courneya, Bobick, and Schinke (1999) recorded thatexternal demographic variables and personality traits have beentheorized to influence behaviour indirectly through the social-cognitive constructs (i.e. attitude, social norms and perceivedcontrol behaviour). This means there are possibilities that therelationship between personality and experience with divers’behaviour underwater are mediated by their attitude. Therefore, inthe present study, it is hypothesized that diving attitude acts asa mediator in the relationships of personality and experience withunderwater behaviour.

5. Research framework and hypotheses

Based on the researchmodel (refer Fig. 1), five hypotheses of thestudy are formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Experience has a positive influence onresponsible underwater behaviour.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personality has a significant influence onresponsible underwater behaviour.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Diving attitude has a significant influence onresponsible underwater behaviour.

As diving attitude is regarded as the linking variable thatconnects the influences of experience and personality on respon-sible diving behaviour, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The influence of experience on responsibleunderwater behaviour is mediated by diving attitude.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The influence of personality on responsibleunderwater behaviour is mediated by diving attitude.

1

Responsible Underwater Behaviour

H3

2

ework of study.


5.1. Study sites and selection of subjects

Data collection was carried out during the period of May toSeptember 2009 on the five most popular SCUBA diving islands (i.e.four islands in Peninsula Malaysia and one island in East Malaysia).These islands were Langkawi, Perhentian, Tioman, Redang andMabul/Sipadan. Collectively there were 58 dive centres on theislands. The five islands were chosen by purposeful sampling asthey are the main islands visited by a large majority of bothdomestic and international divers (an estimated of over 95% ofdivers in the country). In this study half of the total number of divecentres on each island was randomly selected. Consequently, thenumber of dive centres on each island which sampled was: PulauTioman (8); Pulau Redang (3); Pulau Perhentian (10); Pulau Lang-kawi (2) and Sipadan/Mabul (6).

A total of four hundred and ninety (490) self-administeredquestionnaires were distributed to about 17 divers in each of thetwenty nine selected dive centres on those islands. At the divecentres, divers were chosen using convenience sampling. Duringresting periods at dive centres, divers were approached by theresearchers, and they were requested to answer the questionnaire.A total of 413 usable responses were obtained, resulting ina response rate of 84.3%. The data collectionwas able to achieve thehigh response rate as divers were in a captive environment andresearchers were present on-site to facilitate the completion of thequestionnaires. As questionnaires were returned, divers werereciprocated with local souvenirs from the researchers. It wasestimated that 60,000 divers visited these islands during the fivemonths period of data collection. As suggested by Krejcie andMargan (1970), a sample size of 384 respondents is consideredadequate to represent a population of one million, at 90% confi-dence level, with results within 5% difference of the truepercentage. Thus, the sample size of the present study is consideredadequate to represent the diving population in Malaysia.

5.2. Questionnaire design

The present study employed a causal research design usinga cross-sectional sample survey. The survey questionnaire con-sisted of five sections, which measure variables of demographicprofile, experience, personality, diving attitude and responsibleunderwater behaviour. The questions in the questionnaire weredeveloped on the basis of a review of the related literature as wellas expert opinions, and were modified to be applicable to theresearch site and target population.

In the process of questionnaire development, ten diving expertsand five university academicians with SCUBA diving experiencewere interviewed and consulted for the development of measure-ments for SCUBA diving attitude and divers’ underwater behaviour.The developed questionnaire was pretested on ten student diversto further establish its validity. Feedback from the panel of expertsand the pre-test were used to revise and finalise the surveyinstrument. A pilot study involving 100 divers was then conductedin Klang Valley and Langkawi Island, through contacts with diveoperators, dive shops and distributors. Data were utilized for thetesting of validity and reliability of the measurement instruments.Principle axis factor analysis using promax rotation and a reliabilityanalysis were carried out to validate and operationalize the relatedvariables. The Cronbach’s alpha (reliability analysis) values for thevariables were: diving experience (a¼ 0.89), personality (a¼ 0.79),diving attitude (a ¼ 0.87) and underwater responsible behaviour(a ¼ .81) respectively. Overall, the pilot test confirmed that themeasurements used for this study have achieved adequate level ofreliability and the content validity of the survey instrument wasdeemed as adequate.

The first section contained several demographic questionswhereby, respondents were asked to provide informationregarding their gender, age, marital status, nationality and educa-tion level. The second section consisted of three items to representthe experience level construct, based on recreational specializationtheory (Bryan, 1977). These items characterized the cognitive andbehavioural domains in the recreational specialization concept,which relate to skill and knowledge of divers. The items wereadapted from several SCUBA diving studies conducted by Todd(2000), Thapa et al. (2006) and Musa et al. (2011). These parame-ters had shown high reliability in representing experience level.The three items were: “To date, how many dives have you made?”,“What is your level of SCUBA diving certification?” and “Howwouldyou rate your experience as a SCUBA diver?” The answers were re-scaled on the five points Likert. The mean score of the three itemswas used to divide divers into three experience levels, which waslow, medium and high level. This technique was used byMusa et al.(2011).

The third section consisted of twenty five items, adapted fromthe 50-item IPIP version (International Personality Item Pool;Goldberg, 1999) of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa &McCrae, 1992), to measure divers’ personality traits. The IPIP isa public-domain alternative to well-known proprietary measuresof the Five Factor Model such as NEO PI-R by Costa and McCrae(1992). Scales based on the IPIP items have demonstratedadequate internal reliability (generally ranging from 0.75 to 0.85)(Goldberg et al., 2006). In the present study, 25-items were usedinstead of the full-50 items due to the constraints of length of thequestionnaire. Each of the five personality dimension (neuroticism,extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and consci-entiousness) was measured by 5 items, which made a total of 25items. All the items from each dimension were positively wordedexcept 5 items for neuroticismwhichwere negatively worded. Eachitemwas a short sentence describing behaviour (e.g. ‘I am the life ofthe party’), and participants were instructed to indicate howaccurate this sentence was for them. Participants rated each itemon a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5(very accurate). The scores of the 5 itemswhichmeasured each traitwere summarized, and each respondent obtained a raw score ofeach of the personality traits.

The fourth section on the measurement of diving attitude wasself-developed based on the three component attitudinal model(McGuire, 1992). The section consisted of 13 items related toknowledge of specific-issues (cognitive component), awarenessof behaviour consequences (belief/affective component), andpersonal commitment to issue resolution (conative component).The cognitive components consisted of 7 items concerningknowledge about diving and marine regulations. The conativecomponent represented by 3 items, with questions related tocommitment to marine conservation. The third part consisted ofthe belief/affective component with 3 items, including a statementrelated to awareness of behaviour consequences. Respondentswere to indicate the extent of their understanding/agreementabout the given statement on a five point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 being “not at all” to 5 being “to a great extent”.

The final section dealt with the measurement of underwaterresponsible behaviour with 11 items, covering three dimensions:safety diving behaviour, buoyancy control diving behaviour andnon-contact diving behaviour. The marine based environmentalbehaviour items were adapted from the literature (Thapa et al.,2006; Todd, 2000), and with reference to the code of conductproposed by several marine conservation organisation, whichincludes Coral Reef Alliance (2009), and Department of MarinePark, Malaysia (2009), together with some self-developed itemswhich were gathered from expert opinions. Given the impossibility

Table 2The result of EFA on diving attitude (DAT).

Diving attitude (DAT) Factorloading

Eigenvalue

Varianceexplained(%)

Cronbachalpha (a)

F1: Knowledge on regulation (REG) 5.00 38.45 0.86Prohibited activities in marine park

areas0.56

Marine conservation programs 0.61Penalties for violating regulations 0.91The boundary of marine park areas 0.89F2: Knowledge on diving practice (DP) 1.89 14.54 0.84Pre-dive planning procedures 0.82Various types of diving skills necessary 0.86Usage of underwater diving equipment 0.75F3: Commitment (COM) 1.32 10.12 0.80Contributed money to conservation

program0.75

Keep track with current issues 0.77Commit time to marine conservation 0.79F4: Awareness of consequences (AC) 1.08 8.30 0.67Feeding fish harms the ecosystem 0.54Sediments stir up by divers may kill

the coral0.58

Collecting shells harms the coralecosystem

0.82

Overall 71.4 0.85


of observing and reporting underwater behaviours of all partici-pants in the current study, self-reported behaviour was used asa proxy to represent true behaviour. The items were phrased as, “toyour awareness, how often have you. underwater?” and weremeasured using a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses thatranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

6. Data analysis and results

The data collected from the designed questionnaire werecomputed using several statistical techniques involving the Statis-tical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Analysis of MomentStructure (AMOS 16.0) software. SPSS is a statistical packagemainlyused to code data and also compute descriptive and inferentialstatistics. The descriptive analysis of respondents’ demographicprofile is shown in Table 1. The result of the exploratory factoranalysis (EFA) for both the diving attitude and divers’ underwaterbehaviour constructs are depicted in Table 2 and Table 3 respec-tively. On the other hand, AMOS is the software for conductingstructural equation modelling (SEM). Confirmatory factor analysisand model fit was assessed with the maximum likelihood (ML)estimation technique in the AMOS program. As recommended byOlsson, Foss, Troye, and Howell (2000), the ML solution forparameter values tends to be more accurate when the sample sizeis less than 2000 respondents. Following that, a two-stage testingprocess was adopted to test the hypothesized model (Kline, 2005).

With regards to respondents’ demographic profiles, the resultsindicated that the majority of divers (89%) were young, agedbetween 18 and 40 years old. Male respondents (58%) were slightlymore than female (42%). Concerning marital status, about two-third (65%) of the respondents were still single. Among therespondents, foreign divers constituted a higher percentage (62%)compared to domestic divers (38%). In terms of educational back-ground, the majority of the respondents (88%) achieved academicqualification of diploma or higher (refer Table 1).

To determine the underlying dimensions of diving attitude anddivers’ underwater behaviour, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) wasperformed by analyzing patterns of correlations among the itemsgenerated. A range of cut-off criteria were used to determine thenumber of factors derived, such as eigen values, scree plot,percentage of variance, item communalities, and factor loadings(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Items with factor loadings

Table 1Respondent profile.

Demographic characteristics Frequency (N ¼ 413) Percentage (%)

Age (years)18e30 244 59.031e40 123 29.841e50 35 8.5>50 11 2.7

GenderMale 238 57.6Female 175 42.4

Marital statusSingle 267 64.6Married 93 22.6Others 53 12.8

CountryDomestic 157 38.0Foreign 256 62.0

Education levelSecondary 42 10.2Diploma 104 25.2Graduate 178 43.0Post graduate 80 19.4Others 9 2.2

lower than 0.4 and with factor loadings higher than 0.4 on morethan one factor were discarded.

The EFA procedure was used to verify the pre-specifieddimensions of diving attitude (DAT). Four factors with eigenvalues above 1.0 were generated, which explained 71.4% of the totalvariance (see Table 2). The four factors extracted are named asknowledge on regulation, knowledge on diving practice, commit-ment and awareness of consequences. The factor loadings for the 13items ranged from 0.54 to 0.91, within the threshold value >0.40suggested by Hair et al. (1998). The Cronbach’s alphas for the fourfactors were satisfactory, ranging from 0.67 to 0.86, well above thegenerally agreed upon lower limit of 0.60 for research at explor-atory stage (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), indicating high internalconsistency among the items within each factor. The overallCronbach’s alpha (a) value for DAT was 0.85.

The same EFA procedure was used to explore the underlyingdimensions of divers’ underwater behaviour. Three factors with

Table 3The result of EFA on divers’ underwater behaviour (UWB).

Underwater responsible behaviour Factorloading

Eigenvalue

Varianceexplained(%)

Cronbachalpha (a)

F1: General Diving 3.55 32.24 0.73Check underwater position/orientation

regularly0.65

Bring safety sausage/signaling device 0.61Inspect regulator reading from time

to time0.59

Practice good finning technique 0.55Monitor diving depth 0.54F2: Buoyancy control diving 1.76 16.04 0.75Keep neutrally buoyant at all times 0.83Maintain a safe distance from the reef 0.73Stay off the bottom 0.60F3: Non-contact diving 1.15 10.44 0.71Hold onto coral* 0.80Touch coral* 0.71Stand or rest on coral* 0.50

Overall 58.72 0.78

*Negatively coded.

Table 5Mean and standard deviation for each construct.

Construct Mean SD

Personality Dimension (PSN) 3.548 0.717Openness to experience (OP) 4.036 0.643Extraversion (EX) 3.957 0.619Agreeableness (AG) 3.927 0.611Conscientiousness (CN) 3.675 0.729


eigen values above 1.0 were generated, which explained about52.8% of the total variance (see Table 3). The factor loadings for the11 items ranged from 0.54 to 0.83, within the threshold value of0.40. The loadings also presented a clean and highly interpretablesolution on the three factors which the researchers conceptualisedas safety diving behaviour, buoyancy control diving behaviour, andnon-contact diving behaviour. The Cronbach’s alphas for the threefactors were considered good, ranging from0.71 to 0.75. The overallCronbach’s alpha (a) value for UWB was 0.78.

6.1. Measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were used to testthe conceptual model that examined the antecedents of divers’underwater behaviour. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) ofthe measurement model was tested, with all constructs (observedindicators and latent constructs) allowed to be inter-correlatedfreely. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), confirmatorymeasurement models should be evaluated and re-specified beforeproceeding to the examination of the structural equation model.Before the testing of the overall measurement model, eachconstruct in the model was analysed separately. It was evaluatedusing multiple fit criteria namely the chi-square statistics (c2),degree of freedom (df), p-value of the c2 statistics, relative chi-square (c2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR). To meet the acceptable fit with the data,sixteen items were retained in the personality construct to repre-sent the five indicators. In the diving attitude construct, two itemsfrom factor 1 (knowledge on regulation) was discarded. Hence,eleven items were retained to represent the four indicators indiving attitude. For the underwater behaviour construct, one itemwas discarded from each factor and the three identified indicatorswere represented by eight items. In the case of experience level,three items were used. The c2 statistics and the fit indices for eachconstruct are as follows (Table 4):

A total of 8 indicators for exogenous variables (3 from experi-ence and 5 from personality) and 7 indicators of endogenousvariables (4 from diving attitude and 3 from underwater behaviour)were used in the full measurement model testing. The fit of theindicators to the construct, and construct reliability and validitywere tested. Basically, reliability refers to the consistency ofmeasurement, while validity refers to the extent to which aninstrument measures what it is intended to measure (Hatcher,1994). In testing the measurement model, it was modified so thatit came to represent the theoretical causal model of interest in thisstudy. The awareness of consequences (AC) factor in diving attitudewas eliminated from further analysis, due to low coefficient alphavalue (0.16) of less than 0.30 (Joreskog, 1993). The model wasevaluated and revised until a theoretically meaningful as well asstatistically acceptable model was achieved.

After assessing the overall model, the psychometric propertiesof each latent construct were evaluated separately through exam-ining standardized loading, error variance, construct reliability, andvariance extracted. The results revealed that for each variable, the t

Table 4Fit indices for individual construct.

Construct c2 df p < 0.05 c2/df CFI RMSEA SRMR

Experience level 1.32 1 0.251 1.32 1.00 0.028 0.004Personality 233.78 99 0.000 2.36 0.926 0.057 0.049Diving attitude 30.25 17 0.025 1.78 0.992 0.043 0.024Underwater behaviour 26.53 18 0.088 1.47 0.982 0.034 0.036

value associated with each of the loadings was significant at the0.01 level. The results indicated that all variables were significantlyrelated to their specified constructs, verifying the posited rela-tionships among indicators and constructs. The convergent validityof the measurement scale was examined via squared multiplecorrelation coefficients (SMC) for the exogenous and endogenousvariables. SMCs lie between 0 and 1 (the closer to 1, the better thevariable acts as an indicator of the latent construct). The resultsrevealed that the SMCs for exogenous variables ranged from 0.31 to0.85 and for endogenous variables ranged from 0.30 to 0.81,indicating acceptable reliability (convergent validities) of themeasurement model. To examine the discriminant validity of themeasurement model, the average variance extracted (AVE) valuesfor the latent constructs were compared to the squared correlationsbetween the corresponding constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981),and none of the squared correlations surpassed the AVE. The abovetests indicated that the discriminant validity was upheld for themeasurement model.

The composite reliability (CR) and the AVE were also computedfor the latent constructs. The construct reliability of the fourconstructs exceeded the recommended level of 0.70: experience(0.92), personality (0.73), diving attitude (0.84), and underwaterbehaviour (0.74). The AVE for all four constructs also fulfilled thethreshold value of 0.5 (0.80, 0.60, 0.63, and 0.52). Thus, it can besaid that the psychometric properties of each respective latentconstruct, especially for the purpose of this research, areacceptable.

The mean and standard deviation of each construct is presentedin Table 5. The mean score for experience was 2.51 � 1.18, which isconsidered as intermediate level. However, the majority of divers(59.8%) were categorised as having low experience, followed by26.4% with high experience and 13.8% with medium level experi-ence. In relation to personality traits, divers with openness toexperience personality possessed the highest mean scores of4.04 � 0.64, followed by extraversion (3.96 � 0.62) and agree-ableness (3.93 � 0.61). Personality scores of conscientiousness(3.68 � 0.73) and neuroticism (2.24 � 0.66) were rated loweramong divers. Regarding diving attitude, the overall mean for theconstruct was 3.35 � 0.82. The knowledge of diving practicedimension had the highest mean score (4.08 � 0.81), followed byknowledge on regulations (3.15 � 1.11) and commitment(2.82 � 1.10). In the case of underwater behaviour, the mean scoreof the construct was 4.28 � 0.56. Divers have high mean scores onall the three dimensions: non-contact diving behaviour(4.59 � 0.60), buoyancy control diving behaviour (4.18 � 0.87), andsafety diving behaviour (4.05 � 0.87).

Neuroticism (NU) 2.244 0.659Experience (EXP) 2.513 1.175Diving attitude Dimension(DAT) 3.350 0.822Knowledge on diving practice (DP) 4.079 0.806Knowledge on Regulation (REG) 3.153 1.109Commitment (COM) 2.818 1.095Underwater behaviour dimension (UWB) 4.276 0.563Non-contact diving behaviour (NC) 4.589 0.598Buoyancy control diving behaviour (BC) 4.184 0.873Safety diving behaviour (SD) 4.053 0.873

Note: A 5-point Likert scale was used.

Table 7Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model.

Indices Criteria

c2-testc2 .000 p > 0.05c2/df 1.858 (1018.2/548) <5.0Absolute fit measuresRMSEA 0.05 <0.08SRMR 0.05 <0.05Incremental fit measuresCFI 0.91 >0.9TLI 0.91 >0.9Parsimonious fit measuresPNFI 0.77 >0.5PGFI 0.76 >0.5


In addition, the covariance matrix used in the testing andanalysis of the hypothesized model in the structural equationmodel is reported in Table 6.

Three types of overall model fit measures were utilized in thisstudy: absolute fit measures (AFM), incremental fit measures (IFM),and parsimonious fit measures (PFM) (Hooper, Coughlan, &Mullen,2008). In the present study, all three types of goodness of fit indicesindicated that the overall measurement model was acceptable inthat the proposedmodel fitted the collected datawith a sample sizeof 413 (Table 7).

6.2. Structural model parameters

After assessing the measurement model, the initial theoreticalmodel was examined with four gamma paths and one beta path.Since the chi-square is heavily influenced by the sample size(Bollen & Long, 1993), other goodness-of-fit indices were suggestedto help the model evaluation (Bentler, 1990; Joreskog & Sorbom,1996). The review of the initial theoretical model indicated thatthe chi-square value (1018.2 with 548 of df) was not significant, butother fit indices indicated the proposed model possessed identicalgoodness of fit indices. Thus, suggesting that the proposed model isno difference from the measurement model. As a result, theproposed model was accepted as the best model to be used in thetesting of the proposed hypothetical model in this study (Hull,Lehn, & Tedlie, 1991).

As shown in Fig. 2, all three constructs of experience, personalityand diving attitude have significant positive effects on responsibleunderwater behaviour (g1¼0.41, t value¼ 4.74, p< 0.05; g2¼ 0.16,t value ¼ 2.59, p < 0.05, and b1 ¼ 0.32, t value ¼ 3.48, p < 0.05respectively), thus supporting H1, H2 and H3. The AMOS resultsalso indicated that significant relationships exist between bothconstructs of experience and personality with diving attitude(g3 ¼ .60, t value ¼ 9.85, p < 0.05 and g4 ¼ 0.21, t value ¼ 3.73,p< 0.05 respectively). To determine the significantmediating effectof attitude, the indirect effect of the relationship has to be greaterthan 0.08 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Theindirect effect of experience / diving attitude / responsibleunderwater behaviour relationship was found to be 0.19(0.60 � 0.32), which was more than 0.08. Thus, H4 was supported.As for the personality/ diving attitude/ responsible underwaterbehaviour relationship, indirect effect value of .067 (0.21 � 0.32)was less than the cut-off criteria of 0.08. Hence, H5 was notsupported.

Table 6Covariance matrix for all variables in full model predicting UWB (N ¼ 413).

EXP PSN DAT UWB DP NC REG

EXP 1.696PSN 0.090 0.196DAT 0.780 0.127 0.906UWB 0.339 0.058 0.243 0.171DP 0.426 0.070 0.494 0.133 0.496NC 0.143 0.024 0.103 0.071 0.056 0.196REG 0.673 0.110 0.782 0.210 0.427 0.089 1.074COM 0.780 0.127 0.905 0.243 0.494 0.103 0.782CN 0.073 0.156 0.103 0.047 0.056 0.020 0.089AG 0.090 0.193 0.127 0.058 0.069 0.024 0.110OP 0.089 0.192 0.127 0.057 0.069 0.024 0.109EX 0.090 0.194 0.127 0.058 0.070 0.024 0.110NU �0.085 �0.184 �0.121 �0.055 �0.066 �0.023 �0.105SD 0.508 0.104 0.437 0.303 0.238 0.128 0.377BC 0.339 0.058 0.243 0.169 0.133 0.071 0.210

Note: EXPe experience level; PSNe personality; DATe diving attitude; UWMe underwaREGe knowledge on regulations; COM e commitment; CN e conscientiousness; AG e age safety diving behavior; BC e buoyancy control behavior.

The fit of the structural model was also assessed by the SMCs(squared multiple correlations) for structural equations, whichindicate the amount of variance in each endogenous latent variableaccounted for by the antecedent variables in the relevant structuralequation. The SMC for ‘diving attitude’was 0.45, indicating that 45%of the variance in diving attitude was explained by ‘experience’ and‘personality’. In the case of ‘underwater behaviour’, about 51% ofthe uncertainties were accounted for by ‘experience’, ‘personality’and ‘diving attitude’ (SMC ¼ 0.51).

6.3. Findings of the construct relationships

The hypothesized structural causal model was tested by thestructural equation model (SEM), which included a test of theoverall model as well as individual tests of the relationships amongthe latent constructs. As presented in Fig. 2, the results offeredsupport to consider the three variables of experience, personalityand diving attitude as antecedents that affect responsible under-water behaviour among divers. All three constructs have significantpositive effects on responsible underwater behaviour. It wasinteresting to note that the three variables accounted for 51% of thevariance in understanding underwater behaviour. Consequently,experience was found to have both direct and indirect effect ondivers’ underwater behaviour, with diving attitude acting asa mediator. Though personality was found to have significantrelationship with diving attitude, the mediating effect of divingattitude was not significant in the personality and underwaterbehaviour relationship. Nevertheless, experience and personality

COM CN AG OP EX NU SD BC

1.2530.103 0.5700.127 0.156 0.2430.127 0.155 0.191 0.2670.127 0.156 0.193 0.192 0.267

�0.121 �0.149 �0.183 �0.183 �0.184 0.3280.437 0.084 0.103 0.103 0.104 �0.098 0.5450.243 0.047 0.058 0.057 0.058 �0.055 0.303 0.414

ter behavior; DPe knowledge on diving practice; NCe non-contact diving behavior;reeableness; OP e openness to experience; EX e extraversion; NUe neuroticism; SD

Fig. 2. The estimated structural model.


were found to explain 45% of the uncertainties in the attitudeconstruct.

7. Discussion and conclusion

The high mean score of the responsible underwater behaviourconstruct indicates that divers are highly responsible underwater.This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted by Thapaet al. (2005) and Musa et al. (2011). Divers are particularly mostresponsible on the aspect of non-contact diving behaviour, followedby buoyancy control behaviour and safety diving behaviour. Aspresented in Table 3, among these elements are avoid touching,standingor restingon coral, practice goodfinning technique, inspectregulator reading from time to time and maintain a safe distancefrom coral reef. The elements of responsible underwater behaviourshave been thoroughly emphasized in SCUBA diving manuals duringdiving certification process conducted by professional diving orga-nisations such as PADI, NAUI (National Association of UnderwaterInstructors), and SSI (SCUBA School International).

The majority of the divers in Malaysia are low in experiencelevel. This information is a warning sign that diving operatorsshould be more vigilant in safe-guarding the marine environmentas many previous studies have shown that less experienced diversare more likely to cause detrimental impacts to the marine envi-ronment (Barker & Roberts, 2004; Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Rouphael &Inglis, 1997; Talge, 1992). Furthermore this study finds that expe-rience, which is largely related to skill and knowledge, has thegreatest influence on underwater behaviour among divers. Theresult is consistent with several findings in SCUBA diving literature,

whereby the level of divers’ experience directly influences under-water behaviour (Musa et al., 2011; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Todd,2000). Similar results have also been discovered in other specificactivities such as recreational boating (Cottrell & Graefe, 1997) andhunting (Rossi & Armstrong, 1999), all of which revealed thatexperience was a significant predictor of specific responsibleenvironmental behaviour.

The structural relationship analysis indicated that experienceinfluences underwater behaviour in two ways: directly and indi-rectly. Of the two, the direct effect of experience on underwaterbehaviour is stronger than the indirect effect through SCUBA divingattitude. As stated earlier, in this study, diving experience relates toskill and knowledge. Hence, endeavours to improve the skills andknowledge of the less experienced divers need to be emphasized. Itis pertinent for dive masters to give additional attention andguidance to less experienced divers while diving underwater.Furthermore, dive operators should ensure the skills among diversare appropriate for the dive sites. During briefing sessions, thereshould be equal emphasis put on the security and the fragility ofmarine environment.

Literature found that people with different personality profilesshowed distinct environmental behaviour (Ramanaiah et al., 2000).In the current study, the personality traits of openness to experi-ence, extraversion and agreeableness are identified as character-istics of divers which influence responsible underwater behaviour.Divers with these personality traits tend to exhibit characteristicssuch as active social interaction with others, receptive to newinformation, responsible, more inclined to acknowledge and followdiving guidelines and regulation. This explains the reason for the


relationship between the three personality traits and responsibleunderwater behaviour. This finding supportsMusa et al. (2011) whodiscovered high agreeableness as related to higher responsibleunderwater behaviour. However the roles of extraversion andopenness to experience in influencing responsible underwaterbehaviour are unique to this study.

The main theoretical contribution of this study to knowledge isthe exploration of SCUBA diving attitude. The study shows thatdivers possess the highest attitude of cognitive domain (knowledgeof diving practice, and knowledge of regulation), followed bya relatively lower conative domain (commitment). The twodomains play crucial roles in the formation of positive diving atti-tude. The importance of cognitive domain supports many previousresearchers (e.g. Cottrell & Graefe, 1997; Hungerford & Volk, 1990;Newhouse, 1990; Sia, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1985) that knowledgehas a positive influence on attitude, which in turn affects behaviour.Cottrell and Graefe (1997) for example highlight that knowledgevariables are good predictors of pro-environmental behaviouramong recreational boaters.

The conative domain is consistent with Cottrell and Meisel’s(2003) study which used behavioural commitment (as a sub-dimension of personal responsibility) to represent divers’ attitudetowards responsible behaviour. As explained by previousresearchers (e.g. Hines et al., 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Sivek& Hungerford, 1989), in situations where individuals feelcommitted to resolving impact problems, they are more likely toengage in responsible behaviour. To enhance commitment ofdivers, well-planned and coordinated conservation activities/programs are vital. Such programs could include the formation ofonline diver community, the promotion of eco-divers project, theorganisation of sponsored underwater cleaning activities, and themembership recruitment of marine conservation organisations. Inthis context, recent studies on the involvement of recreationaldivers as volunteers in marine conservation monitoring programs(e.g. Goffredo et al., 2004, 2010; Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens,2003) indicate encouraging results in enhancing divers’ steward-ship towards marine conservation activities. Other benefits of suchprograms include: enhance divers’ ability to recognize details aboutthe marine environment; empower volunteers to take an activerole in support of effective marine resource management; offer‘self-education’ and increase divers’ knowledge of ecology andenvironmental issues; cultivate the sense of stewardship; and takepride in protecting the marine environment. This type of programpresents an excellent avenue to foster both the cognitive andconative domains of diving attitude in the development ofresponsible diving behaviour among divers.

The formation of positive diving attitude could be enhanced bythe combination of appropriately designed marine conservationcurricula together with related diving activities. Efforts to formu-late and implement educational and interpretative programs aboutmarine environment and coral reefs could generate more aware-ness and encourage commitment among divers to behave moreresponsible underwater.

To enhance the effects of such programs, the education shouldalso be extended to the public. As suggested by several researchers(e.g. Alcock, 1991; Alder, 1996; Lemay & Hale, 1989), the educationapproach is a favourable alternative to develop public awarenessand promote public participation in environmental conservationprograms. This effort could be realized with the cooperation,support and sponsorship of stakeholders such as governmentalagencies/ministries, marine conservation organizations, localauthorities, tour operators, park authorities and the divingindustry. Public schools too can incorporate marine conservationprograms in the school curriculum or as co-curriculum activities toinculcate marine conservation awareness among students.

The result shows that experience has a strong influence(g3 ¼ 0.60) on diving attitude. This positive relationship isconsistent with previous observations by Todd et al. (2000) andThapa et al. (2006). Experienced divers possess better skills andknowledge as the result of more dives completed, higher divingcertification, and longer years of involvement in diving. Theseadvantages influence diving attitude, which consists of knowledgeaspects of diving practice and regulations and behaviouralcommitment. Divers are exposed to techniques and knowledgeconcerning proper diving practices in the marine environmentduring their diving certification programs. This exposure elevatespositive diving attitude which subsequently influences responsibleunderwater behaviour. In this study, the knowledge of dive practiceand the knowledge of diving regulation are pre-requisite to positivesafety diving behaviour such as underwater positioning, regularinspection of depth and regulator and the practice of good finningtechnique. The relationship of specific attitude and responsiblebehaviour is coherent with Cottrell and Graefe’s (1997) study onrecreational boaters. The result also confirms Newhouse’s (1990)assertion that attitude construct has been recognised as havingmajor influences on behaviours. This study also reveals that expe-rience has positive influence on attitudewhich subsequently affectsSCUBA divers’ underwater behaviour. This implies that divingattitude acts as a partial mediator for the relationship betweenexperience and underwater behaviour.

The result indicates that there is a significant relationshipbetween personality and diving attitude. The relationship betweenpersonality traits and diving attitude is consistent with previousstudies which used the “Big Five” personality traits to predictspecific attitudes and value orientations (McCrae & Costa, 2008;Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2001). Specifically, numerousstudies also show that pro-environmental attitudes are related toagreeableness and openness to experience (Hirsh, 2010; Hirsh &Dolderman, 2007; Schultz, 2000; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999).However, the attitude construct does not pose a significant medi-ating effect on the relationship between personality and under-water behaviour, with its weak correlation (g4 ¼ 0.21, p < 0.05).

An explanation for the significant direct relationship betweenpersonality and underwater behaviour may be explained by thenature of diving activity itself. While diving underwater, behaviourssuch as inspection of regulator reading, underwater positioning,avoid touching coral reef are repeated often, and have the potentialto become routine or habitual in nature. Kassin (2003) explains thatpersonality traits are related to the habitual pattern of behaviourand thoughts. As such, personality traits may capture routine orhabitual aspects of behaviour that similarly influence behaviourindependent of specific social cognitions (Ouellette & Wood, 1998),in this case diving attitude.

The empirical results of this study provide plausible evidencethat the proposed structural equation model designed to considerexperience, personality, diving attitude and responsible under-water behaviour is acceptable. Therefore, this study has a substan-tial capability in confirming the role of all the selected social-psychological variables in the research model as influencingresponsible underwater behaviour.

Though most research on environmental behaviours havefocused on general behaviours, the present study empiricallyexplored various self-reported behaviours and identified threedistinct behavioural dimensions among divers. These are non-contact diving behaviour, buoyancy control behaviour and safetydiving behaviour. This provides a greater understanding of thevarious aspect of responsible SCUBA diving behaviour compared toonly one dimension which was discovered by Musa et al. (2011).Two important SCUBA diving behaviour dimensions which had notbeen discovered by Thapa et al. (2005) and Musa et al. (2011) are


buoyancy control behaviour and safety diving behaviour; both ofwhich are crucial for not only the safety of divers, but also theprotection of marine environment.

This study has some limitations. Firstly due to the constraint oftime and cost, underwater behaviour was examined by self-reporting. However, even though direct observation and self-reporting behaviours are not synonymous, Gamba and Oskamp(1994) have shown that the relationship is significant. Nonethe-less, the possibility of the social desirability bias effect on thefindings is difficult to control. Another limitation may be the use ofconvenience sampling at the dive sites, which tends to receivecooperation from divers with certain type of personality (opennessto experience, extraversion and agreeableness) to answer to thequestionnaires. However, any self-administered questionnaireincurs such bias.

For future research, it is suggested that the investigation shouldbe extended to other recreational groups in the marine environ-ment such as snorkeling and fishing. These two recreational groupsalso pose a huge potential to detrimentally impacting the marineenvironment. This studywas not able to examine some of the socio-psychological and external constructs that have been reported tohave effects on environmental behaviour. These constructsincludes, socio-demographics, general environment attitude,normative behaviour, locus of control, and situational conditions. Itis suggested that future research should consider additionalexplanatory variables to build upon this study’s explanation ofunderwater responsible behaviour among divers.

In conclusion, this study has successfully shown the existence ofcausal relationship between experience, personality and attitude ofdivers with their underwater behaviour, using the structuralequation model. The strong influences of both experience anddiving attitude on diver’s underwater behaviour signify theimportance of diving and marine education related to the devel-opment of skills and knowledge of diving practices among divers.The success in moulding the behaviour of divers underwaterrequires a collective effort of various stakeholders which includedivers, dive operators, diving associations, marine conservationorganizations and governmental agencies, among others.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data related to this article can be found online atdoi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.007.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors ofspecific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41e57.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting socialbehavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alcock, D. (1991). Education and extension: management’s best strategy. AustralianParks and Recreation, 27(1), 15e17.

Alder, J. (1996). Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, CairnsSection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environmental Management,20(4), 541e551.

Allison, W. R. (1996). Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldive Islands. CoralReefs, 15(4), 215e218.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:

a review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,411e413.

Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predic-tors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of BusinessResearch, 17(1), 51e56.

Barker, N. H. L., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). Scuba diver behaviour and the managementof diving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 481e489.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238e246.

Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences onhousehould energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3e21.

Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: the role ofattitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,25(5), 440e462.

Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park:Sage Publications, International Education and Professional Publisher.

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case oftrout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(3), 174e187.

Coral Reef Alliances. Guides and best practice for everyone. Retrieved February 20,2009, from http://www.coral.org/resources/guides_best_practices/for_everyone#faraway.

Costa, P. T. J., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cottrell, S. P., & Graefe, A. R. (1997). Testing a conceptual framework ofresponsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education,29(1), 17e27.

Cottrell, S. P., & Meisel, C. (2003). Predictors of personal responsibility to protect themarine environment among SCUBA divers. Paper presented at the 2003 North-eastern Recreation Research Symposium, Newtown Square, PA: U.S.A.

Courneya, K. S., Bobick, T. M., & Schinke, R. J. (1999). Does the theory of plannedbehavior mediate the relation between personality and exercise behavior? Basicand Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 317e324.

Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity inmarine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 26(1), 19e40.

Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Rollins, R. (2006). Implications for coral reef conserva-tion of diver specialization. Environmental Conservation, 33(4), 353e363.

Department of Marine Park, Malaysia. Coral etiquette. Retrieved February 20, 2009,from www.dmpm.nre.gov my/main.php.

Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and socialpsychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4),450e471.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417e440.

Dimmock, K. (2009). Comfort in adventure: The role of comfort, constraints andnegotiation in recreational SCUBA diving. PhD thesis, Southern Cross University,Lismore, NSW.

Dixon, J. A., Scura, L. F., & van’t Hof, T. (1993). Meeting ecological and economicgoals: marine parks in the Caribbean. Ambio, 22, 117e125.

Driver, B. L., & Knopf, R. C. (1977). Personality, outdoor recreation, and expectedconsequences. Environment and Behaviour, 9, 169e193.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39e50.

Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2003). The effects of personality on ecological consumerbehaviour. Paper presented at the International Association for Research inEconomic Psychology 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality on ecological consumerbehaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 167e181.

Furnham, A. (1990). The development of single trait personality theories. Personalityand Individual Differences, 11(9), 923e929.

Gamba, R. J., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment andBehavior, 26(5), 587e612.

Goffredo, S., Pensa, F., Neri, P., Orlandi, A., Gagliardi, M., Velardi, A., et al. (2010).Unite research with what citizens do for fun: “recreational monitoring” ofmarine biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 20(8), 2170e2187.

Goffredo, S., Piccinetti, C., & Zaccanti, F. (2004). Volunteers in marine conservationmonitoring: a study on the distribution of seahorses carried out in collaborationwith recreational scuba divers. Conservation Biology, 18, 1492e1503.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventorymeasuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. InMervielde, I.,Deary, F. I., Fruyt, De, & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.). (1999). Personality psychology inEurope, Vol. 7 (pp. 7e28). Tilburg, Holland: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R.,et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84e96.

Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behaviorrelationships. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699e718.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate dataanalysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multi-variate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Harriott, V. J., Davis, D. C., & Banks, S. A. (1997). Recreational diving and its impact inmarine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio, 26(3), 173e179.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach: To using the SAS system for factor analysisand structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1992). Effects of recreational SCUBA diving on fore-reef slope communities of coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 62, 171e178.

Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1997). Estimating the carrying capacity of coral reefsfor SCUBA diving. Paper presented at the 8th International Coral Reef Sympo-sium, Panama.

Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Van’T Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J., & Aldam, C.(1999). Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fishcommunities. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 888e897.


http://www.coral.org/resources/guides_best_practices/for_everyone#faraway

http://www.coral.org/resources/guides_best_practices/for_everyone#faraway


Heberlein, T. A., & Black, J. S. (1976). Attitudinal specificity and the prediction ofbehaviour in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,474e479.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis ofresearch on responsible environment behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 18(2), 1e8.

Hirsh, J. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 30, 245e248.

Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism andenvironmentalism: a preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences,43(6), 1583e1593.

Hodgson, G. (1999). A global coral reef assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38,345e355.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling:guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business ResearchMethods, 6(1), 53e60.

Howard, D. R. (1976). Multivariate relationships between leisure activities andpersonality. Research Quarterly, 47, 228e237.

Hull, J. G., Lehn, D. A., & Tedlie, J. C. (1991). A general approach to testing multi-faceted personality construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,932e945.

Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Grischkat, S., & Böhler, S. (2007). Psychological, socio-demographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impactcaused by mobility behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4),277e292.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through envi-ronmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8e21.

Hwang, Y. H., Kim, S. I., & Jeng, J. M. (2000). Examining the causal relationshipamong selected antecedents of responsible environmental behaviour. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 31(4), 19e25.

ICRAN MAR 1. (2006). Standard requirements for recreational scuba diving services inthe Mesoamerican reef system. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from. [email protected].

Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: havethey changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28e47.

Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294e316). Newbury Park, CA:SAGE Publications.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:Scientific Sofware International Inc.

Kassin, S. (2003). Psychology. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).

New York: The Guilford Press.Krejcie, R. V., & Margan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activ-

ities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607e610.Lemay, M., & Hale, L. (1989). Coastal resources management: A guide to public

education programs and materials. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.Letzring, T. D. (2008). The good judge of personality: characteristics, behaviors, and

observer accuracy. Journal of research in personality, 42(4), 914e932.Leujak, W., & Ormond, R. F. G. (2008). Reef walking on Red Sea reef

flatsequantifying impacts and identifying motives. Ocean & Coastal Manage-ment, 51(11), 755e762.

Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: let’s hear from the people: anobjective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.American Psychologist, 28(7), 583e586.

Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). A revised scale for themeasurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist,30(7), 787e790.

McCawley, R., & Teaff, J. (1995). Characteristics and environmental attitudes of coralreef divers in Florida Keys. In F. S. McCool, & A. E. Watson (Eds.), Linking tourism,the environment, and sustainability (pp. 63e68). Ogden, UT: US Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. InO. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory andresearch (3rd ed.). (pp. 159e181) New York, USA: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five factor model and itsapplications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175e215.

McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M. (2007).Dispositional factors in internet use: personality versus cognitive style. MISQuaterly, 31(4), 809e820.

McGuire, J. R. (1992). An examination of environmental attitudes among collegestudents. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Pennsylvania State University.University Park.

Marine Ecotourism for the Atlantic Area. (2001). Codes of conduct for ecotourists.Retrieved March 10, 2009, from. http://www.tourism-research.org/reports.html.

Medio, D., Ormond, R. F. G., & Pearson, M. (1997). Effect of briefings on rates ofdamage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation, 79(1), 91e95.

Meyer, L. A., Thapa, B., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2003). An exploration of motivationsamong SCUBA divers in north central Florida. Paper presented at the 2002Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Newtown Square, PA.

Musa, G. (2002). Sipadan: a SCUBA diving paradise: an analysis of tourism impact,divers satisfaction and tourismmanagement. Tourism Geographies, 4(2), 195e209.

Musa, G., Kadir, S. A., & Lee, L. (2006). Layang Layang: an empirical study on SCUBAdivers’ satisfaction. Tourism in Marine Environments, 2(2), 89e102.

Musa, G., Seng, W. T., Thirumoorthi, T., & Abessi, M. (2011). The influence of scubadivers’ personality, experience, and demographic profile on their underwaterbehavior. Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(1), 1e14.

Newhouse, N. (1990). Implication of attitude and behaviour research for environ-mental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26e32.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., & Howell, R. D. (2000). The performance ofML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under condi-tions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling, 7,557e595.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: themultiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour.Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54e74.

PADI Diver Statistics. (2008). Retrieved January 20, 2010, from. http://www.padi.com/SCUBA /about-padi/PADI-statistics/default. aspx.

Parker, S. (2001). Marine tourism and environmental management on the GreatBarrier Reef. In V. Smith, & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts and guests revisited: Tourismissues in the 21st century (pp. 232e241). New York: Cognizant CommunicationCorporation.

Pattengill-Semmens, C. V., & Semmens, B. X. (2003). Conservation and managementapplications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment, 81(1e3), 43e50.

Pervin, L. A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Phares, E. J. (1991). Introduction to psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Ramanaiah, N. V., Clump, M., & Sharpe, J. (2000). Personality profiles of environ-

mentally responsible groups. Psychological Reports, 87(1), 176e178.Riegl, B., & Velimirov, B. (1991). Howmany damaged corals in Red Sea reef systems?

A quantitative survey. Hydrobiologia, 216/217, 249e256.Roberts, L., & Harriott, V. J. (1994). Recreational SCUBA diving and its potential for

environmental impact in a marine reserve. In O. Bellwood, H. Choat, & N. Sax-ena (Eds.), Recent advances in marine science and technology (pp. 695e704).Townsville, Australia: James Cook University of North Queensland.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2001). The Big Five personalityfactors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,789e801.

Rogers, C. S. (1990). Responses of coral reef organisms to sedimentation. MarineEcology Progress Series, 62, 185e202.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1960). An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency. InC. I. Hovland, & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: Ananalysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 15e64). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Rossi, A. N., & Armstrong, J. B. (1999). Theory of reasoned action vs. theory ofplanned behaviour: testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behav-iour model using hunting intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 40e56.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (1995). The effects of qualified recreational SCUBA diverson coral reefs (pp. Report No. 4, 1-39). Townsville, Australia: CRC Reef ResearchCentre.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (1997). Impacts of recreational scuba diving at siteswith different reef topographies. Biological Conservation, 82(3), 329e336.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2001). “Take only photographs and leave only foot-prints”?: an experimental study of the impacts of underwater photographerson coral reef dive sites. Biological Conservation, 100(3), 281e287.

Ryckman, R. M. (2007). Theories of personality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co.Saphier, A. D., & Hoffmann, T. C. (2005). Forecasting models to quantify three

anthropogenic stresses on coral reefs from marine recreation: anchor damage,diver contact and copper emissions from antifouling paint. Marine PollutionBulletin, 51(5e7), 590e598.

Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: the roleof knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behaviour,22, 767e786.

Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking onconcern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391e406.

Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 19(3), 255e265.

Shinew, K. J. (1993). The attractiveness and effectiveness of organizational rewardoptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Clemson University. Clemson, SC.

Sia, A., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1985). Selected predictors of responsibleenvironmental behaviour. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 31e40.

Sivek, D. L., & Hungerford, H. R. (1989). Predictors of responsible environmentalbehavior: an analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 35e40.

Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F: TrafficPsychology and Behaviour, 4(3), 151e169.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally-significantbehaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407e424.

Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Snelgar, R., & Adrian Furnham, A. (2011).Personality, individual differences, and demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste management behaviours. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 31(1), 21e26.

Talge, H. (1992). Impact of recreational divers on scleractinian corals at Looe Key,Florida. Paper presented at the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium,Guam.



http://www.tourism-research.org/reports.html

http://www.tourism-research.org/reports.html

http://www.padi.com/SCUBA%20/about-padi/PADI-statistics/default.%20aspx

http://www.padi.com/SCUBA%20/about-padi/PADI-statistics/default.%20aspx


Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., & Meyer, L. A. (2005). Moderator and mediator effects ofscuba diving specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contingency. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 53e68.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A., & Meyer, L. A. (2006). Specialization and marine based envi-ronmental behaviours among SCUBA divers. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(4),601e615.

Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: anextended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247e261.

Todd, S. (2000). Scuba diving in New York’s Great Lakes: From novice to professional.SUNY, Cortland: Department of Recreation & Leisure Studies, New York SeaGrant Institute.

Todd, S., Cooper, T., & Graefe, A. (2000). SCUBA diving and underwater culturalresources, differences in environmental beliefs, ascriptions of responsibility, andmanagement preferences based on level of development. Paper presented at the2000 Northeastern Research Symposium, Radnor, PA.

Todd, S., Graefe, A., & Mann, W. (2002). Differences in SCUBA diver motivations basedon level of development. Paper presented at the 2001 Northeastern RecreationResearch Symposium (VD. 104e114), Newton Square, PA.

Townsend, C. (2000). The effects of environmental education on the behaviour ofSCUBA divers: a case study from the British Virgin Islands. Unpublished master’sthesis. The University of Greenwich. London, England.

Tratalos, J. A., & Austin, T. J. (2001). Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coralcommunities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman. Biological Conservation,102(1), 67e75.

Virden, R. J. (1992). Integrating past experience into leisure marketing strategies.Leisure Information Quarterly, 16(1), 6e8.

Walters, R., & Samways, M. (2001). Sustainable dive ecotourism on a South Africancoral reef. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(12), 2167e2179.

Williams, D. R., Schreyer, R., & Knopf, R. C. (1990). The effect of the experience usehistory on the multidimensional structure of motivations to participate inleisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 36e54.

Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness onperformance. Journal of Management, 28(6), 835e850.

Zakai, D., & Chadwick-Furman, N. E. (2002). Impacts of intensive recreational divingon reef corals at Eilat, Northern Red Sea. Biological Conservation, 105(2),179e187.

Examining the influences of experience, personality and attitude on SCUBA divers' underwater...

Documents

Transcript of Examining the influences of experience, personality and attitude on SCUBA divers' underwater...