Youth’s Attitude toward Corruption and Corruption: Philippines Context

The complete paper with the complete results of the study has already been published in Texila International Journal. This is only part of the paper.  You can discover the paper online  

Damianus Abun

Abstract:

People's attitudes predict behaviour. Negative and positive attitudes toward a certain object of attitude will influence the behaviour of the person toward the object. Theoretically, if one sees corruption as good, then the person will be corrupt but when he/she sees corruption as not good, then he will not be corrupt.   

Keywords: attitude, corruption, behaviour 

Introduction

One of the main causes of poverty is corruption in which taxpayers' money is not spent on social and economic development but for individual interest. The corruption perception index reveals that corruption is everywhere, whether it is a poor or rich country, but the index reveals that not all countries are within the same level of corruption. Some countries are placed at the lowest rank of corruption index or least corrupt and some countries are placed in the highest rank of corruption perception index which is considered as the most corrupt. Such ranking indicates the country’s corruption and its capability in eradicating corruption. But no country is considered to be clean or has zero corruption according to the latest report by Transparency International (World Economic Forum, 2019). The corruption perception index indicates that corruption can be managed and reduced to the lowest level.

Issues on corruption is a regular issue that has been in existence since a long time ago. It was already a topic for discussion more than 2000 years ago as reflected in Arthashastra written by Kautilya (Tanzi, 2002). Though there was no systematic study to record the trend, however, historically, it is recognized as one, along with prostitution, of the world's oldest problems. Its history is as long as that of mankind's effort to live by the rule of law (Brioschi & Shugaar, 2017, pp. 1-20). It was already discussed in the early days, as early as the fourth century B.C. by Kauṭilya as cited by Brioschi and Shugaar (2017, pp.21-28). According to Kauṭilya, a contemporary of Aristotle, those who govern must use every means to attain their objectives; rules of rigour and honesty. One of the best-known scandals in ancient Greece, 324, B.C. was the Harpalus scandal in which Demosthenes was accused of taking a gold deposit in the treasury and then was forced to go to exile. It Was also recorded three bribes in ancient Rome, still within the fourth century, B.C. But the great Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.) tried to impose hard measures on the corrupt officials such as dismissal from the service and return the stolen money or gold (Brioschi, & Shugaar, (2017, pp. 39-50). So, it is correct to say that corruption is as old as human history. In the First Dynasty (3100–2700 BC) of ancient Egypt, the issue of corruption was noted in its judiciary (El-Saady, 1998). Corruption practice was also found in ancient China as reflected in the Chinese Mythology about the Kitchen God in which the Kitchen God watches the behavior of every member of the household. Before the Chinese New year, the Kitchen God ascends to heaven to present an annual report to the ruler of heaven, the Jade Emperor and the fate of the household depends on the result of the report (One World, Nations Online, n.d). There was no corruption perception Index as of the present but the corruption did happen. Systematic studies on corruption were just begun in the 1990s by Transparency International (TI) which now is known as the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) which follows the trend of corruption by country (Wasow, 2011).  

Each country has its history of corruption and one cannot say that there is a country without corruption. Corruption exists in every country but the level of corruption of each country might vary.  In the 1990s Philippines was ranked number 9 as one of the most corrupt countries besides Nigeria (1), Pakistan (2), Kenya (3), China (4), Cameroon (5), Egypt (6), Columbia (7), Uganda (8), Indonesia (10) (Hays, 2015). Currently, these countries are still struggling with the same problem. Though the level of corruption is reduced, however, they are still listed as the most corrupt countries. The Philippines is ranked 99 from 180 countries, Indonesia (89), Egypt (105), Columbia (99), Nigeria (144), Pakistan, (117), China (87), Uganda (149), Kenya (144), Cameroon (152). In contrast to these countries, we have lists of countries that are the least corrupt such as Denmark (1), New Zealand (2), Finland (3), Singapore (3), Sweden (3), Switzerland (3), Norway (7), Netherlands (8), Canda (9) and Luxemburg (9) (Rubio, 2018). The contrasting pictures of corruption describe the effectiveness of a certain country in fighting against corruption. Some countries have not done enough, while other countries have done their best to reduce corruption. 

The Philippines is one of Asia's countries that has been the centre of discussion when it comes to corruption. Sometimes it goes down but then it goes up. It goes nowhere, from one administration to another administration. Corruption stays and it becomes a regular experience encountered by many people, to the extent that people are losing hope and trust in the government when it comes to corruption prevention. The habitual occurrence of corruption can form the mindset of every young child born in that environment. It can instil in the mind of a young generation that corrupt practices are an integral part of business transactions to get things done.  Corruption may be considered a symptomatic sign of moral decay (Ncube, 2017).  

However, though corruption is seen as an ordinary way of life (Ncube, 2017), many people still consider corruption as an issue to be prevented. It cannot be a way of life. For many, corruption is not accepted as a good way of life that must be perpetuated but it must be eradicated because of its ill effect on human life or poverty. But the question is where do we start to prevent corruption and how are we going to do it? It is a complex issue that there is no single solution, but we can learn from countries that are successful in curbing corruption.  

People have been living in a corrupt and the writer believes that a corrupt environment can affect their attitude toward corruption. Allport (1968) argued that attitude can affect behavior. Their attitude toward corruption can affect their behaviour toward corruption. Corrupt attitudes and corrupt values may influence corrupt behaviour.

Related Literature and Studies

Concept of Human Attitude

Attitude is an individual's disposition to react to certain objects, behaviour, person, institution, event or other discriminable aspects of the individual's world (Ajzen, 1993). Ajzen contended that there can be a lot of definitions of attitude from different theorists, however, there is a common agreement among them that attitude has its evaluative dimension (Bem, 1970, Edwards, 1957, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In the sense that dimensions of attitude can be measured and evaluated. Ajzen (1993) recognized that though attitude is inaccessible to observations because it is within the person’s mind or it is latent, it can be measured through the reaction or responses of the person toward the object of the attitude which may be favourable or unfavourable toward the object, persons, institution, events or situations. There are three categories of responses or reactions and they are cognitive, affective and conative responses (Allport, 1954, Hilgard, 1980, Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). These are manifestations of salient or latent attitudes which is unobservable (Ajzen, 1993). The cognitive component refers to the beliefs and thoughts about the subject, the object, the person, the institution, the event, etc. It is about the perception and information of the person toward the subject, object or person. The affective component of attitude is an emotional reaction toward the subject, object or person. It is how one feels when he/she is confronting the subject, object, the person or the institution. It is still a psychological reaction which may be a verbal or nonverbal expression of feelings toward the subject, object, person or institution. Such a reaction may be negative or positive. The conative component of attitude is the effect of the attitudes toward a behavioural intention or how the attitude affects one’s behaviour. These may include plans, intentions, and commitments to a planned behaviour. These are the three components of attitude and therefore, attitude is a multidimensional construct.

The question can be raised concerning the origin of attitude: where does it come from? According to Ajzen (1993), a person develops such an attitude perhaps as a result of watching a television program or maybe other kind of exposure or experiences. However Abun (2017) went deeper to answer that question concerning his argument on how to solve an environmental problem. According to him, environmental problems are a result of human behaviour and destructive human behaviour originating from the culture and thus solving the environmental problem is to revisit the culture that has influenced the mind of people toward the environment.  He contends that attitude is originated from the culture where the person is raised. His argument was based on the ideas of anthropologists such as Donald (2002), and Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995). Donald (2002) argued that culture is playing an important role in our brain functioning and even brain structure. She has pointed out that language has the biggest impact on brain structure but that culture influences brain functioning to a great extent as she writes:

                  The social environment includes many factors that impinge on development, from bonding and competitive stress to the social facilitation of learning. These can affect brain functioning in many ways, but usually, they have no direct influence on functional brain architecture. However, symbolizing cultures owns a direct path into our brains and affects the way major parts of the executive brain become wired up during development. This is the key idea behind the notion of deep enculturation... This process entails setting up the very complex hierarchies of cognitive demons (automatic programs) that ultimately establish the possibility of new forms of thought. Culture effectively wires up functional subsystems in the brain that would not otherwise exist (Donald, 2002)

The idea of culture and its effect on brain functioning indicates the power of culture over the formation of the mind and ideas of people about everything around them (Abun, 2018). Donald’s View is similar to what Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995) argued that culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Hofstede pointed out clearly that culture is reflected in how people think, and how people view things or attitudes. To elaborate on the idea of Hofstede, Amstrong (1996) contends that there is a relationship between cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. In other words, an ethical attitude is formed by a particular culture. One perceives a certain object, subject, person or institution to be negative or positive, favourable or not favourable because he/she has been taught by the culture of a particular society where he/she is living. What he/she learns from the culture will be his/her ideas about a certain subject, object event, etc. that he/she will encounter.

The Concept of Human Behavior

To understand the root cause of human behavior, it would be helpful to revisit the idea of William James, a pragmatist, and a behavioral psychologist, as cited by Lawler (2006). James is against the idea that all human behaviour is shaped by experience, but it is shaped by the brain or the mind. Though James recognized that humans are ruled by their instincts as other animals do, what makes humans behave the way they do and how they behave the way do is different from animals. James went on to explain that though humans are animals with the most instincts, they will never react automatically to the instincts, the way inferior animals do because humans have the mind or the reason. It is the role of reason. The reason has to create another impulse to neutralize another impulse.

To complicate further the root cause of human behaviour, Ridley (2011) turns his attention to the nature versus nurture debate to bring the first popular account of the root of human behaviour with this unique question: "What makes us who we are?" This question is related to the main question of why humans behave the way they do and how they behave the way they do. The immediate answer to these questions may point to the very essence of human beings that differentiates it from the animal which the reason or the mind is. But Nohria, Sandelands, and Lawrence (2003), instead of pointing at reason or mind as the source of human behaviour, pointed out four drives or qualities that shape human behaviour. According to her, these drives or qualities are important to understanding why humans behave the way they do. These qualities or drives are conflicting, and they do not work automatically. They force us to make deliberate decisions and choices with a certain degree of liberty. According to this argument, drives or qualities that shape our human behaviour are first, drives to gain objects, bodily and emotional experience, maintain life and improve one's social status concerning others. Second, the drive to create relations, to belong to a group and to create a long terms relationships and care for others. Third, drive to gain insight including understanding one's self and one's surroundings. Fourth drives to control and defend. These are qualities for us to understand why we behave in a certain way. In other words, human behaviour is driven by purposes to be accomplished, not just like other animals. 

The later argument brings us to the theory of planned behaviour of Ajzen (1985, 1987, Ajzen & Madden, 1986).  The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is an extension of the theory of reasoned action to explain the relationship between attitudes and behaviour within human action. Reasoned Action Theory (RAT) argues that the reason for action will predict how an individual will behave based on their pre-existing attitude and behaviour intention. The theory argues that an individual will behave based on the expected outcome the individual expects to achieve as a result of performing such behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). If the RAT focuses on the reason, while the central attention of the Theory of Planned Behavior or TPB is the individual's intention to perform a given behaviour. There are three independent determinants of intention. The first determinant is the attitude toward the behaviour. At this level, the person who performs certain behaviour must evaluate if the behaviour in question is favourable or not favourable. The second determinant is a social factor or subjective norms. At this level, the person who performs the act must evaluate if society is in favour or not in favour of such an act or behaviour. The third is the novel antecedence of intention.  This refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour and it is assumed to reflect experience on performing the behaviour and anticipated impediments and obstacles in performing the behaviour. It suggests that the more favourable the attitude and subjective norms concerning behaviour, and the greater the perceived behavioural control, the stronger should be an individual's intention to perform the behaviour under consideration (Ajzen, 1993).

In short, the theory of planned behaviour argues that the stronger people's intention to perform a certain behaviour, or the stronger people's intention to achieve their behavioural goals the more likely they engage in such behaviour. However, Ajzen (1993) cautions us that the degree of success does not depend only on intention but some circumstances may prevent us from realizing the behaviour in consideration and these may include opportunities and resources such as time, money skills, and other requirements to perform such behaviour. These factors represent the actual control over the behaviour. Beyond that, since TPB is concerned with the perceived behaviour, the particular perceived behaviour may not be carried out due to lack of information about the behaviour, the requirements have changed and when other unpredicted elements have entered into the situation.

Attitude is a Key Predictor of Behavior

In psychology, an attitude is defined as a set of emotions, beliefs, and behaviours toward a particular object, person, thing, or event (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010). It is a learned tendency to evaluate or perceive things in a certain way and therefore one can have a positive or negative evaluation or perception of certain objects, experiences, practices, etc. The evaluation or perception of a person toward a certain object or experience is not isolated from experiential exposure. It has been a common understanding and agreement that attitudes are the result of experience, upbringing/education and social interactions. Experience upbringing or education can have a powerful influence over attitudes. However, since attitude is not independent of environment or experience, thus it is also accepted that attitudes are dynamic in the sense that it is enduring and the same time can also be changed (Cherry, 2019).

Most of the early research on attitude accepted as a given that attitude influenced the behaviour. The background of those studies was influenced by the ideas of early social psychologists that attitude is a key to understanding human behaviour (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918, Watson, 1925). This idea was taken for granted for quite some time until the time that later studies proved otherwise. Some investigators challenged the earlier assumption through field studies on the relationship between attitude and behavior and their studies found that there was no correlation or little correlation between attitude and behavior. For example, Corey (9137), Freeman & Ataoev, (1960) as cited by Ajzen (1993) conducted a study on the college students' attitude at the beginning of the semester and provide multiple opportunities to cheat by allowing them to score their test. His test found that there was no correlation between students' attitude and their cheating behaviour (Ajzen, 1993, p.74).  Even later studies supported the study of Corey (1937). For example, Dean (1958) conducted a study on attitude toward labour unions and participation in labour union meetings, and his study found no correlation. A similar study was also done by Wicker and Pomazal, (1971) on the attitude toward participating in a subject in social psychology and actual participation in a social psychology class. Their studies found no correlation.

The finding of later studies particularly the study of Wicker (1969) seems to discourage the original idea of early social psychologists that attitudes are the key to predicting behaviour. The results of those studies have questioned the importance of studying personal disposition and behaviour. By the 1970s most social psychologists accepted the negative verdict of the relationship between attitude and behavior. Instead of studying the relationship between attitude and behaviour, they encouraged the study of social context and norms as a determinant factor in predicting behaviour or human action (De Fleur & Westie, 1958, Deutscher, 1969). However, given those negative results, other social psychologists, particularly Ajzen and Fishbein (1977, 2000,) still maintain that attitude is still key to predicting behaviour (Allport, 1968). Allport (1968) still considered attitude to be "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (p. 59).  Other social psychologists who were against the negative findings of early research argued that the inconsistencies are not with the attitude and behaviour itself, but it may happen because of many factors such as response biases, the multidimensionality of attitudes, and moderating variables. In terms of response biases, they argue that there is a tendency to give socially desirable responses on attitude and personality inventories and along with this point, they recommended the need to use attitude measures that are less subject to systematic biases (Ajzen, 1993). Concerning the multidimensionality of attitudes, they pointed out that most attitude measurement techniques resulted in a single score representing the respondent's overall positive or negative reaction to the attitude object. According to them, focusing on a single dimension did not do justice to the complexity of the attitude construct (Allport, 1935). Single construct is against attitude as a multidimensional construct which includes cognition, affective and conation components (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). Lastly, the inconsistencies are due to moderating variables. They argued that the degree of attitude-behaviour consistency was assumed to be moderated by factors related to the person performing the behaviour such as self-awareness, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, experience, self-confidence, even feeling and lack of information or knowledge. They also pointed out the situation as moderating variables such as time pressure or circumstances surrounding the performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 1993).

The recent studies conducted by Abun (2018) and Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2005) confirmed the consistency of attitude and behaviour. Abun (2018) measured the relationship between environmental attitude and environmental behaviour and the study found that environmental attitude predicted the environmental behaviour of the students and employees toward the environment. Further, he also conducted a study on the entrepreneurial attitude and future intention to establish a business and the finding also indicated a correlation.  The study of Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2005) also found that entrepreneurial attitudes are significant in explaining career decisions in the future and their intention to go into business.

Corruption in the Philippines

Corruption is using an official position to take something which is not yours. Merriam-Webster defines it as "dishonest or illegal behaviour, especially by powerful people such as government officials or police officers. It is an “inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means such as bribery”. transparency International (n.d) defines it as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. While the Anti-Corruption Resource Center (n.d) defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. From these three definitions, there is a common definition of corruption which is an abuse of power by the officials or those in the position for private gain.

Corruption as an abuse of power can be in different forms such as bribery, cronyism, extortion, nepotism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. To offer us a clear understanding of what we discuss in this paper, we need to understand the meaning of each form of corruption. There can be a lot of definitions from different sources on the forms of corruption but mostly the definitions are similar to each other and with the same substance. Transparency International (n.d) defines bribery as the offering, promising, giving, accepting or soliciting of an advantage as an inducement for an action which is illegal, unethical or a breach of trust. Inducements can take the form of money, gifts, loans, fees, rewards or other advantages. This definition includes the active and passive understanding of bribery. Active bribery occurs when a person promises, offers and gives a bribe but when a person requests, receives and accepts the bribe is called passive bribery (Transparency International, n.d). Cronyism is defined as "giving the job to friends rather than to independent people who have the necessary skills and experience” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d), or "partiality to cronies in the appointment of political hangers-on to the office without regard to their qualifications" (Merriam Webster).  Extortion is defined by Legal Dictionary (n.d) as, "obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear or under colour of official right". Nepotism is defined as “the practice of a person in power giving good positions and opportunities to relatives" (Legal Dictionary, n.d). Patronage is understood as the "practice observed by the political official of filling government positions with qualified employees of his own choosing” (Legal Dictionary, n.d). Influence peddling is understood as “the practice of using money, wealth, personal undertaking, or gifts to purchase a favourable outcome or decision from an official, government officeholder, or public authority” (Shantz, 2012). Graft means the obtaining of money through the dishonest use of power and influence" (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d). Lastly, embezzlement is "illegally taking money that is in your care or that belongs to an organization or business you work for" (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d).

These forms of corruption are all found in the Philippines in many areas of government services such as the judicial system, police, public service, land administration, tax administration, customs administration, public procurement, and natural resources are affected by corruption (GAN, n.d). Though the judiciary is considered to be independent, the reality is that its independence is only related to its relationship with the executive branch in which the executive branch of government must respect their independence in terms of decision-making and the direction of its office and cannot be forced or influenced from the executive branch of government. It is expected to be fair in the legal process and deliver justice to all. But it cannot be denied by the fact that they can be bribed or influenced by the rich and the powerful individual in their decision-making. Decisions are often influenced by powerful individuals, money, nepotism, and favouritism (GAN, n.d). This is the reason why Associate Justice Marvice Leonen as cited by Buan (2018) argued that corruption weakens judicial independence far more than political interference. It is not the interference from the executive branch of government that matters to the judiciary but it is corruption. Along with the judiciary are the police, and the law enforcers. It is regarded as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country (Morella & France-Presse, 2017). Besides the police force, other government offices are also tainted by corruption. According to the SWS (2016) survey three (3) out of five (5) businesses have bribed someone in the government to get things done. Ombudsman Office Survey (2014) detailed government services that are bribed by families related to services: availing of social services, payment of taxes and duties, access to justice, securing registry documents and licenses and other services. Corruption is also rampant in the Land Administration. Reportedly two (2) out of five (5) companies bribed the officials to obtain construction permits (GAN, n.d). BIR is also not on the list. This is one of the government agencies that have been bombarded by accusations of corruption. Based on the survey as cited by GAN (n.d) one out of seven companies have bribed tax officials. It is also supported by SWS (2016) survey that “only a fifth of businesses in their line of business pay their taxes honestly” and thus majority are not paying their taxes correctly. Commonly, business practitioners encounter difficulties when dealing with the Bureau of Customs. The problem of bureaucracy makes it easy for corruption. GETR (2016) reported that business bribe is a common practice at the Bureau of Customs and they even pointed out that import procedures are very problematic, and this is the corrupt area. Public Procurement is also not left behind in terms of corruption. According to the SWS (2016) survey as cited by GAN (n.d), a fifth of businesses have bribed officials to win government contracts. Though the government has shown improvement in natural resources governance, however, it is still pointed out that government corruption allowed the mining companies to evade government regulations.

The data cited above indicate that corruption has emerged in different government services, not only on the national level but even at different levels of government offices. It is common knowledge. It cannot be denied that such an environment has formed the perception of young people about the corruption level of the country. Though the government has tried its best to reduce corruption, however, people still perceive the government as corrupt. Latest Transparency International (2018) has ranked the Philippines 99 out of 180 countries as the most corrupt. Though there is a slight improvement in the rating compared to the year 2017, in general, its record has not significantly improved if it is compared from 2012 up to 2018. If one looks back from 2012 up to the present, a significant improvement was made in 2014 under Aquino's administration when the Philippines was ranked 85 with a score of 38. There was a steady improvement from 105 (2012), then 94 (2013), and 85 (2014). Sadly, toward the end of Aquino’s term, it went up to 95 in 2015, then up to 101 again in 2016, and continues to go up to 111 in 2017 and down to 99 in 2018 (Bueza, 2019). With such kind of movement which is up and down indicates that corruption does not go away from the Philippines in time soon, and this situation has influenced the young people and at the same time, it may have formed ideas that corruption is part of the culture of a society or it is a way of life.     

Filipinos’ Attitude Toward Corruption

Corruption has been part of everyday life in the Philippines because newspapers and television almost always report corruption incidents. Being bombarded by issues of corruption, if not daily but weekly or monthly, people can form a certain attitude toward corruption. Mangahas (2018) released a comparative survey among Asian countries and America on the attitude toward the government. One of the questions in such a survey was about Filipinos' perception of corruption in government.  One of the findings of the study was that seven out of ten Filipinos and South Koreans believed that there are "quite a lot" or "almost all" politicians involved in corruption. While Thais, Taiwanese, and Americans are only four out of ten believe that politicians are involved in corruption. Because of its persistent presence in society, people have considered it as part of the culture or part of life and it will be very difficult to remove. It is embedded in the system and reinforced by economic and social inequalities (FilipiKnow, n.d).  To this point, it forms the mind of the young Filipinos that corruption is a culture and a lifestyle (Youngster Online, 2014). People's frustration on corruption prevalence has formed their perception toward politics and government that both are corrupt (Philstar Global, 2008). It is already an endemic problem because it has become the rule, not the exception, as part of a business transaction (Philstar Global, 2009). It is a practice and part of the culture of the society.  The root causes are the structure of society in which the majority of Filipinos or around 80% are poor and only 20% are rich but unfortunately, the 80% have no voice in decision-making but only 20%. They have no voice to contribute to decisions that affect their life (Robredillo, 2017). Besides social structure is also self-aggrandizement in which people have the mindset that being in the government is for power, wealth and social status. Because of such a mindset, those who occupy the position, instead of using it for service, self-aggrandizement. Consequently, such kind of mindset results in using their position to accumulate personal wealth and using public money as his own money. Contributing to such causes is also a weak justice system in the sense that those who have money or the rich can get away with it. 

Stories of corruption are not only happening in the national government but it is also in the local government. SWS (2012) survey as quoted by ABS CBN (2012) indicated that 68 % of Filipinos believed that their city or municipal governments are corrupt. It seems that corruption is not going down but it is going higher as indicated by the same survey that a year before (2011) that 64 % and 58% (2009) Filipinos believed that their city or municipal governments are corrupt. Specifically, the budget office (48%), the Mayor’s office (32%) and the City Engineer’s Office (30%) were considered to be the most corrupt. The spread of corruption to the local level has developed an understanding that corruption is something "normal" or part of the organizational process (Gault, 2016).

Youth’s Attitude toward corruption and intention to corrupt

There have been studies conducted in line with the attitude of the youth or students toward corruption. Society’s practice affects the perception of the youth toward corruption and their intention to corrupt in the future. Barr, and Serra (2010) conducted a study among undergraduate students in the UK on the effect of prevailing social norms and values in society and their decisions to corrupt in the future. The respondents were mixed from different countries. One of the values that were investigated is bribery and it was found that these students would act corruptly in the future in their home country. This finding suggests that when the youth is raised in a corrupt environment will also corrupt in the future. It is also confirmed by the study of Salmon and Serra (2017) among Americans characterized by cultural heterogeneity due to the immigration of their parents. The study found that the corruption tendency is reduced among individuals who identify culturally with countries characterized by low levels of corruption. In other words, when one is raised or associated with corrupt countries, then the tendency to corrupt is higher compared to those who are raised in a less corrupt country. In other words, experience on corrupt practices affect the attitude of a person toward corruption and potentiality to corrupt in the future (ShengLee &Guven, 2013)  This is to say that corrupt environment affects their values or beliefs and such beliefs become predictor either to be corrupt or not corrupt in the future as Berninghaus, et al. (2013) found that risk attitude and beliefs and corruption and the study found that beliefs appeared to be a better predictor of whether or not they would opt for the corrupt alternative in the future.

A national survey on the attitude of youths toward corruption in Cambodia and how they value integrity revealed a striking result. Though the youth believed that integrity is vital to society and the only way to prevent corruption but sadly they are still willing to sacrifice integrity to benefit themselves, their friends and their family. This attitude is a result of their direct experience of corruption because most of the youth have experienced practicing corruption. Though they have the desire to combat corruption, their desire or good intention is sacrificed for the sake of themselves, family and friends (Transparency International Cambodia, 2015). The Transparency International Cambodia revealed that 60 percent of youths are willing to pay a kickback of 10-20 percent of their future salary to a person who can secure them a job and half of those surveyed believe it is acceptable to give an unofficial payment to a doctor or nurse to receive better medical treatment. Further, it is also found that 31 per cent agree that it is acceptable to gain entrance to a good school or get hired by a good company with the help of a relative rather than going through official selection procedures and 24 per cent of those surveyed think it is acceptable to give an additional payment to a public official to hasten vehicle registration. A similar study in Vietnam conducted by Transparency International (2011) revealed that though the Vietnamese youth have a clear sense of right and wrong, they are unlikely to resist corruption and are willing to participate in it. Though they believe in integrity and the negative effects of corruption, they are ready to compromise their values when faced with corruption. The study revealed further that 35 per cent will bribe when it is financially advantageous, will solve a problem or when the bribe is small, 45 per cent consider it acceptable to bribe their way to better hospital treatment and lastly, 38 per cent are ready to pay a bribe to get into a good school or company. The corrupt environment has affected the mindset of the youth and this is also true for the Mongolian youth. The Asia Foundation (2016) in its annual survey on Perception and Knowledge of Corruption indicated that zero tolerance for corruption is less common to young people compared to older people. The survey pointed out that it is only 28 percent of the Mongolian youth will not bribe but the rest are willing to pay a bribe.   

Conclusion

Though solving corruption is a complex issue, however, based on the theory of attitude and behaviour of Allport (1968), and Ajzen (1993), one of the solutions to prevent corruption is to fix the attitude and the values of the youth. Values education can be a very important tool to restore values of honesty, love, integrity and holiness.   

References

ABS CBN News (2012). More Filipinos See Corruption in the Local Government. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com

Abun, D. (2018). Environmental Attitude and Environmental Behavior of Catholic Colleges' Employees in Region I, Philippines. Texila International Journal of Academic Research, Vol. 4, Issue 1, June 2018.

Ajzen, I., & Fishebin, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Ajzen, I. (1993). New Directions in Attitude Measurement. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. In W. Stroebe & M.Hewstone, (Eds.). European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-33. Chichester, UK: Wiley.   

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude – Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intention to Action: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., (Eds). Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, Trait, and Action: Dispositional Prediction of behavior in Personality and Social Psychology. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in Experiential Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63. New York: Academic Press

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2015). The Influence of Attitude on Behavior. University of Pennsylvania: Annenberg School for Communication.

Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed). Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press

Allport, G.W. (1968). The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology. In G. Lindsay and E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology. In Lindsay, G. (Ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-56. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amstrong, W. R. (1996). The Relationship between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Pages: 1199-1208

Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and Methods of Research. Manila: National Bookstore

Banaji, M.R. & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes. In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds). Handbook of Social Psychology (5^th ed, Vol. 1, pp. 353-393. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Barr, A. & Serra, D. (2010). Corruption and culture: An experimental analysis. Journal of Public Economics, Volume 94, Issues 11–12, December 2010, Pages 862-869

Bem, D.J. (1970). Beliefs, Attitudes and Human Affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Berninghaus, S.K., Haller, S.,   Krüger, T., Neumann, T,  Schosser, S., & Vogt, B. (2013). Risk attitude, beliefs, and information in a Corruption Game – An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 34, February 2013, Pages 46-60

Brioschi, C., & Shugaar, A. (2017). THE GIFT IN ANTIQUITY. In Corruption: A Short History (pp. 21-28). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Brown, A. (1995). Organizational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing.

Buan, L. (2018). Leonen Urges More Scrutiny of Corruption in the Judiciary. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com

Bueza, M. (2019). The Philippines Slightly Improve in 2018 Global Corruption Index. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com

Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed attitudes and actual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28(4), 271-280.

 

Dean, L. (1958). Interaction, Reported and Observed: The Case of One Local Union. Human Organization, Vol.17, Issue 3, pp. 36-44, 1958.

DeFleur, M.L. & Westie, F.R. (1958). Verbal Attitude and Overt Acts: An Experiment on the Salience of Attitude. American Sociological Review 23(6):667

Deutscher, I. (1968). Looking Backward: Case Study on the Progress of methodology in sociological research. American Sociologist, Vol. 4, 35-41.

Donald, M. (2002). A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Edwards, A.L. (1957). The technique of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

El-Saady, H. (1998). Considerations on Bribery in Ancient Egypt. JSTOR. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org

Filipiknow (n.d). 12 Annoying Attitude of Filipinos We Need to Get Rid Of. Retrieved from https://filipiknow.net

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Fitzsimmons, J.R., Douglas, E.J. (2005), “Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Entrepreneurial

Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Study of Potential Entrepreneurs in India, China, Thailand And

Australia”, Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA. June

2005

Freeman, L. C., & Ataoev, T. (1960). The invalidity of indirect and direct measures of attitude toward cheating. Journal of Personality, 28, 443-447.

GAN: Business Anti-Corruption Portal (n.d). The Philippine Corruption Report. Retrieved from https://www.ganintegrity.com

Gault, D.A. (2016). Corruption as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization of corruption. Contaduría y Administración, Volume 62, Issue 3, July–September 2017, Pages 827-842

Gbadamosi, G. & Bello, M (2009). 'The King's new clothes in the eyes of the beholder: developing a measurement scale for attitude towards corruption' in Kaynak, E. & Harcar, T.D. (eds.) Management challenges in an environment of increasing regional and global concerns, 2009 Proceedings of the 18th World Business Congress, (IMDA), 1 – 5 July 2009, Tbilisi, Georgia, pp. 73-78, ISBN: 1-888624-08-6

Hays, J. (2015). Corruption in the Philippines. Facts and Details. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails.com

Hilgard, E.R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, pp. 107-117.

Lawrence, P. & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How Human Nature Shape Our Choices. New York: Jossey-Bass[WU1] . [WU2] 

Lawler, M.S. (2006). William James's psychological pragmatism: habit, belief and purposive human behavior. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May 2006), pp. 321-345

Mangahas, M. (2018). Attitude toward Government. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://opinion.inquirer.net

Morella, C., & France-Presse, A. (2017). Long History of Corruption in the Philippine Police Force. ABS CBN. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com

Ncube, V. (2017). When Corruption Becomes a Way of Life, and What to Do About It? International Federation of Accountants. Retrieved from https://www.ifac.org

Nohria, N., Sandelands, L., & Lawrence, P.R. (2006). Driven: Human Nature Shapes Our Choices. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 48, Issue 3.  

Office of the Ombudsman (2014). Household Survey on Experience with Corruption in the Philippines. Research and Special Studies Bureau, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph

One World, Nations Online (n.d). Kitchen God. Retrieved from https://www.nationsonline.org

Philstar Global (2009). Why Does Corruption Seem Endemic to the Political Setting in the Philippines? Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com

Philstar Global (2008). How Would You Describe Your Attitude towards Philippines Politic and Goings on in Government? Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com

Robredillo,L.C. (2017). Understanding Corruption in the Philippines. ESTE NEWS. Retrieved from http://estenews.org

Rosenberg, M.J. & Hovland, C.I. (1960).  Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes. In Hovland, C.I. & Rosenberg, M.J. (Eds). Attitude Organization and Change, pp. 1-14. New haven, CT: Yale University Press

Rubio, D.F. (2018). Corruption Perception Index 2018. Transparency International. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org

Salmon, T.C. & Serra, D. (2017). Corruption, Social Judgment and Culture: An Experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume 142, October 2017, Pages 64-78

Shantz, J. (2012). Political Influence Peddling. Sage Knowledge. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com

ShengLee, W. & Guven, C. (2013) Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the micro level, Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 39, December 2013, Pages 287-300

Social Weather Stations (2016). The 13th SWS Survey of Enterprises on Corruption: Marked Improvement in the Fight Against Corruption in the Last Six Years, but 2016 Survey Shows Some Backsliding. Retrieved from https://www.sws.org.ph

Tanzi, V. (2002). Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures, in G. T. Abed and   S.   Gupta (Eds.). Governance, Corruption, and Economic   Performance.   Washington:   International Monetary Fund: 19-58. 

The Asia Foundation (2016). Survey on Perception and Knowledge of Corruption (SPEAK VII). Retrieved from https://asiafoundation.org

Thomas, W.I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (vol. 1). Boston: Badger.

Transparency International (2011). Corruption in Vietnam: What Do Young People Think? Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org

\Transparency International Cambodia (2015). A National Survey on Youth Perceptions of Corruption and Integrity in Cambodia. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org

Transparency International (n.d). What is Corruption? Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org

Wasow, B. (2011). A Brief History of Corruption. The Globalist: Rethinking Globalization. Retrieved from https://www.theglobalist.com

Watson, J.B. (1925). Behaviourism. New York: Norton.

Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.

Wicker, A. W., & Pomazal, R. J. (1971). The relationship between attitudes and behavior as a function of specificity of attitude object and the presence of a significant person during assessment conditions. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 2(2), 26-31.

World Economic Forum (2019). These are the World’s Least-and Most Corrupt Countries. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org

Youngster Online (2014). The Culture of Corruption Filipino Style. Retrieved from http://ssp.ph/youngster

 

 

 

 

 

---

 [WU1]No

 [WU2]

atOptions = { 'key' : 'ec63b517c8cd8c5e5fc8db8b1ea2e981', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 250, 'width' : 300, 'params' : {} };

Solving Environmental Problems Requires Changing Cultural Perception about the Environment and Changing Behavior toward the Environment.

 Damianus Abun

Divine Word College of Laoag

Introduction

Environmental problems have become a serious concern for all human beings on the planet. Why is it becoming a serious concern? People have seen the connection between the environmental disaster and the quality of human life which means that problems that happen in the environment will affect human life and other living beings. Climate change is one of the effects of environmental degradation. Human beings are challenged to find ways to mitigate the climate change.

Many activities or programs are initiated or introduced by the government and non-government agencies to address climate change, to prevent further deterioration of climate. Projects on tree planting and solar power have been introduced. However, these activities are not common yet, in the sense that not all people are planting trees and having solar energy, instead of using ordinary fossil oil, while people in other parts of the world are still cutting trees and mining which destroyed forests and erosion. Sources of water become scarce because of logging and mining. Thus, climate change is still the main concern up to this moment.

Activities and programs related to environmental protection have been done, however many of those activities are curative but not preventive. Preventive measures must be taken but those measures are not limited to environmental laws but it is environmental education. Environmental education should emphasize the balanced concept of nature and hopefully, such education will lead to a change of perception toward the environment and a change of behavior toward the environment. 

The concern for the environment and concern for quality of life are the main factors why the writer takes his time to write this paper and disseminate it through his blog. The purpose is to analyze the root cause of the environmental problems and solutions how to solve such problems

Cultural Perception and Environmental Problems

The behaviour of a person can tell many hidden things because through his/her behaviour people can see what his culture is. The behaviour is a manifestation of culture. What I mean by culture is the way he/she thinks, looks, believes or perceives things. Culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior. What he/she believes, thinks or perceives, naturally, becomes his/her attitude toward the world or things or environment. This attitude does not operate independently but it is formed and influenced by the existing culture.

  Robert. W. Amstrong (1996) in his examination of the cultural variables suggests that there is a relationship between cultural dimensions such as Uncertainty Avoidance and Individualism as prescribed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. This finding supports the hypothetical linkage between the cultural environment perception and the perceived ethical problem variables posited in Hunt and Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics (1986). Such a study only proves that there is a relationship between culture and the attitude of a person toward anything.

         In functionalist thinking, culture is considered a component of an integrated social system which promotes the effectiveness of the organization and the well-being of all its stakeholders. Culture refers to the assumptions, beliefs, goals, knowledge and values that are shared by members of the society. British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1874) attempted to define culture as inclusively as possible. Tylor in 1874 described culture in the following way: "Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Culture represents the high-information “ideal factors” in a system that exerts significant and partly independent influence on human events or human behaviours. When an individual is faced with an ethical dilemma, his or her value system will colour the perception of the ethical ramifications of the situation (Racelis, 2009). Such argument strengthens the position of culture to influence the behaviour of a person toward other people, things or the environment. In this case, culture matters much in the way how human behaves.   

Another important factor of human behaviour is their “core faith”. This faith can be through religion, philosophy, culture or personal belief and often affects the way a person can behave. Many people believe some sort of belief in a higher power, which makes religion a large important in society (Nones, 2012). It is only natural for something that plays such a large role in society to have an effect on human behaviour (Spilka, 1996) Morals are another factor of core faith that affects the way a person behaves. Emotions connected to morals include shame, pride, and discomfort and these can change the way a person acts. Most importantly, shame and guilt have a large impact on behaviour (Tangney, 2007). Lastly, culture highly affects human behaviour. The beliefs of certain cultures are taught to children from such a young age that they are greatly affected as they grow up. These beliefs are taken into consideration throughout daily life, which leads to people from different cultures acting differently. These differences can alter the way different cultures and areas of the world interact and act (Triandis, 1994).

Culture does not only affect the beliefs and values of people but it also affects their attitude. It appears to be seen as the culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behaviour of a person.   An attitude is an expression of favour or disfavour toward a person, place, thing, or event (Wyer, 1965).  In this case, attitude does not only affect the behaviour of a person to another person but it can also affect his/her behaviour toward things or the environment.  The interesting thing about attitude and human beings is that it alters between each individual. Everyone has a different attitude towards different things. A main factor that determines attitude is likes and dislikes. The more one likes something or someone the more one is willing to open up and accept what they have to offer. When one doesn’t like something, one is more likely to get defensive and shut down. An example of how one's attitude affects one's human behaviour could be as simple as taking a child to the park or to the doctor. Children know they have fun at the park so their attitude becomes willing and positive, but when a doctor is mentioned, they shut down and become upset with the thought of pain. Attitudes can sculpt personalities and the way people view who we are. People with similar attitudes tend to stick together as interests and hobbies are common. This does not mean that people with attitudes do not interact, because they do. What it means is that specific attitudes can bring people together (e.g., religious groups). Attitudes have a lot to do with the mind which highly relates to Human behavior. The way a human will behave depends a lot on how they look at the situation and what they expect to gain from it. ( Kecmanovic, 1969).  Positive attitudes are better than negative ones as negativity can bring on negative emotions that most of the time can be avoided. It is up to humans to make sure their attitudes positively reflect the behaviours they want to show. This can be done by assessing their attitudes and properly presenting them in society.

Definitely, attitude and behaviours are parts of culture. Change in attitude and behaviour or belief or values requires culture change. Culture change is difficult. Cultural change requires people to change their attitudes and behaviours. It is often difficult for people to unlearn their old way of doing things, and to start performing the new behaviors consistently. However, it does not mean to say that culture can not be changed; it can be changed if members of society are willing to change their attitudes behaviours, beliefs and values. A closer look at instinct-driven behaviour might help us understand this viewpoint better. For this, we can look at animal behaviour, which is mostly controlled by instinct. In the case of humans, they can choose to ignore even such basic instincts and put more thought and analysis into their behaviour. They can also choose to do things in radically different ways. In this understanding, culture can be changed if people want to.

Concerning environmental problems, solving environmental problems cannot be addressed just by creating laws or rules that prohibit destroying the environment. Since the problem is rooted in the culture that affects the attitude and behaviour, then solving environmental problems requires changing of culture. Changing culture means changing the way how we view, value, and perceive the environment or nature. Negative culture toward the environment must be changed into a positive culture toward the environment. Definitely, it is an ethical issue. 

Solving Environmental Problems is A Cultural Change.  

As I have mentioned earlier environmental problems are caused by human behavior. Such human behaviour is influenced by the culture which in turn affects the attitude of the man on how they view the environment and finally such a view affects their behaviour toward the environment. Definitely, the solution to the environmental problems must be a radical change in cultural perceptions on the environment.

The researcher proposes the following recommendations on how to solve environmental problems:

1.      New way of interpreting the bible, Genesis, 1:27-31.        

One argument that has been used by the Capitalists originated from the Bible, particularly in the book of Genesis. The destruction of the environment would tell us that human beings have taken Gen 1; 27-31 as an instruction as an absolute power to use and misuse or to exploit when God tells us to have dominion over the animals and to fill the earth and subdue it. Such a situation has been lamented by Pope Benedict XVI when he said that God’s original command to have dominion over the earth has been sorely corrupted. He further said that the task of “subduing” was never intended as an order to enslave it but rather as a task of being guardians of Creation and developing its gifts, of actively collaborating in God’s work ourselves (Benedict, 2008).

John Paul in his Sollicitudo Rei Socialis reminds us about our understanding of the dominion granted by God. The dominion granted to man by God is not an absolute power or a complete freedom to use and misuse or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator is expressed symbolically by the prohibition “not to eat the fruit of the tree, for the day you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17).

John Paul II continued to emphasize that our respect for creation stems from respect for human life and dignity. Thus all human beings should realize their specific responsibility to care for nature. Each person should recognize that the world is created by God and we are stewards of nature. We must be responsible stewards of God’s creation. Humans are to use the earth, not to abuse it and in doing so become co-creators with God in the process of the formation of a new heaven and new earth. In Gen, 2: 15, it says, “Yahweh God took man and placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and take care of it”. Such instruction indicates that the dominion of human beings over the earth is not absolute but co-creator and stewards. 

2.      Adopting Eastern Views on Man and Nature.

Eastern philosophy of man views man not in isolation. Man is part of the greater reality. The Westerns look at a man more as an individualistic person who is independent of society or a separate individual, while the Easterns look at a man as part of something greater. He is a social being. He is a part of a bigger part. Living wisely means an individual finds his true place in that greater reality and conforms to it. The greater reality is not only referring to society or the environment, the universe but also to the divine reality. Men seek to lose themselves in that greater reality and such reality is divine reality which is called Brahman. Brahman is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.  Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Brahman is the only thing which is truly real and everything else is only real to the extent that is part of Brahman.  Brahman is just like a great sea and other beings in the world are just a drop of water into that sea. Such drops do not have distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great sea. They are elements of something greater.  It is the reality of all realities, the soul of all souls, one without a second, the constant witness of the changing phenomena of the universe.

Adopting such a view on man and nature, definitely tells us that men and the world are not objects to be used, but both subjects. The relationship between man and nature must be between subject and subject. Nature and man are one. Both are part of the greater reality which is Brahman. In this case, man and nature are divine in nature because both are part of such greater reality which is Brahman. Man gets his meaning by living in harmony with such a greater reality

3.      New Way of Building a Relationship with the Nature.

We might be familiar with the idea of Martin Buber. Martin Buber argued that all real living is meeting. In the meeting, there is always a relation and this relation is not only man to man but man to the world and to God.  How we can open ourselves to the world, to others and to God. Therefore he proposed a kind relationship which is the I-You and I-It relationship. But one kind of these relationship is not really intended for one or the other. It depends on how we relate ourselves to others, to the world and to God.

I-You (Thou) or Ich-Du relationship. I - You (Thou) relationship is a relationship between man and man or subject to subject. This is a genuine relationship because the objective of such a relationship is not for the advantage of one party but it is mutual. We deal with the other as a subject or a distinctive person.  Therefore, according to him, we take a stand either to relate or not relate to ourselves. We can take our place against whatever confronts us and address it as you or we can take ourselves apart from it and view it as an object (it). In this case, there is the possibility that a relationship (I-You)  which is supposed to be genuine and only between subject to subject or man to man can turn into a manipulative relationship which is an I-It relationship. In this case, the purpose of going into building a relationship or dialogue is only for self-interest.

While the I-It relationship is a relationship between subject and object. But this relationship can be used in human relationships. In the I-It relationship, the subject is in the position to use, manipulate, and control the other. The other is used as an object. In this case, one is being used by the other for his self-interest. There is no mutual benefit in this kind of relationship. In terms of the relationship between man and nature, simply people accept that it is an I-It relationship. Man is simply using nature as an object of manipulation for his self-interest.  

A new way of building a relationship with nature must be a relationship of I-You. Nature must be seen as a subject, as independent and distinctive from humans. Thus the relationship between man and nature must be a relation of subject to subject, both are equal. Not only that nature and man are both the creation of God but both relationships benefit each other. Nature benefits from man and man benefits from nature.  Therefore relationship with nature must be a mutual relationship. Man takes care of nature as mandated by God and nature gives life to man. A manipulative relationship which only benefits one side can produce disaster on the part of human beings.                     

Conclusion

Since the root cause of the environmental problem is the mindset of the people, therefore the first solution is to clear the wrong mindset of people about the environment. Religion is one cultural element that forms the human mind. Thus, it is necessary to revisit the teachings of the religion about the creation and human participation in the creation. Humans should not be understood as masters of the environment but as stewards of the environment. Further, human beings must not see themselves as the centre of the universe but integral part of the universe which means that there is an interdependence between men and the environment. Environment is not less important than human beings but all are equal. Humans should see the environment as equals. As equals demands respect.  

References

Amstrong, W. R. (2010). The Relationship between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics,15(11), 199-1208 

Racelis, A. Racelis. 2009. Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Organizational Culture: An Exploratory Study. College of Business Administration, University of the Philippines, Philippines. http://apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw/comm/updown/DW1006213442.pdf

Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986) A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027614678600600103

"'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation". Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2012. http://www.pewforum.com

Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1997). The psychology of religion: Theoretical Approaches. Westview Press

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behaviour. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. McGraw-Hill Book Company

WYER, R. S. J. 1965. Effect of Child-Rearing Attitudes and Behavior on Children’s  Responses to Hypothetical Social Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 480-486.

KECMANOVIC, D. (1969). A paranoid attitude is a common form of social behaviour. Sociologija, 11(4), 573-585.  http://search.proquest.com/docview/60877639?accountid=12347 (registration required)

Tylor, E.B. 1874. Primitive culture: research into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture