"Table 2. The items that measure the attitude and number of agreementAgree Indifferent Disagree(A) Affect commitment(Af)1It frightens me to think that much of the food I eat is contaminated with pesticides. 266 19 752 It genuinely infuriates me to think that the government doesn’t do more to help control pollution of 289 19 52the environment.3 I become incensed when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by pollution 87 203 704I get depressed on smoggy days267 69 245When I think of the ways industries are polluting, I get frustrated and angry. 69 123 1366The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated.* 135 65 1607I rarely ever worry about the effects of smog on myself and family..176 78 106Agree Indifferent Disagree(B)Verbal commitment(VC)-Environmental attitude1 I’d be willing to ride a bicycle /metro/tram or other pollution free mode of transport to work/travel 217 45 98in order to reduce air pollution.2I would be willing to renew my pollution control certificate timely or ready to use pollution free245 43 72vehicle to reduce air pollution for Kolkata metro city3 I would donate a day’s pay to a foundation to help improve the environment 92 106 1624 I would be willing to stop buying products from companies guilty of polluting the environment, even51 135 174though it might be inconvenient5 I’d be willing to write article on print media concerning ecological problems. 176 40 1446 I wouldn’t go house to house to distribute literature on the environment** 54 76 2307 I would not be willing to pay a pollution tax even if it would considerably decrease the smog151 38 171problem**.Agree Indifferent Disagree(C)Actual commitment(AC)- Ecological behavior1 I guess I’ve never actually bought a product because it had a low polluting effect 72 99 1892 I keep track of my neighbours friends and relativesthose who raise voices on environment issues 102 108 1503 I have contacted a community agency to find out what I can do about pollution 45 84 2314 I make a special effort to buy products in recyclable containers27 54 2795 I have attended a meeting of an organization specifically concerned with betterment of the 129 75 156environment11 6 I have switched over to other products for ecological reason27 36 2977 I have never joined a cleanup drive.** 151 42 1678 I have never attended a meeting related to ecology.**89 56 215**These items, negatively formulated, were reversed in coding and then, these sentences must be interpreted on the contrary5.0Analyses5.1 Scales validation analysesThe cultural environment in India is not same as in USA. As the scales used mostly in USA andEU countries, for our study, it was necessary to validate them in the present environment. Basedon the computed data, reliability of data is done by means of Cronbach?s alpha(Af-0.602, VC- 0.678, AC-0.968).This established the internal consistence of each scale and it was possible toprove that their individual value passed threshold of 0.60 set up by Miquelet al. (1997). Tovalidate Af, VC and AC scales, SPSS 22programme was used.Furtheroverall value ofchronbachalpha (a) 0.868 indicates 86.8% data are reliable.In this analysis, it was necessary to removesome items as some of them presented factor loadings lower than 0.50.Table 3 shows thecommunalities after extraction.5.2 Factor analysis As par Table 4 there are five components (1 to 5) depicts an Initial Eigen values higher than 1,(Eigen value- 10.628, 2.793,2.454, 1.896,1.149) are extracted through principle componentanalysis.Table 3Communalities: Extraction method-Principle component analysisInitial ExtractionInitial Extraction Initial ExtractionAF1 1.000 .820 VC2 1.000 .907 AC2 1.000 .921AF2 1.000 .890 VC3 1.000 .959 AC3 1.000 .91112 AF3 1.000 .891 VC4 1.000 .964 AC4 1.000 .718AF4 1.000 .537 VC5 1.000 .964 AC5 1.000 .885AF5 1.000 .872 VC6 1.000 .897 AC6 1.000 .898AF6 1.000 .766 VC7 1.000 .777 AC7 1.000 .709AF7 1.000 .849 AC1 1.000 .970 AC8 1.000 .983VC1 1.000 .833Table 4 Total variance explained Component Initial Eigen values Total % of Variance Cumulative %1 10.628 48.307 48.3072 2.793 12.697 61.0043 2.454 11.156 72.16041.896 8.618 80.77751.149 5.224 86.002*Principle component matrix analysis (extraction method) identified 5 major factors,a Table 5 Rotated Component Matrix : Varimax with Kaiser Normalizationa. Rotation converged in 9 iterations F1 F2 F3 F4 F5AF1 -.580 .611 .019 -.064 -.326AF2 .224 .227 .846 -.156 -.219AF3 -.155 .908 .067 .092 -.171AF4 .637 -.003 .187 .249 .182AF5 .094 -.113 .732 .084 .555AF6 .509 .111 .195 .165 .656AF7 .326 -.081 -.193 -.175 .818VC1 -.209 .647 -.484 .212 .302VC2 .886 -.242 .152 -.025 .200VC3 .931 -.061 -.138 .226 .138VC4 .900 -.214 .143 -.270 .123VC5 .900 -.214 .143 -.270 .123VC6 .718 -.249 .484 -.291 .005VC7 -.075 .867 -.044 .099 .087AC1 .857 -.287 .123 -.343 .14113 AC2 .931 .060 -.020 -.183 .132AC3 .945 .030 -.017 -.124 .040AC4 .644 -.330 -.369 .102 .218AC5 -.071 .079 .200 .912 -.052AC6 -.438 .359 -.305 .691 .087AC7 -.124 -.206 .734 .332 .039AC8 .849 -.316 .031 -.377 .141Table 5 Rotated component matrix (rotation method) identified controlling variables likeAf4,Af6,VC2,VC3,VC4,VC5,AC1,AC2,AC3,AC4,AC6 and AC8 (values>0.5).These arevariables controlling mainly factor1, which gathered items on people?s negative emotions aboutpollution problems.F1 is labeled as -People attitude and commitment level towards ecologicalbehavior. This dimension explained 48.307% of the variance. Similarly Factor2 mainlycontrolled by Af1, Af2, VC1, and VC7 (Eigen value2.793) variables which explained 61.004%of the cumulative variance. This dimension has items about people?s disposition to use anecological transport system. SoF2 can be labeled as Influence of pollution on environmentalattitude.F3 factor (Eigen value2.454)-mainly controlled by Af2, Af5, and AC7, which explained72.16 % of cumulative variance here F3 is labeled by Influence of pollution on ecologicalbehaviour and environmental attitude.F4 (Eigen value-1.896) is mainly controlled byAC5 andAC6, which explained 80.77% of cumulative variance.F4 is labeled by people ecologicalbehavior. F5 (Eigen value 1.148) controlled by Af6, Af5 and Af7 which explained 86.002% ofcumulative variance. Factor F4 and F5 have two common variables, which are probably thatpeople attitude towards clean up drive and attending ecological meeting controlling both thefactor.5.3 Validity of the test result: KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) a measure of sample adequacy value6.567, (computed data>5) validates the factor analysis result Further Bartlett’s test of sphericity -chi-square result 76.45 (dof=42) with p value =0.0000) shows significance of the test result.Theresult establishes variables are correlated with each other (computed data).So the populationcorrelation matrix is not an identity matrix.14 5.4Determination of proposed Model FitnessFinal step in factor analysis involves determination of model fitness. So the difference betweenobserved correlation (as given in the input correlation matrix) and the reproduced correlation(asestimated from the factor matrix) can be examined to determine the model fit In Table 6(refannexure) we can see there are only 43 residuals (10% approx) larger than 0.05 indicatingacceptance of the model. In table 6 lower left triangles contains reproduced correlation matrix;diagonal represents the communalities, upper triangle, the residuals between the observedcorrelation and reproduced correlations. So we can establish the fact that population correlationmatrix is not an identity matrix.5.5 Causal relationshipsRegarding ecological affect, the construct which explains this dimension is formed by two itemsrelated to people?s level worry about pollution. When this variable is related to environmentalattitude (H1), results are significant (0.520 at P =0.00)-(computed data) and quite strong. Thatmeans that people concerned about pollution problems will be encouraged to show a majorenvironmental attitude and people with a higher degree of affect about environment will have astronger environmental attitude as we proposed in H1.So null hypothesis is accepted. There aretwo relationships between affect and ecological behaviour. There is also a positive and quitestrong correlation between affect and behaviour to reduce purchasing of pollutant or non- environmentally friendly products (H2) (0.97 at P=0.00)-(computed data). This means thatpeople worried about pollution will be more involved with the environment and will change theirway of living for ecological reasons. They may be interested in joining green team associationsor attending meetings where ecological topics are discussed. So null hypothesis is accepted15 "