Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations

  • P. Wesley Schultz

Summary

Human survival is directly tied to our relationship with the natural environment. Achieving a sustainable lifestyle depends on establishing a balance between the consumption of individuals, and the capacity of the natural environment for renewal. Yet, we often act as ifwe are separate from nature — as if we can get along without nature. Indeed, built environments serve as barriers between individuals and the natural environments in which they live. Offices, schools, homes, cars, restaurants, shopping malls, and many other built environments segregate people from nature. This chapter examines the implicit connection that individuals make between self and nature, and the impact of built environments on these implicit cognitions. A psychological model for inclusion with nature is presented, containing cognitive (connectedness), affective (caring), and behavioral (commitment) components. Implicationsfor theory, design, and sustainability are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationship as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 680–740). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, W. (1977). The unsettling of America. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  9. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J. D. (1998). The self Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, L. (1995). Ecopsychology and the environmental revolution: An environmental forward. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. xiii–xvi). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  12. Clayton, P. (1998). Connection on the ice: Environmental ethics in theory and practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social issues, 56, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (Ed.). (1994). Green Justice: Conceptions of Fairness and the Natural World. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 50.Google Scholar
  15. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.Google Scholar
  16. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freyfogle, E. (1998). Bounded people, boundless lands: Envisioning a new land ethic. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (1995). The rape of the well-maidens: Feminist psychology and the environmental crisis. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 111–121). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  19. Gore, A. (1992). Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Greenwald, A., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwald, A., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guagnano, G., Dietz, T., & Stem, P. C. (1994). Willingness to pay for public goods: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science, 5, 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hertsgaard, M. (1999). Earth odyssey: Around the world in search of our environmental future. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  24. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K., & Grant, P. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4, 310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaiser, F., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing general ecological behavior: A crosscultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaiser, F., Woelfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Mondata, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environmental and Behavior, 28, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kidner, D. (2001). Nature and psyche: Radical environmentalism and the politics of subjectivity. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milbrath, L. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  37. Opotow, S. (1994). Predicting protection: Scope of justice and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ponting, C. (1991). A green history of the world: The environmental collapse of great civilizations. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  40. Robinson, J. (1972). Television’s impact on everyday life: Some cross-national evidence. In E. Rubinstein et al. (Eds.), Television and social behavior (pp. 410–431). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: Surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, J., & Silvers, A. (2000). Measuring potential exposure to environmental pollutants: Time spent with soil and time spent outdoors. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 10, 341–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental ethics: Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Roszak, T. (1995). Where psyche meets gaia. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 1–20). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  46. Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  47. Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schultz, P. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology.Google Scholar
  49. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across cultures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 165). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  52. Silvers, A., Florence, B. T., Rourke, D. L., & Lorimar, R. I (1996). How children spend their time: A sample survey for use in exposure and risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stem, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stem, P., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stem, P., Dietz, T., Kolaf, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.). (1988). The psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Strong, D. (1995). Crazy mountains: Learning from wilderness to weigh technology. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  58. Syme, G., & Fenton, D. (1993). Perceptions of equity and procedural preferences for water allocation decisions. Society and Natural Resources, 6, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tamas, R. (1991). The passion of the Western mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, S. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winter, D. D. (1996). Ecological psychology: Healing the split between self andplanet. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Wesley Schultz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations