Emotional Affinity Toward Nature As A Motivational Basis To Protect Nature

Environment and Behavior
http://eab.sagepub.com Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature

Elisabeth Kals, Daniel Schumacher and Leo Montada Environment and Behavior 1999; 31; 178 DOI: 10.1177/00139169921972056 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/178
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Environmental Design Research Association
Additional services and information for Environment and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 25 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/2/178
Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Bogdan Horbaniuc on November 8, 2007 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999
EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE AS A MOTIVATIONAL BASIS TO PROTECT NATURE
ELISABETH KALS is a senior researcher at the University of Trier, Germany, where she also earned her Ph.D. and did post-doctoral research. Her main research interests include educational psychology with a focus on communication as well as the applied disciplines of environmental and health psychology. DANIEL SCHUMACHER studied psychology at the University of Trier, Germany. During his studies he mainly focused on environmental psychology. In addition to his studies, he engaged in a student organization (IPU) to promote research and lecturing on environmental psychology at universities. LEO MONTADA is a professor of psychology at the University of Trier, Germany. His current research fields embrace social emotions and their control, justice research, moral psychology, psychology of commitments, environmental psychology, and coping with losses.
ABSTRACT: Nature-protective behavior cannot be sufficiently explained using a pure rational/cognitive approach. Therefore, in a questionnaire study (N = 281), the focus was on emotional motivations of this behavior, especially on a newly conceptualized construct: emotional affinity toward nature. All constructs were measured by reliable and valid scales. Multiple regression analyses reveal that (a) emotional affinity is as powerful to predict nature-protective behavior as indignation and interest in nature and together these three predictors explain up to 47% of variance of the criterion variables, and (b) 39% of emotional affinity toward nature traces back to present and past experiences in natural environments. The resulting integrative path model is discussed. Theoretical conclusions are drawn, and options for practical intervention are derived.
AUTHORS NOTE: This study was supported by a grant provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 31 No. 2, March 1999 178-202 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
178
Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE
179
EMOTIONS MOTIVATING NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR
Research on the explanation of nature-protective behavior (like water conservation) was triggered by the energy crisis during the 1970s. Many of the earlier empirical investigations in environmental psychology dealt with individual perceptions of the energy crisis, personal energy consumption, and the willingness to conserve energy resources (e.g., Becker, Seligman, Fazio, & Darley, 1981; Hummel, Levit, & Loomis, 1978). Since this early research, a large and constantly growing amount of literature is accumulating that deals with the question of how human behaviors that impact the natural environment can be explained (see Kruse & Schwarz, 1988). One source of this growth is the evidence within science, as well as in peoples views, that ecological problems endangering natural systems (pollution of air, water, or soil, greenhouse effects, degeneration of the ozone layer, and so forth) are not only due to human activities but, in order to be reduced, require human activities and changes in behaviors (Pawlik, 1991). For an efficient promotion of proenvironmental behavior, knowledge is essential about the underlying motives of both protective behaviors (e.g., energy conservation in ones household, using public transportation systems instead of ones own car) and of risk behaviors (e.g., exploiting and polluting natural resources). The theoretical perspectives of existing behavior analyses vary to a great extent. In a first group of studies, general action theories, like the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1972) are applied to nature-protective behavior (see Hamid & Cheng, 1995; Lynne & Rola, 1988). In most cases, these applications are only successful when the models are adapted to the specific features of the analyzed behavior and supplemented by specific variables, and often it is the supplementary constructs that are especially powerful in predicting the behavior. Therefore, in a second group of studies, specific models of environmental behavior models are applied, but these studies are still rare (see Fuhrer, 1995). All empirical investigations, representing either the first or the second group of studies, are only successful when they take the motivational power of emotions into account: Nature-protective behavior, like reduced energy consumption, is not purely based on rational decisions but is flanked and motivated by emotions such as feelings of self-blame because one has contributed to wasting energy and its detrimental effects. The power of emotion has already been reflected in one of the first environmental studies (Amelang, Tepe, Vagt, & Wendt, 1977), but is still very often overlooked today. The impact of emotions on proenvironmental behavior was analyzed in several of our earlier studies, for example, the impact of resentment about
180
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999
other individuals polluting activities, guilt about own environmental sins, and fear of health problems caused by pollution (Kals, 1996a, 1996b; Kals & Montada, 1994). In this article we want to introduce emotional affinity toward nature, a concept embracing various inclinations toward nature such as the love of nature. Intuitively, this construct seems to be apt for explaining natureprotective behavior. Some authors claim that building up emotional bonds toward nature can serve as a motivation to protect it (see Fischerlehner, 1993). To our knowledge, however, empirical research on this emotion and on its motivational function is lacking. We want to fill this gap by making the construct measurable and by exploring its motivational function for proenvironmental behavior. We do this by comparing the predictive power of emotional affinity toward nature with two constructs that have been well-introduced and analyzed in research on nature-protective behavior: indignation about insufficient nature protection (a responsibility-related emotional appraisal), and interest in nature (a cognitive appraisal). Moreover, we want to advance a hypothesis about the development of emotional affinity toward nature by looking at how it is related to experiences with nature, both past and present.
THE INFLUENCE OF RESPONSIBILITY-RELATED APPRAISALS ON NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR
Many specific models of nature-protective behavior and corresponding empirical studies assume a responsibility-related perspective (see Fuhrer, 1995; Gigliotti, 1990; Heberlein, 1981; Kals, 1996a; Lynne & Rola, 1988; Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). This makes sense in regard to the premises of the social trap (Hardin, 1968; Platt, 1973; Stern & Gardener, 1981): It is assumed that personal renunciations intended to protect natural resources are motivated by social responsibility. The entire community will profit from the renunciations in the long run, whereas the immediate profit for the individuals making sacrifices is lower than for the exploiting individuals. One cannot, for example, expect a significant and stable improvement of the air quality in ones own living space by using, as a lone individual, public transportation systems instead of ones own car. These positive effects on air quality can only be expected as a long-term consequence of many individuals abstaining from using their own cars and when many other agents (such as industry) reduce other air polluting activities and processes. If, on the other hand, one continues to use ones own car, thus, as a
181
side-effect setting the protection of nature at risk, one would enjoy immediate personal advantages (mobility, driving enjoyment, and so forth). This example reflects the conflict between short-term individual interests and longterm interests of the whole community in a healthy ecology. This conflict should be overcome by taking over internal ecological responsibility and by accepting corresponding moral norms (see Kals, 1996a). In line with this argumentation, the application of the Schwartz Norm Activation Model (Schwartz & Howard, 1980) to ecologically relevant behavior is popular and successful, especially when the model is conceptually adapted to specific features of nature-protective behavior (see Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). The significance of responsibility-related attributions and appraisals for explaining nature-protective behaviors was also confirmed in our own studies (see Kals, 1996a, 1996b; Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, in press; Montada & Kals, 1995). These studies examined, for instance, attribution of responsibility for nature protection and several emotional appraisals that presuppose attributions of responsibility, like self-blame due to insufficient nature protection by oneself, indignation about insufficient nature protection by other (responsible) agents or agencies (other citizens, state, industry), and anger about nature-protection measures regarded as going too far and bearing too many negative side effects. Self-blame, indignation, and anger within this context of nature protection can all be explained by cognitive models of emotions (Frijda, 1987; Montada, 1989; Roseman, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Indignation about insufficient nature protection is, for example, due to (a) an awareness of the endangerment of nature functioning, (b) the acceptance of the social/moral norm that nature ought to be protected, (c) the belief that other agents (industry, state) have efficient possibilities to reduce the risks for nature, but (d) neglect their responsibilities to protect nature (see Kals, 1996a; Kals & Montada, 1994). All three emotions (self-blame, indignation, and anger) are substantially correlated with the willingness for commitments and behaviors that are positively or negatively related to ecological conservation (energy consumption, choice of traffic system, political activities like signing petitions, financial support of the protection of nature, active promotion of nature-protective measures, etc.; see Kals, 1996a). In all studies, indignation about insufficient nature protection of others proved to be the most powerful predictor (Kals, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998; Kals & Montada, 1994). It is assumed, however, that in addition to responsibility-related emotions, other categories of emotions can account for individual differences in nature-
182
protective behavior: Emotional affinity toward nature is conceptualized as one important emotion with this function.
EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE AND ITS RELATION TO INTEREST IN NATURE
Emotional affinity toward nature is a category of emotion that is not easy to explicate by a set of cognitive appraisals and attributions. It means a positive feeling of inclination in different nuances that are also discussed in literature (e.g., Gebhard, 1994; Maaen, 1993a, 1993b). The term love of nature is most often found and reflects a romantic attitude that is used in many different contexts, such as poems, songs, or product advertising. Feeling good, free, safe in nature, and feeling a oneness with nature are further nuances conceived to be closely related to love of nature (see Gebhard, 1994). We subsume these different emotional nuances toward nature under the concept of emotional affinity toward nature. Emotional affinity toward nature can be distinguished from its cognitive counterpart interest in nature (Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986), interest in the functioning of flora, fauna, and the variety of natural phenomena and processes. One can have scientific interest in nature issues without feeling any emotional affinity. Interest motivates gathering knowledge to explain and understand phenomena. Emotional affinity is motivating contact and sensual experiences. What is known about the origins of these two human characteristics? There is some evidence that affinity toward nature as well as interest in nature are both instigated by experiences in nature such as observing animals, phenomena of weather, or the change of the seasons (Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). Affinity probably requires positive experiences; interest may also somehow result from negative experiences as well. Stays in nature are considered especially helpful to build up emotional bonds and cognitive interest (see Maaen, 1993a). The sharing of experiences with significant others may function as an amplifier of the impact of stays in nature. The communication of feelings and the transference of positive social emotions to the natural environment both may contribute to the emergence of an emotional affinity. Security feelings mediated by significant others may prevent negative associations. Curiosity and cognitive interest may also be stimulated by the questions, hints, and information communicated by significant others (for the role of place vs. accompaniment by significant others see Silbereisen, Eyferth, & Rudinger, 1986).
183
Although emotional affinity toward nature is not yet established as a scientific construct in the literature, there is an extensive discussion on the effects of direct encounters with nature and the assumed resulting emotional bonds toward nature or cognitive interest in nature on nature-protective behaviors (see Gpfert, 1987; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986; Maaen, 1993a, 1993b; Seel, Sichler, & Fischerlehner, 1993). Yet, there are only a few conclusive theories or empirical research on the mechanisms that account for these presumed effects. On a theoretical level, all classical schools of thought are represented from a psychoanalytic approach that argues with the metaphor of mother earth (Gebhard, 1994) to the application of learning theories (Fietkau & Kessel, 1987). Of special interest is the biophilia hypothesis that has been put forth by Wilson and Kellert (e.g., Kellert, 1997) and traces back to Fromms ethical concept of biophilia (love of life or emotional commitment to life, see Eckardt, 1992). The biophilia hypothesis claims that humans possess a biologically based attraction to nature and that their well-being depends, to a great extent, on the relationships with the surrounding natural world (Kellert, 1997). As a result, humans need to affiliate with nature. On an empirical level, the few existing data support the hypothesis that direct encounters with nature (e.g., playing or walking outdoors, experiencing nature with all five senses) can promote affinity toward nature and, subsequently, behavior to protect its natural functioning.
Langeheine and Lehmann (1986) have shown that such concrete experiences of nature explain willingness and behaviors to protect nature, especially when the effects are reinforced by family norms to treat objects and values carefully. Finger (1994) demonstrated that experiences with nature are powerful predictors of nature-protective behaviors by showing that environmental experiences are even more important than environmental value orientations. Qualitative analyses (like content analyses of pupils essays) conducted by Fischerlehner (1993) supplement these quantitative data and confirm the basic assumptions of the positive effects of experiences with nature.
These comparably few theoretical discussions and empirical findings provide the foundation for modern intervention programs aiming to promote ecological behavior by providing direct experiences with nature (see Bolscho, Eulefeld, Rost, & Seybold, 1990; Eulefeld, 1987). Based on these theoretical thoughts and backed by some empirical findings, we assume that experiences with natureespecially when the experience takes place together with significant othersdispose to nature-protective behaviors. However, our hypothesis is that this effect is mediated or
184
moderated by an emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature. These emotional ties and cognitive interests should increase natureprotective behavior (Vining, 1992) and might have functions to overcome the social trap: Even when the state of ecology is perceived as not to be improvable by own single acts, people might act proenvironmentally to avoid the psychological costs of not acting in accordance to their motives.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Two questions were guiding the present investigation: (a) Does emotional affinity have an impact on proenvironmental activities? and (b) Is it possible to add a bit of knowledge about its origins by taking present and past experiences with nature into account? To answer these questions, a set of subquestions has to be answered in advance.
1. 2. 3. How and which proenvironmental activities are to be assessed? Is it possible to differentiate emotional affinity toward nature and cognitive interest in nature empirically? Compared to which competing or additional hypothesized predictors should the impact of emotional affinity toward nature be tested? (We have chosen indignation about insufficient protection of nature and interest in nature for the purpose of testing the specific contribution of emotional affinity toward nature.) How can emotional affinity toward nature and all other constructs be operationalized?
4.
These research questions are illustrated in Figure 1.
METHOD
VARIABLES ASSESSED
The first subquestion concerns the proenvironmental activities that are to be assessed. It was decided to assess a broad variety of willingness for commitments and manifest behavioral decisions that serve for the protection of flora, fauna, landscapes, and natural resources, including water, soil, and air (Markl, 1989; Stipproweit, 1987). The criteria can be distinguished into private and public willingness and behavioral decisions. The criteria that are
185
Figure 1: Illustration of the Hypotheses
performed privately as an individual citizen are represented by (I) the willingness to commit ones self privately for the protection of nature (e.g., installing nature-protective devices in ones own household, such as the installation of water-saving devices or solar panels), and (II) personal behavioral decisions for the protection of nature (e.g., protecting nature during outdoor stays). The public decisions and behaviors embrace (III) the willingness to sign public petitions for promoting measures that protect nature (e.g., supporting stricter prohibitive laws for animal rights and ecological protection), (IV) the willingness to show public commitment as part of a group for the protection of nature (e.g., actively campaigning for support of local conservation groups), and (V) behavioral decisions to protect nature in groups (e.g., participating in public demonstrations aiming to promote nature conservation). The three categories of willingness (I, III, IV) focus on future behavior and are not related to one single act or decision but to a specified category of acts or decisions. Previous longitudinal studies have shown that the
186
willingness criteria are valid predictors of the manifest behavioral decisions (see Montada & Kals, 1998). The transference from willingness into manifest behavior is, however, triggered by moderating effects of situational circumstances (see Montada & Kals, 1998). Present membership in nature conservation groups (such as Greenpeace) are taken into account as objective measures of willingness and manifest behavior. The second subquestion concerns the empirical differentiation of
1. 2. emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature.
To test the predictive power of emotional affinity toward nature (third subquestion), it is necessary to analyze its effect on behavior against variables that have already proven to be powerful predictors of behavior to protect nature. Interest in nature proved to be such predictor (see Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986).
3. Indignation about insufficient nature protection by others should be another powerful predictor (see Kals, 1996a).
All three predictors (1 through 3) should have direct effects on the acquisition of nature-protective willingness and behaviors. For the interest and indignation variables, this assumption has been proven in many empirical investigations (see Kals, 1996a, Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986; Montada & Kals, 1995; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). The empirical proof for emotional affinity is still missing. Emotional affinity and interest in nature should be acquired in a structurally parallel manner: Both variables should be promoted by direct experiences with nature. Our model encompasses present as well as past experiences. Past experiences refer to the time between the ages of 7 and 12 years to both ensure sufficient cognitive development and to avoid interference caused by reaching puberty (see Fischerlehner, 1993). The accompaniment by others during nature stays is also taken into account as additional variables (see Emotional Affinity Toward Nature section); considering that the casting of significant others should change with varying age, slightly different variables are considered concerning childhood and the present adult life phase. This leads to the following variables concerning the present life phase:
187
4. 5.
a general measure of the frequency of present time spent in nature, enlightened by the additional information of whether these experiences take place alone or in the meaningful company of the partner, family members, or friends.
Concerning the past life phase of childhood, the model embraces

6. 7. 8. 9. a general measure of the frequency of past time spent in nature and whether the stays were spent with the meaningful company of friends and youth groups, of teachers, or of family members.
All constructs (I through V; 1 through 9) were measured by various items on 6-point Likert-type scales (1 = completely disagree to 6 = completely agree). The items contain an explicit key expression representing the specific construct (one item example is given for all constructs in Table 1). Positive and negative formulations of the items were presented for guaranteeing the content balance of the study. With the exception of emotional affinity toward nature, all items are based on scales that have been previously validated (see Kals, 1996a). For the measurement of emotional affinity toward nature (fourth subquestion), a new scale was developed that encompasses the following four subscales representing emotional affinity (see Emotional Affinity Toward Nature section): love of nature, feelings of freedom, feelings of safety, and feelings of oneness with nature. Each subscale is represented by four items. Behaviors to protect nature are of normative relevance; therefore, a control of the influence of socially desirable answering behavior was included via an adapted social-desirable answering scale (Lck & Timaeus, 1969, based on the scale of Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). An additional assessment of the sociodemographic variables (sex, age, educational level, and profession) was anonymously conducted to provide a description of the sample as well as to check the generalizability of the results on various subgroups. Based on these variables, the two main research questions can be specified as (a) Is emotional affinity toward nature as powerful for the prediction of the nature-protective behavior (I through V) as interest in nature and indignation about insufficient nature protection by others? More specifically, can the variables of experiences with nature (4 through 9) explain any behavior variance beyond emotional affinity, interest, or indignation? Do the regression models of willingness (I, III, IV) versus manifest
188
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999 TABLE 1 Item Examples for All Constructs
Construct
Behavioral criteria Willingness to commit ones self privately (I)
Item Example
Personal behavioral decisions (II)
Willingness to sign public petitions (III)
Willingness to show public commitments in groups (IV)
Behavioral decisions in public or in groups (V)
I am willing to take steps in my own household for the protection of natural resources (e.g., installation of water flow regulators, solar panels, and so forth). I counteract the destruction of the landscape by my frequent use of public transportation instead of my own automobile. I am willing to sign a petition supporting the enactment of stricter laws for the protection of animals and plants. I am willing to recruit support in public for organizations that fight for the protection of natural landscapes (e.g., forests, rivers, and so forth). In my professional and private life, I often urge other people to create carpools or to use public transportation instead of their own automobiles. If I spend time in nature today, I feel a deep feeling of love toward nature. Nowadays, I strive to learn a lot about nature. I am indignant about the unnecessary consumption of natural resources (e.g., ground, water, air, energy, and so forth) by many citizens. Nowadays, I spend a lot of time in nature. (a) Mostly, I am accompanied by my partner/family when I spend time in nature. (b) The accompaniment by my partner in nature means very much to me. I spent a lot of time in nature during my childhood (age 7 to 12 years). (a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12 years), I spent time in nature accompanied by my friends/youth groups. (b) The accompaniment in nature by friends/youth groups during my childhood meant very much to me.
Emotions and interest Emotional affinity toward nature (1) Interest in nature (2) Indignation about insufficient nature protection (3)
Experiences with nature Frequency of present time spent in nature (4) Meaningful company of others during present nature stays (5)
Frequency of past time spent in nature (6) Meaningful company of friends and youth groups during past nature stays (7)
Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE TABLE 1 Continued
189
Construct
Meaningful company of teachers during past nature stays (8)
Item Example
(a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12 years), I spent time in nature accompanied by my teachers. (b) The accompaniment in nature by my teachers during my childhood meant very much to me. (a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12 years), I spent time in nature accompanied by my family. (b) The accompaniment in nature by my family during my childhood meant very much to me.
Meaningful company of family members during past nature stays (9)
behaviors (II, V) and of private behaviors (I, II) versus public behaviors (III to V) differ?; and (b) To what extent can the variables of experiences with nature in the present life phase (4 and 5) and the past life phase (6 through 9) explain emotional affinity toward nature as well as interest in nature? On a more specific level, what are the relative prediction weights of present versus past experiences and of general measures on the frequency of stays versus the meaningful accompaniment by others?
SAMPLE
A questionnaire study with 281 respondents was conducted in Germany (Schumacher, 1996). The sample was divided into 200 representatives of the general population who were expected to express no specific interests in nature and nature protection, and the remaining 81 subjects were active members in various groups or organizations for nature protection (such as Greenpeace). The total sample consisted of 152 men and 127 women (two missing values) with a mean age of 33 years. An overall response rate of 70.3% was achieved. Most of the subjects were recruited by public appeals for participation and a corresponding snowball system because many subjects not only answered a questionnaire themselves but also were willing to distribute additional questionnaires. As a result of these rarely controllable effects of selfselective processes, an overrepresentation of higher educational levels is found within the sample.
190
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SCALES
All scales were subjected to principal axis factor analyses followed by an orthogonal varimax rotation. The empirical factors confirm the a priori dimensions of the scales. Concerning affinity toward nature, the items of all four subscales were loaded on the same factor. Mean scores were measured across those items belonging to one factor. An estimation of the internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha), two types of split-half reliabilities (Guttman and Spearman Brown), and all other current item and factor statistics (mean value, standard deviation, loading coefficients, corrected item total correlation, and so forth) were successfully controlled. For the willingness and behavioral decisions (I through V), Cronbachs alpha lies between .80 and .92 and between .84 and .93 for the predictors (1 through 9) with one outlier alpha of .74 (predictor 2). Furthermore, the validity of the scales was successfully demonstrated by comparison of the mean scores of the active members of conservation groups with those of an equally sized group of nonmembers with matching age, gender, and educational level. It was confirmed that, in nearly all scales, the active members scored higher than the corresponding nonmembers.
RESULTS
Both research questions were answered by conducting stepwise multiple regression analyses with the entire sample. The large proportion of active members within the sample (81), however, makes it necessary to verify the generalizability of the results with the general population. Therefore, all analyses were also conducted within the group of active members and the matched group of nonmembers. The generalizability of the results are confirmed for both groups. Only the explained criterion variance becomes somewhat lower due to smaller response variance (standard deviation), but the prediction patterns remain stable. Besides, it could be shown that socially desirable answering behavior does not correlate with any of the criteria significantly on a 5% level and is also a nonsignificant predictor in all subsequent regression equations.
PREDICTING NATURE-PROTECTIVE WILLINGNESS AND BEHAVIORAL DECISIONS
To answer the first research question on the prediction of nature-protective willingness and behavioral decisions, affinity toward nature (1), interest in nature (2), and indignation about insufficient nature protection (3) are the
191
analyzed predictors. However, all variables of experiences with nature (4 through 9) are also included in the predictor set to empirically test whether they additionally qualify. The analyses were conducted on all willingness and behavioral decisions (I through V). All regression equations are presented in Table 2. The prediction patterns for all criteria are very similar: In all equations, emotional affinity toward nature (1), interest in nature (2), and indignation about insufficient nature protection (3) qualify. Together they explain up to 47% of the variance of the criteria. For willingness to commit ones self privately for the protection of nature (I), the accompaniment of past experiences with nature by family members (8) qualifies (see Table 2, upper equation). Even in this equation, however, the significance of experiences with nature is lower than the effects of emotional affinity, interest, or indignation. There are only two differences between the prediction of various behavior criteria, (a) the three categories of willingness for commitments (I, III, IV) can be better predicted than the manifest behavior (II, V). This difference is due to the fact that the situation variables are omitted here but moderate the transference from willingness into manifest behavior; and (b) private behaviors (I, II) tend to be based more strongly on emotional affinity toward nature, whereas the interest variable is especially powerful for those forms of public behaviors that take place in groups (IV and V). This makes sense because private behaviors and emotional affinity are both hidden and difficult to be judged by others. In contrast, public behaviors taking place in groups can easily be judged socially, and interest should lead to increased knowledge that helps to support ones standpoint in the public.
PREDICTING EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE IN CONTRAST TO INTEREST IN NATURE
The second research question concerns the prediction of emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature as its cognitive counterpart. In the predictor set, all variables representing present and past experiences with nature (4 through 9) are included. As demonstrated in Table 3, nearly 40% of the variance in emotional affinity toward nature traces back to four variables of experiences with nature. The most powerful predictor is the present frequency of time spent in nature (4). Its significance is followed by past frequency of time spent in nature (6) and two variables of past and present accompaniment (9, 5). Of nonsignificance is the past accompaniment by peers or teachers (7, 8).
192
TABLE 2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Various Behavioral Criteria to Emotional Affinity Toward Nature (predictor 1), Interest in Nature (predictor 2), Indignation About Insufficient Nature Protection (predictor 3), and All Predictors Referring to Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9) R Predictors of willingness to commit ones self privately for the protection of nature (I) Indignation of insufficient nature protection Emotional affinity toward nature Interest in nature Past significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by family members (Intercept)
2
.33 .40 .42 .43
.49** .26** .23* .14* .63
.57 .50 .51 .34
Ftotal = 50.47**, df = 4/269

Predictors of the manifest personal behavioral decisions for the protection of nature (II) Emotional affinity toward nature Indignation of insufficient nature protection Interest in nature (Intercept)
.25 .33 .35
.35** .34** .27* .69
.50 .48 .50
Ftotal = 48.24**, df = 3/271

Predictors of willingness to sign public petitions for promoting nature-protective measures (III) Indignation of insufficient nature protection Emotional affinity toward nature Interest in nature (Intercept)
.39 .46 .47
.47** .23** .17* 1.07
.63 .51 .51
Ftotal = 79.64**, df = 3/271

Predictors of willingness to show public commitments as part of a group for the protection of nature (IV) Interest in nature Indignation of insufficient nature protection Emotional affinity toward nature (Intercept)
.36 .40 .42
.44** .23** .28** .55
.60 .47 .55
Ftotal = 66.51**, df = 3/271

Predictors of manifest public behavioral decisions to protect nature in groups (V) Interest in nature Indignation of insufficient nature protection Emotional affinity toward nature (Intercept)
.24 .30 .31
.35** .28** .23* 1.05
.49 .44 .46
Ftotal = 41.05**, df = 3/273

*p < .05. **p < .01.
193
TABLE 3 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Emotional Affinity Toward Nature to Present and Past Direct Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9) R Predictors of emotional affinity toward nature (1) Present frequency of time spent in nature Past frequency of time spent in nature Past significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by family members Present significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by partner, family members, and friends (Intercept)
2
.26 .36 .38 .39
.28** .27** .12** .09* 1.03
.51 .44 .36 .22
Ftotal = 42.88**, df = 4/270

*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01.
This reflects that the present as well as past experiences with nature are most powerful for the acquisition of emotional affinity toward nature. The question with whom these experiences take place improve the prediction of the emotional tie.1 In a second analysis, interest in nature is predicted by the same set of predictors (see Table 4, upper equation). The prediction pattern is in full accordance with the first analysis of emotional affinity: The same four variables on nature experiences qualify in the same sequence and with comparable predictive power (43% of explained variance of the criterion). This shows that emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature are, to a considerable degree, both tracing back to experiences with nature with significant others. This is in full accordance with our hypothesis. Together with the fact that the affinity and interest variables are highly correlated (r = .68), this reflects that both variables are structurally parallel emotive and cognitive representations of experiences with nature. As a discriminative validation of these results, only 18% of the variance in indignation about insufficient nature protection by others can be explained by the variables of experiences with nature (see Table 4, lower equation). This is in full accordance with our expectations because indignation should be predicted by responsibility-related valuations (see The Influence of Responsibility-Related Appraisals section) and not by experiences with nature. As indignation is correlated with affinity toward nature (r = .46) and with interest in nature (r = .49), this small determination coefficient is a good indicator of validity. All multiple analyses are in full accordance with the bivariate correlation patterns (see Table 5).
194
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999 TABLE 4 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Interest in Nature and Indignation About Insufficient Nature Protection to Present and Past Direct Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9) R
2
Predictors of interest in nature (2) Present frequency of time spent in nature Past frequency of time spent in nature Past significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by family members Present significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by partner, family members, and friends (Intercept)
.35 .39 .42 .43
.37** .17** .12** .11* .93
.59 .37 .36 .23
Ftotal = 50.52**, df = 4/270

Predictors of indignation about insufficient nature protection (3) Present frequency of time spent in nature .13 Present significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by partner, family members, and friends .16 Past significant accompaniment during experiences with nature by family members .18 (Intercept) .26** .14* .13* 2.29 .36 .21 .26
Ftotal = 19.73**, df = 3/271

*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01. INTEGRATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Emotional affinity toward nature proved to be as important for the prediction of nature-protective willingness and behavioral decisions as interest in nature and indignation about insufficient nature protection. Three reasons speak for the importance of this finding. First, all three mediators are highly intercorrelated but can nevertheless explain different parts of the criterion variance. Second, experiences with nature have only few direct effects on willingness and behavioral decisions, but explain about 50% of the variance of emotional affinity and interest. Third, the few differences in the prediction pattern of various criterion variables are easy to interpret (see Predicting Nature-Protective Willingness section).2 The main predictive findings can be integrated into a path diagram. This was done for the manifest personal behavioral decisions for the protection of nature (see Figure 2). Altogether, Figure 2 summarizes the clear predictive power of emotional affinity toward nature in addition to the constructs of interest in nature and responsibility-related indignation about insufficient nature protection. Emotional affinity and interest are equally based on
TABLE 5 Zero-Order Correlations Between Emotional Affinity Toward Nature and Present and Past Direct Experiences With Nature
Present Frequency of Time Spent in Nature

Emotional affinity toward nature Interest in nature Indignation about insufficient nature protection
*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01.
Present Accompaniment by Partner, Family, Friends
Past Frequency of Past Time Spent Accompaniment in Nature by Family
Past Accompaniment by Peers
Past Accompaniment by Teachers
.51** .59** .36**
.22** .23** .21**
.44** .37** .18**
.36** .36** .26**
.13* .10 .15*
.14* .15* .14*
195
196
Figure 2:
Integrative Model of Emotional Affinity Toward Nature and NatureProtective Behavior (with unstandardized regression weights). NOTE: Indignation is predicted by responsibility-related cognitions (e.g., attribution of ecological responsibility).
present as well as past experiences with nature, especially when past stays were conducted with family members and present stays with comparable close social companions. Whether past stays took place with teachers or peers makes no difference. This makes sense if one considers the important role of the family for socializational effects at the time before puberty3 and the lower occurrence of quality of nature oriented school courses in the past. Before conclusions are drawn from this model, the validity of the data should be questioned as (a) only a cross-sectional survey was conducted instead of a longitudinal study, (b) all data are based on self-reports, and (c) the sample is in some respects not representative for the general population. These objections cannot be completely refuted but they can be limited: (a) No longitudinal data could be offered and experiences with nature with respect to childhood were retrospectively measured. As a consequence, the amount of time spent in nature might have been overestimated due to romantic distortions (see Fischerlehner, 1993). Besides, other causal relationships are possible. Two examples are that positive emotions toward nature might cause people to recall more time that they spent in childhood as a child, and emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature might cause people to spend more time in nature. These arguments should be integrated in Figure 2
197
by including feedback effects from emotional affinity and interest in nature to the time spent in nature. However, a complete reverse of the causal relationship of the model in Figure 1 is very unlikely. On a theoretical level, it is not experiences with nature themselves but rather their psychological representation that should have effects. Besides, at least for children during the ages of 7 to 12 years, it is more likely that nature experiences trigger their emotions than vice versa because children in this age group should mainly spend time in nature as a result of someone elses choices rather than their own. On an empirical level, the findings are in line with other investigations (see Hamid & Cheng, 1995), and the data do not match alternative models. Indignation, for example, can not be very well predicted by experiences with nature (see Table 2). The same is true when a prediction of experiences with nature by emotional affinity or interest is attempted. Nevertheless, the full model should be tested by a longitudinal design that allows causal conclusions. (b) Although the data are based on self-reports, three findings speak for their validity. First, there are significant differences in the behavioral criteria between members of criterion groups and a matched group of nonmembers. Second, qualitative analyses of answers and remarks made in the questionnaire were in full correspondence with the quantitative data, and third, no effects of social desirable answering behavior were found.4 Nonetheless, additional ratings from people who know the subject well should be included in future research. (c) All analyses were successfully replicated without the members of the criterion groups to exclude stabilizing effects by their highly consistent and extreme answers. Nevertheless, the generalizability of the results should be cross-validated by a larger sample with a lower educational level.
CONCLUSION
This article focuses on the role of emotions and more specifically, on emotional affinity toward nature for explaining nature-protective behavior. As an overall result, the power of emotional affinity toward nature to explain nature-protective behavior is confirmed. This result together with others lead to the following theoretical conclusions: All main predictors (emotional affinity, interest, indignation, and experiences with nature) that were considered within this article should be considered in models for explaining behaviors to protect nature. Many models already take responsibility attributions and interest variables into account (see Fuhrer, 1995; Kals, 1996a; Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986) but should, however, be expanded by responsibility-related emotions such as indignation about insufficient nature
198
protection and, most important, by the new emotional construct of affinity toward nature. For interventional purposes, the results lead to the formulation of two supplementary intervention aims. On one hand, a discourse on ecological responsibility and moral ethics should take place (see Gigliotti, 1990), and on the other hand, direct experiences with nature with all five senses should be offered to promote emotional affinity toward and interest in nature. In a few modern approaches this combination of transmitting experiences with nature in addition to responsibility-related aims has been promoted (see Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). The majority of educational programs, however, either promote discussions on ecological ethics and norms or transmit mere experiences with nature (see Kruse & Schwarz, 1988). The latter approach is especially common, and the hypothesis is upheld that the provision of concrete experiences with nature is an effective strategy to promote ecologically conscious attitudes and decisions, although it has a fairly weak empirical base (see Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The present data explain, in line with the biophilia hypothesis, the underlying mechanism by emotional affinity toward nature and cognitive interest in nature as the moderating variable. Emotional affinity toward nature should become stronger the more concrete and specific nature contacts are (Gpfert, 1987; Maaen, 1993a, 1993b; Seel, Sichler, & Fischerlehner, 1993). Therefore, even in environmental educational programs for adults, it should be of help to integrate these contacts, preferably those that are shared with significant others. For programs with younger pupils, it seems to be important that experiences with nature are educationally integrated (see Margadant-van Arcken, 1989). The youngsters should be accompanied by significant others (mainly family members) who take the role of transmitting nature values and enjoyment (see Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986). This increases the possibility that later in life the personal tradition to seek contact with nature is continued, thus establishing the significant emotional affinity toward nature and a cognitive interest in it. Long-term evaluation of these programs (De Young, 1993) have to demonstrate how sensible these target aims are for establishing behaviors for the protection of nature.
NOTES
1. The possibility of alternative directions of causation is not overlooked but is discussed in the Results and Discussion section.
199
2. As a presumption of these results, emotional affinity toward nature as a very private emotion could be reliably assessed in the same way as cognitive attitudes by anonymous quantitative measurement instruments. 3. This is the case in Germany where pupils attend school for only half a day, thus spending more time with the family than do students in the United States. 4. This insignificance was achieved by careful avoidance of social desirable answering behavior (e.g., guaranteeing anonymity, appealing directly to the subjects honesty).
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 1-9. Amelang, M., Tepe, K., Vagt, G., & Wendt, W. (1977). Mitteilung ber einige schritte der entwicklung einer skala zum umweltbewutsein [Report of some steps in the development of a scale of environmental awareness]. Diagnostica, 23, 86-88. Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residential energy use. Environment and Behavior, 13, 590-609. Bolscho, D., Eulefeld, G., Rost, J., & Seybold, H. (1990). Environmental education in practice in the Federal Republic of Germany: An empirical study. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 133-146. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. De Young, R. (1993). Changing behavior and making it stick. Environment and Behavior, 25, 485-505. Eckardt, M. H. (1992). Fromms concept of biophilia. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 20(2), 233-240. Eulefeld, G. (1987). Umweltzentren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Environmental centers in the Federal Republic of Germany]. In J. Callie & R. E. Lob (Eds.), Handbuch praxis der umweltund friedenserziehung [Handbook of practical education for a natural environment and peace] (pp. 636-644). Dsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Fietkau, H.-J., & Kessel, H. (1987). Umweltlernen [Environmental learning]. In J. Callie & R. E. Lob (Eds.), Handbuch praxis der umweltund friedenserziehung (pp. 311-315). Dsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 141-160. Fischerlehner, B. (1993). Die natur ist fr die tiere ein lebensraum, und fr uns kinder ist es so eine art spielplatz. ber die bedeutung von naturerleben fr das 9-13 jhrige Kind [Nature is a home for animals and for us children a type of playground. About the meaning of experiences with nature for the 9 to 13 year old]. In H.-J. Seel, R. Sichler, & B. Fischerlehner (Eds.), MenschNatur [Men-nature] (pp. 148-163). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 115-143. Fuhrer, U. (1995). Sozialpsychologisch fundierter theorierahmen fr eine umweltbewut seinsforschung [Social psychologically based theory for environmental awareness research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 46, 93-103. Gebhard, U. (1994). Kind und natur [Child and nature]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
200
Gigliotti, L. M. (1990). Environmental education: What went wrong? What can be done? Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 9-12. Gpfert, H. (1987). Zur grundlegung einer naturbezogenen pdagogik [Foundations of naturerelated education]. In J. Callie & R. E. Lob (Eds.), Handbuch praxis der umweltund friedenserziehung [Handbook of practical education for a natural environment and peace] (pp. 21-31). Dsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S.-T. (1995). Predicting antipollution behavior. Environment and Behavior, 27, 679-698. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. Heberlein, T. A. (1981). Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift fr Umweltpolitik, 4, 241-270. Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220. Hummel, C. F., Levit, L., & Loomis, R. J. (1978). Perceptions of energy crisis. Who is blamed and how do citizens react to environment-lifestyle tradeoffs? Environment and Behavior, 10, 37-88. Kals, E. (1996a). Verantwortliches umweltverhalten [Responsible environmental behavior]. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Kals, E. (1996b). Are proenvironmental commitments motivated by health concerns or by perceived justice? In L. Montada & M. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 231-258). New York: Plenum. Kals, E. (1996c). Motieven voor preventief en riskant gezondheidsgedrag ten aanzien van kanker [Motives of cancer preventive and health risk behaviors]. Gedrag & Gezondheid, 24, 384-391. Kals, E. (1998). bernahme von verantwortung fr den schutz von umwelt und gesundheit [Acceptance of responsibility for the protection of natural environment and health]. In E. Kals (Ed.), Umwelt und gesundheit: Verknpfung kologischer und gesundheitlicher anstze [Environment and health: Connecting environmental and health-related approaches] (pp. 101-118). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Kals, E., & Montada, L. (1994). Umweltschutz und die verantwortung der brger [Pollution control and the responsibility of the citizen]. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie, 25, 326-337. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (in press). Naturerfahrungen, Verbundenheit mit der natur und kologische verantwortung als determinanten naturschtzenden verhaltens [Experiences with nature, emotional ties to nature, and ecological responsibility as determinants of nature protective behavior]. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington: Island Press. Kruse, L., & Schwarz, V. (1988). Environment and behavior. Part II. An international and multidisciplinary bibliography. 1982-1987. Mnchen: Saur. Langeheine, R., & Lehmann, J. (1986). Die bedeutung der erziehung fr das umweltbewutsein [The importance of education for ecological awareness]. Kiel: Institut fr die Pdagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN). Lck, H. E., & Timaeus, E. (1969). Skalen zur messung manifester angst (MAS) und sozialer wnschbarkeit (SDS-E und SDS-CM) [Scales for the measurement of manifest fear (MAS) and social desirability (SDS-E and SDS-CM)]. Diagnostica, 15, 134-141.
201
Lynne, G. E., & Rola, L. R. (1988). Improving attitude-behavior prediction models with economic variables: Farmer actions toward soil conservation. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 19-28. Lyons, E., & Breakwell, G. M. (1994). Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13- to 16-year-olds. Environment and Behavior, 26, 223-238. Maaen, B. (1993a). Naturerleben mit Kindern und Jugendlichen [Experiences with nature with children and teenagers]. In H. G. Homfeldt (Ed.), Erlebnispdagogik [Experience pedalogics] (pp. 181-189). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren. Maaen, B. (1993b). Beitrge zur theorie des naturerlebens als pdagogische antwort auf die kologische Krise [Contributions to the theory of nature experience as an educational response to the ecological crisis]. Ph.D. dissertation, Flensburg, Pdagogische Hochschule. Margadant-van Arcken, M. (1989). Environmental education, children, and animals. Anthrozos, 3, 14-19. Markl, H. (1989). Die kologische wirklichkeit [Ecological reality]. In R. Wildenmann (Ed.), Stadt, kultur, natur: Chancen zuknftiger lebensgestaltung [City, culture, nature: Chances for future life organization] (pp. 72-89). Baden Baden: Nomos. Montada, L. (1989). Bildung der gefhle [On the formation of emotions]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogik, 35(3), 293-312. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Social Justice Research, 8, 305-327. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1998). A theory of continued responsible commitment: Research examples from the fields of pollution control and health protection. Manuscript submitted for publication. Pawlik, K. (1991). The psychology of global environmental change: Some basic data and an agenda for cooperative international research. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 547563. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641-651. Roseman, J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotions. A structured theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Emotions, relationship, and health (pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786. Schumacher, D. (1996). Bindungen an die natur und kologische verantwortung als motive umweltrelevanten verhaltens [Ties with nature and ecological responsibility as motives of environmentally relevant behavior]. Diplomarbeit Trier: Universitt Trier, Fachbereich IPsychologie. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1980). Explanations of the moderating effect of responsibility denial on the personal norm-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 441446. Seel, H.-J., Sichler, R., & Fischerlehner, B. (Eds.). (1993). MenschNatur [Mannature]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Silbereisen, R. K., Eyferth, K., & Rudinger, G. (Eds.). (1986). Development as action in context. Problem behavior and normal youth development. Berlin: Springer. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
202
Stern, P. C., & Gardener, G. T. (1981). The place of behavior change in the management of environmental problems. Zeitschrift fr Umweltpolitik, 2, 213-239. Stipproweit, A. (1987). Naturschutzbewegung und staatlicher naturschutz in Deutschlandein historischer abri [Nature protection movement and national nature protection in Germanya historical outline]. In J. Callie & R. E. Lob (Eds.), Handbuch praxis der umweltund friedenserziehung [Handbook of practical education for a natural environment and peace] (pp. 29-41). Dsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartznorm-activation model of yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 181-197. Vining, J. (1992). Environmental emotions and decisions. Environment and Behavior, 24, 3-34.

Emotional Affinity Toward Nature As A Motivational Basis To Protect Nature

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Emotional Affinity Toward Nature As A Motivational Basis To Protect Nature

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Environment and Behavior

http://eab.sagepub.com Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature

EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE AS A MOTIVATIONAL BASIS TO PROTECT NATURE

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

EMOTIONS MOTIVATING NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

THE INFLUENCE OF RESPONSIBILITY-RELATED APPRAISALS ON NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE AND ITS RELATION TO INTEREST IN NATURE

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

These research questions are illustrated in Figure 1.

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

Figure 1: Illustration of the Hypotheses

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

Concerning the past life phase of childhood, the model embraces

Personal behavioral decisions (II)

Willingness to sign public petitions (III)

Willingness to show public commitments in groups (IV)

Behavioral decisions in public or in groups (V)

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE TABLE 1 Continued

Meaningful company of family members during past nature stays (9)

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SCALES

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999

.33 .40 .42 .43

.49** .26** .23* .14* .63

.57 .50 .51 .34

Ftotal = 50.47**, df = 4/269

.25 .33 .35

.35** .34** .27* .69

.50 .48 .50

Ftotal = 48.24**, df = 3/271

.39 .46 .47

.47** .23** .17* 1.07

.63 .51 .51

Ftotal = 79.64**, df = 3/271

.36 .40 .42

.44** .23** .28** .55

.60 .47 .55

Ftotal = 66.51**, df = 3/271

.24 .30 .31

.35** .28** .23* 1.05

.49 .44 .46

Ftotal = 41.05**, df = 3/273

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

.26 .36 .38 .39

.28** .27** .12** .09* 1.03

.51 .44 .36 .22

Ftotal = 42.88**, df = 4/270

.35 .39 .42 .43

.37** .17** .12** .11* .93

.59 .37 .36 .23

Ftotal = 50.52**, df = 4/270

Ftotal = 19.73**, df = 3/271

Present Frequency of Time Spent in Nature

Present Accompaniment by Partner, Family, Friends

Past Frequency of Past Time Spent Accompaniment in Nature by Family

Past Accompaniment by Peers

.49 .26 .23* .14* .63

.35 .34 .27* .69

.47 .23 .17* 1.07

.44 .23 .28** .55

.35 .28 .23* 1.05

.28 .27 .12** .09* 1.03

.37 .17 .12** .11* .93

.51 .59 .36**

.22 .23 .21**

.44 .37 .18**

.36 .36 .26**