06.

OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 65

Psychometric properties of the

Environmental Identity Scale (EID)
PABLO OLIVOS1 AND JUAN-IGNACIO ARAGONÉS2
1
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete; 2Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Abstract
The Environmental Identity (EID) Scale was proposed by Clayton to study the relationship between
identity and nature. Although it is cited in several publications, it has rarely been subjected to psychometric
analysis. The main aim of this study is to analyze the fulfilment of construct and convergent validity criteria
for this scale. For this purpose, 282 university students were asked to complete a questionnaire, along with
related measures: Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), the Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale, Ego-
biocentrism and self-reporting of pro-environmental behaviours. Exploratory factor analysis of EID shows that
there are four underlying dimensions: environmental identity; enjoying nature; appreciation of nature; and
environmentalism. All the correlations between EID and the criteria variables were significant, with
environmentalism and environmental identity as the best predictors of pro-environmental behaviour.
Keywords: Environmental identity, connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature in self,
environmentalism.

Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de

Identidad Ambiental (EID)
Resumen
La Escala de Identidad Ambiental (EID) ha sido propuesta por Clayton para estudiar la relación entre
identidad y naturaleza. A pesar de ser citada en varias publicaciones, pocas veces ha sido sometida a análisis
psicométrico. El objetivo principal de este estudio ha sido analizar el cumplimiento de criterios de validez de
constructo y convergente de esta escala. Para ello se recurrió a una muestra universitaria de 282 personas
quienes completaron un cuestionario compuesto por la EID, y otras medidas afines, como la Escala de
Conectividad con la Naturaleza (CNS), la escala de Inclusión de la Naturaleza en el Self (INS), el
Egobiocentrismo y un autoinfiorme de comportamientos proambientales. El análisis factorial exploratorio de la
EID muestra que subyacen a ella cuatro dimensiones: identidad ambiental; disfrutar la naturaleza; apreciar
la naturaleza; y medioambientalismo. Todas las correlaciones entre la EID y las variables criterio fueron
significativas, y el medioambientalismo y la identidad ambiental fueron las que mejor predijeron el
comportamiento proambiental.
Palabras clave: Identidad ambiental, conectividad con la naturaleza, inclusión del ambiente en el
self, medioambientalismo.

Translation: Anna Moorby

Authors’ Address: Pablo Olivos. Facultad de Relaciones Laborales y Recursos Humanos de Albacete. Plaza de
la Universidad 1, Campus Universitario CP 02071. Albacete. E-mail: Pablo.Olivos@uclm.es

© 2011 by Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje, ISSN: 2171-1976 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), 65-74
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 66

66 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), pp. 65-74

Introduction
The relationship between identity and nature has recently drawn the
attention of numerous researchers in the field of Social Sciences. For example,
studies have been conducted into the relationship between environmentalist
activism and social identity (Dono, Webb and Richardson, 2010) or personal
identity and pro-environmental behaviours (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Other authors have tackled this issue in relation to the idea of a supra-ordered
self, similar to the proposal put forward by Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and
Wetherell (1987), referring to the feeling of belonging to a broad spectrum of
living beings which includes other animals and the belief that they can be
identified as an integral part of some kind of transcendental entity. This is along
the lines of the notion proposed by Leary, Tipsord and Tate (2008), the “all-
inclusive identity”, characterized by a feeling of connectedness to other people
and the natural world, so that these people are less interested in social power,
they are less egocentric and are more concerned for others, more focused on
social relations, environmental issues, and ‘spiritual’ experiences. Another
approach in this same direction revolves around the concept of the metapersonal
self which, according to the studies carried out by Arnocky, Stroink and
DeCicco (2007), is a predictor of biospheric environmental concerns, ecological
cooperation to obtain resources, and pro-environmental behaviours.
When studying the relationships between identity and the natural world,
Clayton and Opotow (2003) discussed the different meanings proposed to
describe this relationship, including ‘ecological identity’ by Thomashow
(1995), ‘environmental identity’ by Weigert (1997), the concept of ‘self-in-
place’ by Cantrill and Senecah (2001), the ‘ecological self’ by Bragg (1996), and
‘emotional affinity towards nature’ by Kals, Schumacher and Montada (1999),
among others. Clayton (2003), in a detailed analysis of this concept, states that,
whereas some researchers prefer the term ‘ecological identity’, because it better
describes the sense of self as part of an ecosystem and avoids confusion
surrounding the fact that ‘environment’ can include the built and even social
environment, others prefer ‘environmental identity’ because it possesses a more
intuitive meaning for people in general, making it more comprehensible.
Finally, Clayton understands ‘environmental identity’ as a complex concept,
which encompasses values, attitudes and behaviours, with the environment
being an important source of self-relevant beliefs that allow individuals to define
themselves.
An environmental identity is one part of the way in which people form their self-concept: a
sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environment, based on history,
emotional attachment, and/or similarity, that affects the way in which we perceive and act
toward the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and an important part of
who we are. An environmental identity can be similar to another collective identity (such as
a national or ethnic identity) in providing us with a sense of connection, of being part of a
larger whole, and with a recognition of similarity between ourselves and others. Also like a
group identity, an environmental identity can vary in both definition and importance among
individuals. (Clayton, 2003, pp. 45-46)

On the basis of this definition, Clayton (2003) proposed the Environmental

Identity Scale (EID), which measures the relationship between self and nature,
inspired by identity theory. This scale is made up of 24 items which, when taken
together, measure Environmental Identity. However, due to the way in which
the Scale was designed, Clayton (pp. 52-53) has suggested that these items
encompass five general ideas: i) the salience of identity, referring to the extent
and importance of an individual’s interactions with nature (e.g. “I spend a lot of
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 67

Environmental Identity Scale (EID) / P. Olivos and J.-I. Aragonés 67

time in natural settings”); ii) the identification of one’s self as a group member,
as the way in which nature contributes to the collectives with which one
identifies (e.g. “I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it”); iii)
agreement with an ideology associated with the group, measured by support of
environmental education and a sustainable lifestyle (e.g. “Behaving responsibly
toward the Earth –living a sustainable lifestyle– is part of my moral code”); iv)
positive emotions associated with the collective, measured towards the
enjoyment obtained in nature through satisfaction and aesthetic appreciation
(e.g. “I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a
bigger room or house with a view of other buildings”); v) and an
autobiographical component, based on memories of interacting with nature,
related with an environmental identity as result of experiences with nature (e.g.
“I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant
impact on my development”).
The EID Scale is not the only instrument designed to measure the
relationship between self and nature. Schultz (2001) used the Inclusion of
Nature in Self (INS) Scale, comprising just a single item, which uses Venn
diagrams to incrementally represent the relationship between the Self and
Nature. Later, the concept of Connectedness to Nature (Schultz, Shriver,
Tabanico & Khazian, 2004) was proposed to explain how “an individual’s belief
about the extent to which s/he is part of the natural environment provides the
foundation for the type of concerns a person develops, and the types of situations
that motivate them to act” (p. 32). To measure this, a version of the Implicit
Association Test (IAT) was adapted, called IAT-Nature, as a proposed indirect
measure of connectedness. Mayer and Frantz (2004) proposed the
Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), designed originally to add an emotional
slant to the definition provided by Schultz of connectedness, maintaining that
it is an affective individual experience of connecting with nature.
Adaptations have been made and modifications proposed to several of these
procedures with a view to improving their psychometric properties or
correcting conceptual inacuracies (e.g., Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, & Jhonson,
2007; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009). Hence, for example, attempts have
been made to improve the INS to turn it into measurement that is sensitive to
psychometric analysis, which reflects greater variability of responses and
distinguishes between different ideas of nature and environment (e.g. Olivos,
2009). The IAT-Nature has been studied with a view to evaluating its
fulfilment of implicit measurement properties and response sensitivity
according to the valence of the stimuli and task rotation (e.g. Bruni & Schultz,
2010; Duffy & Verges, 2010; Olivos, 2009). Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal
and Dolliver (2009), on the other hand, have proposed adjustments to the CNS
scale to turn it into a measurement of state rather than features, in other words,
focusing more on immediate sensations than experiences of contact with nature,
probably as a result of criticisms that doubt its capacity to precisely measure
emotions in the original version (e.g., Perrin & Benassi, 2009).
Even though the CNS and EID display a close conceptual relationship, few
studies have been carried out comparing the two scales. Several articles mention
the EID (e.g. Chewala, 2009; Davis, Green & Reed, 2009; Dono et al., 2010;
Gosling & Williams, 2010), but very few of them actually use it. According to
Clayton (2003), the EID has obtained high levels of reliability in previous
studies, and in recent research, evidence has been provided in this same
direction, registering internal consistencies above .90 and significant relations
with different measures of pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Brügger, Kaiser &
Roczen, in press; Gosling & Williams, 2010; Kiesling & Manning, 2010),
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 68

68 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), pp. 65-74

attitude towards the weather and climate (Stewart, 2006), opinions about park
administration (Winter, 2006), care and identification with gardens (Kiesling
& Manning, 2010), and environmental education among children and teachers
(Cheng, 2008).
The study carried out by Brügger et al. (in press) compares the different
procedures described above to measure the relationship between self and nature.
Having conducting a factor analysis, forcing the extraction of two factors, they
propose that there are two underlying dimensions to the EID, one similar to
Connectedness to Nature, and another similar to the idea reflected by
environmental concerns according to the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP).
However, there are no studies that freely explore the factorial structure of the
EID.
Research findings pertaining to environmental identity indicate clear
challenges when it comes to measuring this variable from the perspective of its
reliability and validity. The aim of this paper is to analyze the internal
consistency of the EID (reliability) and its factorial structure (construct validity),
as well as its convergent validity in relation with other similar measures such as
Connectedness to Nature (CNS), Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS), and
Egobiocentric Beliefs (EGO). It also analyzes the predictive validity of the
factors underlying the EID on the self-reporting of pro-environmental
behaviours.

Method
Participants
The study was conducted on sample of 282 students from Madrid’s
Complutense University. The mean age of the participants was 21.4 years of age
(SD = 3.58) and the gender distribution was 18% male (n = 51) and 81%
female (n = 230).

Instrument and Procedure

The instrument used was a self-administered questionnaire made up of the
Environmental Identity Scale (EID) by Clayton (2003); the Connectedness to
Nature Scale (CNS) by Mayer and Frantz (2004), in the version adapted into
Spanish by Olivos, Aragonés and Amérigo (in press); the Inclusion of Nature in
Self Scale (INS) by Schultz (2001); Ego-Biocentric Beliefs (EGO), by Amérigo,
Aragonés, De Frutos, Sevillano and Cortés (2007); and the ‘self-reporting of pro-
environmental behaviour’ (BEHAV) developed by Sevillano (2007) specifically
for the university population.
On average, it took 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The students
were contacted in their university classrooms, and the questionnaire was applied
at the start of each class.

Results
Practically all the scales have acceptable levels of reliability and, on average,
indicate a slightly favourable tendency towards the environment. The EID
achieves a high level of internal consistency (α = .90) and the mean score
achieved for the sample (M = 3.58; SD = .51) suggests that the participants
identify with the environment. The same is true with the CNS (α = .79; M =
3.58; SD = .50), the INS (M = 3.67; SD = .96) and the EGO (α = .82; M =
4.09; SD = .61). Furthermore, the results of the BEHAV scale show that the
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 69

Environmental Identity Scale (EID) / P. Olivos and J.-I. Aragonés 69

TABLE I
Orthogonal factor analysis for the items of Environmental identity: factor loadings and descriptive statistics
Components αa
1 2 3 4 5
9. I feel that I have a lot in common with other species. .803 -.280 .041 .193 .002 .72
11. Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am. .688 .173 .036 -.033 .053 .66
3. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it. .643 .215 -.137 -.125 .164 .68
15. In general, being part of the natural world is an important part of .549 .349 .020 -.067 .108 .67
my self-image.
1. I like to garden.† .321 .269 .087 -.149 .084 .76
1. I spend a lot of time in natural settings (woods, mountains, desert, .102 .714 .077 -.258 .036 .77
lakes, ocean).
17. I really enjoy camping and hiking outdoors. -.083 .645 .161 .193 .103 .76
2. I take pride in the fact that I could survive outdoors on my own for a .062 .644 -.258 .218 .130 .80
few days.
19. I would feel that an important part of my life was missing if I was .149 .500 .380 -.064 .114 .74
not able to get out and enjoy nature from time to time.
6. Living near wildlife is important to me; I would not want to live in a -.023 .484 .288 .281 .081 .77
city all the time.
5. When I am upset or stressed, I can feel better by spending some .267 .471 .215 -.080 .084 .76
time outdoors ‘communing with nature’.
21. I have never seen a work of art that is as beautiful as a work of -.052 .191 .637 .060 -.028 .63
nature, like a sunset or a mountain range.
23. I feel that I receive spiritual sustenance from experiences with .248 -.043 .571 .029 .212 .58
nature.
16. I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than -.063 .211 .560 .367 .001 .66
a bigger room or house with a view of other buildings.
18. Sometimes I feel like parts of nature –certain trees, or storms, or .452 -.116 .534 .104 -.069 .62
mountains– have a personality of their own.
12. I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had .045 -.141 .476 -.320 .280 .69
a significant impact on my development.
8. I believe that some of today’s social problems could be cured by
returning to a more rural life-style in which people live in harmony .073 .066 .122 .700 .180 b
with the land.
13. Behaving responsibly toward the Earth –living a sustainable life -.072 .002 -.005 -.162 .819 .77
-style– is part of my moral code.
2. Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me. .011 .035 .032 -.137 .765 .76
4. If I had enough time or money, I would certainly devote some of it .002 .064 -.054 .085 .690 .77
to working for environmental causes.
7. I have a lot in common with environmentalists as a group. .190 .109 -.089 .193 .633 .75
14. Learning about the natural world should be an important part of .012 -.056 .083 .229 .575 .79
every child’s upbringing.
22. My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position .286 -.096 .000 .247 .567 .76
advocated by environmentalists.
24. I keep mementos from the outdoors in my room, such as shells or -.011 .162 .300 -.168 .311 .82
rocks or feathers.†
Eigenvalue 7.88 1.732 1.336 1.292 1.112
% variance 32.84 7.22 5.57 5.38 4.63
α .74 .80 .69 b .80
M 3.35 3.67 3.67 3.40 3.63
SD .60 .68 .67 1.02 .58
a. Alpha value, in each factor, if the item is eliminated. b. Factor comprising a single item. † Items with low factor loadings, whose
elimination improves the internal consistency of the factor in which it is involved.
Note. Bold font indicates higher factor loadings. Factor 1 = Environmental identity; Factor 2 = Enjoying Nature; Factor 3 =
Appreciation of Nature; Factor 4 = Omitted; Factor 5 = Environmentalism.
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 70

70 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), pp. 65-74

participants frequently engage in pro-environmental behaviour (α = .66; M =

3.67; SD = .49).
An exploratory factor analysis of the EID was carried out, with the principal
components model and oblimin rotation, to extensively analyze its factorial
structure (KMO = .913; χ2 = 2447.839; p < .001). The results show that there
are five underlying factors which explain 55.6% of the total variance, with
eigenvalues greater than one, and alpha values of .7 and higher (see Table I) for
each dimension. The first is made up of 5 items that explain 32.8% of the
variance and its contents express ‘Environmental identity’ itself, since they are
related with a self-reflection referring to a sense of belonging to the natural
world (very similar to Connectedness to Nature) which can be attributed to the
use of expressions such as “I have a lot in common”, “an important part of who
I am”, “I think of myself”, “my self-image”. The second factor, labeled ‘Enjoying
Nature’, has 6 items that explain 7.2% of the variance, and they all refer to
contact with nature, mainly outdoor activities, and the pleasure or benefit
derived individually. The third factor explains 5.6% of the variance and
comprises 5 items related with ‘Appreciation of nature’, in the sense that they
express appreciation of the natural environment owing to the attribution of
complex unique qualities such as beauty, spirituality or personality. The fourth
factor was removed from subsequent analyses by dimensions since it comprised
just one item. The fifth factor (4.6%) refers to a way or style of behaving or
committing to the environment, labeled ‘Environmentalism’, which appeals to
a moral code, an ideological commitment, or an identification with ecologists.
The correlation between components is shown in Table II, revealing that factor
5 is the most strongly related with the other factors, ranging from .442 with
factor 1, to .083 with factor 4.
TABLE II
Matrix of component correlations

Components 1 2 3 4

1 Environmental identity —
2 Enjoying Nature .226 —
3 Appreciation of Nature .271 .256 —
4 Omitted .055 .069 .043 —
5 Environmentalism .442 .344 .321 .083

These sub-dimensions of environmental identity correlate differently with

the measurements of connectedness, ego-biocentric environmental beliefs and
pro-environmental behaviour (see Table III). As expected, the strongest
correlation for the dimension ‘Environmental identity’ is found with the CSN
scale (r = .688; p < .01); the dimension ‘Enjoying Nature’ displays a strong
correlation with EGO (r = .770; p < .01), as does ‘Appreciation of Nature’ (r =
.558; p < .01); and ‘Environmentalism’ is strongly correlated with the self-
reporting of pro-environmental behaviours (r = .580; p < .01).
To observe the extent of the explanatory power provided by these dimensions
in relation to pro-environmental behaviour (BEHAV), stepwise multiple
regression analysis was carried out on the basis of the participants’ direct scores
in each of the factors on the EID (see Table IV). The models did not display co-
linearity (Tolerance: Environmentalism = 1.000 in model 1; Environmentalism
= .624 and Connectedness to Nature = .624 in model 2), and are independent
(Durbin-Watson test = 2.060).
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 71

Environmental Identity Scale (EID) / P. Olivos and J.-I. Aragonés 71

TABLE III
Correlations between the underlying dimensions of the Environmental Identity scale and the measures
of connectedness, ego-biocentrism and pro-environmental behaviour

Environmental Enjoying Appreciation Environmentalism

identity Nature of Nature

CNS .688(**) .465(**) .468(**) .539(**)

INS .533(**) .552(**) .448(**) .455(**)
EGO .533(**) .770(**) .558(**) .527(**)
BEHAV .433(**) .351(**) .283(**) .580(**)
** p < .01
Note. CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer and Franz, 2004); INS = Inclusion of
Nature in Self (Schultz, 2001); EGO = Eco-Biocentric Environmental Belief (Amérigo et al.,
2007); BEHAV = Self-reporting of pro-environmental behaviours (Sevillano, 2007).

TABLE IV
Stepwise regression analysis to predict Pro-environmental behaviour (BEHAV) on the basis of
connectedness measures, dimensions of environmental identity and environmental beliefs

Model and predictor variables R R2 ΔR2 F β t

Model 1 .58 .336 .336 141.490**
Environmentalism .580** 11.89**

Model 2 .346 .010 73.579**

Environmentalism .59 .504** 8.21**
Environmental identity .124* 2.02*
* p < .05; ** p < .001.

The results show that ‘Environmentalism’ is the dimension that best

predicts pro-environmental behaviour (ΔR2 = .336; p < .001), followed by
‘Environmental identity’, which improves the prediction by 1% (ΔR2 =
.010; p < .001).

Discussion
The internal consistency of the EID obtained in this study is in line with
other studies cited earlier in the introduction, which confirms the reliability of
the scale as a unit of measurement as a whole. Furthermore, the results of the
factor analysis partially correspond with the ideas expressed by Clayton (2003)
when describing her scale. The factor ‘Environmental identity’ is related with
the ‘identification’ of one’s self with nature, suggested by the author. The same
is true of ‘Environmentalism’, which corresponds with an ‘ideology’ related with
support for environmental education and a sustainable lifestyle, since it appeals
to a moral code, an ideological commitment, and an identification with
ecologists. ‘Enjoying Nature’, on the other hand, which should correspond with
what she calls the ‘relevance of identity’, derived from the importance of
individual interactions with nature, in this study places greater emphasis on
personal gratification (hedonism) obtained from such contact, and the factor
‘Appreciation of nature’, which should correspond with the dimension ‘positive
emotions’ suggested by Clayton, in this study places greater emphasis on the
elements of nature that provoke a transcendental (beauty, spirituality, etc) rather
than an emotional appreciation.
In a general sense, these results provide empirical evidence for the ideas
suggested by Clayton (2003) about the content elements underlying the EID,
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 72

72 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), pp. 65-74

as well as the comments made by other authors who have also suggested that
this scale appeals to ideas related with social identity (e.g. Dono et al., 2010),
an emotional association with nature, a positive disposition towards policies that
protect it, and interactions with the natural world (e.g. Gosling and Williams,
2010).
The construct validity explored through factor analysis is reinforced by the
correlations aimed at proving its convergent validity. The strength and
significance of the correlations between ‘Environmental identity’ and CNS,
‘Environmentalism’ and pro-environmental behaviour, and between
‘Enjoyment’ and ‘Appreciation of Nature’ and Ego-Biocentrism bear out such
validity. The EID, therefore, is a scale that reflects a complex concept, as defined
by the author, in which an important role is played by feelings of belonging to
the natural world, the pleasure or benefit gained by individuals through contact
with nature, mainly during outdoor activities, appreciation of the unique and
complex qualities of the natural environment, and commitment to the
environment, expressed through engagement in pro-environmental behaviours,
the recognition of a moral code, an ideological commitment or an identification
with ecologists.
Brügger et al. (in press) have suggested that the main weakness of these kinds
of measures is that they require the exercise of psychological introspection that
is difficult to achieve, especially among populations with a low level of
education, or children. However, the process of constructing a strong and
positive identity is a complex one, which integrates various dimensions; neither
this complexity nor the difficulty associated with making the variables involved
operational should move us to abandon the study of environmental identity in
favour of other constructs that are just as complex, such as attitude. Therefore,
in spite of the methodological challenges entailed –tackled recently in this field
with the study of procedures derived from implicit measures or more
parsimonious instruments such as the INS (Olivos, 2009)– the study of
environmental identity or connectedness to nature encapsulates levels of
complexity that must surely abound in research pertaining to the concepts of
self and nature involved in them.
In order to improve on this, item number 10 (“I like gardening”) was
removed from the factor ‘Environmental identity’, as it is the only item whose
content escapes general interpretation and it also has the lowest factor loading.
Its elimination led to an improvement in the internal consistency of the
dimension as indicated by the alpha values per item observed in Table I. In this
same respect, in relation to the factor ‘Environmentalism’, the only item with a
factor loading lower than .35 and whose elimination improves internal
consistency is 24 (“I keep mementos from the outdoors in my room or in my
home, such as shells or rocks or feathers”). Furthermore, even though the fourth
factor comprised just one item, and was excluded from the dimension analyses,
it should not yet be eliminated from the EID since, because even though it is
isolated in the factor analysis, it has a weight of .70 and explains 5.4% of the
total variance.
This paper contributes to the psychometric analysis of the EID, and the
conceptual debate surrounding the relationship between identity and the
environment. Furthermore, it is an initial attempt to test this scale in the
Spanish context.
In conclusion, this study indicates that the EID scale is reliable and has
consistent construct validity, and therefore can be used in studies in which a
general measure of environmental identity is of interest. However, further
research needs to be conducted to confirm the results found in this study on
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 73

Environmental Identity Scale (EID) / P. Olivos and J.-I. Aragonés 73

other samples and analyze in greater depth other types of validity such as
discriminant and predictive, in line with more recent studies on pro-
environmental behaviour. Furthermore, the findings of research profiling the
dimensions of the complex concept of nature should be integrated into the
study of relations between the self and nature, so future studies should observe
how this general measure of environmental identity relates to the dimensions
with which nature is perceived. Finally, further work is required to explore the
reliability and validity of this measure on the Spanish general population and in
other cultural contexts.

References
AMÉRIGO, M., ARAGONÉS, J. I., DE FRUTOS, B., SEVILLANO, V., & CORTÉS, B. (2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric
and antropocentric environmental belief. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 97-103.
ARNOCKY, S., STROINK, M., & DECICCO, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and
conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 255-264.
BRAGG, E. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: deep ecology meets constructionist self theory. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 16, 93-108.
BRÜGGER, A., KAISER, F. G., & ROCZEN, N. (in press). One for All?. Connectedness to Nature, Inclusion of Nature,
Environmental Identity, and Implicit Association with Nature. European Psychologist. DOI: 10.1027/1016-
9040/a000032.
BRUNI, C. M., & SCHULTZ, P. W. (2010). Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30, 95-102.
CANTRILL, J. G., & SENECAH S. L. (2001). Using the “sense of self-in-place” construct in the context of environmental policy-
making and landscape planning. Environmental Science and Policy, 4, 185-203.
CHENG, J. (2008). Children, teachers and nature: An analysis of an environmental education program. Thesis (Ph.D.) University
of Florida.
CHEWALA, L. (2009). Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world. The Journal of Developmental
Processes, 4, 6-23.
CLAYTON, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.),
Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
CLAYTON, S., & OPOTOW, S. (Eds.) (2003). Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
DAVIS, J. L., GREEN, J. D., & REED, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness,
and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173-180.
DONO, J., WEBB., J., & RICHARDSON, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental
behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 178-186.
DUFFY, S., & VERGES, M. (2010). Forces of Nature Affect Implicit Connections With Nature. Environment and Behavior, 42
(6), 723-739. DOI: 10.1177/0013916509338552.
DUTCHER, D., FINLEY, J. C., LULOFF, A. E., & JHONSON, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental
values. Environment and Behavior, 30, 474-493.
GOSLING, E., & WILLIAMS, K. J. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing
connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, (3), 298-304. DOI: 0.1016/j.jenvp.
2010.01.005
KALS, E., SCHUMACHER, D., & MONTADA, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect
nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-202.
KIESLING, F. M., & MANNING, C. M. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological
gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, (3), 315-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.004
LEARY, M. R., TIPSORD, J. M., & TATE, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds
into one’s sense of self. In H. A. Wayment, & J. J. Bauer. Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego.
Decade of behavior (pp. 137-147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MAYER, F. S., & FRANTZ, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community
with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.
MAYER, F. S., FRANTZ, C. M., BRUEHLMAN-SENECAL, E., & DOLLIVER, K. (2009). Why Is Nature Beneficial? The Role of
Connectedness to Nature. Environment and Behavior Online First, 41 (5), 607-643.
NISBET, E. K., ZELENSKI, J. M., & MURPHY, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale. Linking individuals’ connection with
nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41 (5), 715-740.
OLIVOS, P. (2009). Conectividad con la naturaleza: identidad ambiental y dimensiones del self Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.
OLIVOS, P., ARAGONÉS, J. I., & AMÉRIGO, M. (in press). The Connectedness with Nature Scale and its Relationship with
Environmental Beliefs and Identity. Internacional Journal of Hispanic Psychology.
PERRIN, J. L., & BENASSI, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature?
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (4), 434-440.
SCHULTZ, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339.
SCHULTZ, P., SHRIVER, C., TABANICO, J., & KHAZIAN, A. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 31-42.
SEVILLANO, V. (2007). Empatía y cognición social en la preocupación por el medio ambiente. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.
06. OLIVOS-ARAGONES TR 13/1/11 12:33 Página 74

74 Psyecology, 2011, 2 (1), pp. 65-74

STEWART, A. (2006). Assessing the human experience of weather and climate: A further examination of weather salience. In
Environmental risk and impacts on society: successes and challenges, January 28 - February 3. EEUU: American Meteorological
Society. Available at: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_101916.htm
THOMASHOW, M. (1995). Ecological Identity, becoming a reflective environmentalist. London: MIT Press.
TURNER, J. C., HOGG, M. A., OAKES, P. J., REICHER, S. D., & WETHERELL, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-
categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
WEIGERT, A. J. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
WHITMARSH, L., & O’NEILL, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in
determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, (3), 305-
314. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003.
WINTER, P. (2006). Connection to the land, management preferences, and urban proximate wilderness visitors (Recreation Research
Update, october 58). US Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/
recreation/update.shtml