The existence of an association between women and nature has been a longstanding claim of scholars from many disciplines. However, psychological evidence for this association has been lacking. This article presents evidence of the woman–nature association in everyday media representations and in laypeople's conscious beliefs. Study 1 demonstrates the association through a content analysis of images sampled from two popular search engines. Study 2 demonstrates it by directly asking people about the associations they hold between gender and nature, and clarifies their attitudes toward these associations. Findings from both studies indicate that women are indeed more associated with nature than men and that this association results in consciously positive attitudes toward men, women, and nature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsC.1990. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum.
2.
AubreyJ. S.2007. Does television exposure influence college aged women's sexual self concept?Media Psychology, 10:157–181.
3.
BermanM. G., JonidesJ., KaplanS.2008. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19:1207–1212.
4.
BigwoodC.1993. Earth muse: Feminism, nature and art. New York: Temple University Press.
5.
BirkeL.1994. Feminism, animals, and science. The naming of the shrew. Buckingham: Open University Press.
6.
BlackK. A., MarolaJ. A., LittmanA. I., ChrislerJ. C., NeaceW. P.2009. Gender and form of cereal box characters: Different medium, same disparity. Sex Roles, 60:882–889.
7.
BottaR. A.2003. For your health? The relationship between magazine reading and adolescents' body image and eating disturbances. Sex Roles, 48:389–399.
8.
DavisP. G., SpencerS. J., QuinnD. M., GerhardsteinR.2002. Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can retrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28:1615–1628.
9.
de BeauvoirS.1974. The second sex. London: Penguin.
10.
DietzT., KalofL., SternP.2002. Gender, values and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83:353–365.
11.
DunayerJ.1995. Sexist words, speciesist roots. AdamsC., DonovanJ.Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations, 11–32. London: Duke University Press.
12.
FiskeS.1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. GilbertD. T., FiskeS., LindzeyG.Handbook of social psychology, 4th357–411. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
FowlesJ.1996. Advertising and popular culture. 5Thousand Oaks. California: Sage Publications.
14.
GlickP., FiskeS.1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70:491–512.
15.
GoldenbergJ. L., RobertsT.2004. The beauty within the beast: An existential perspective on the objectification and condemnation of women. GreenbergJ., KooleS. L., PyszczynskiT.Handbook of experimental existential psychology, 71–85. New York: Gilford.
16.
HartigT., EvansG. W., JamnerL. D., DavisD. S., GarlingT.2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23:109–123.
17.
HerzogT. R., StreveyS. J.2008. Contact with nature, sense of humor, and psychological well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40:747–776.
18.
HietanenJ., KorpelaK. M.2004. Do both negative and positive environmental scenes elicit rapid affective processing?Environment and Behavior, 36:558–577.
19.
HunterL., HatchA., JohnsonA.2004. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviours. Social Science Quarterly, 85:677–695.
JuddC. M., McClellandG. H.1998. Measurement. GilbertD. T., FiskeS. T.The handbook of social psychology, 180–232. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
KaestleC. E., HalpernC. T., BrownJ. D.2007. Music videos, pro wrestling, and acceptance of date rape among middle school males and females: An exploratory analysis. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 40:185–187.
23.
KaplanS.1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Environmental Psychology, 15:169–182.
24.
KooleS., Van den BergA.2003. Paradise lost and reclaimed: An existential motives analysis of human-nature relations. GreenbergJ., KooleS., PyszczynskiT.Handbook of experimental existential psychology, 86–103. New York: Guilford.
25.
KooleS., Van den BergA.2005. Lost in the wilderness: Terror management, action orientation, and nature evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88:1014–1028.
26.
LindauerM. S.1990. Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8:95–110.
27.
MacCormackC. P., StrathernM.1980. Nature, culture and gender. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MayerS. F., FrantzC. M.2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:503–515.
29.
MayerS. F., FrantzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE.2009. Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41:607–643.
30.
McMillianC.1982. Women, reason, and nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
31.
MerchantC.1980. The death of nature. New York: Harper and Row.
32.
MitchellJ., NosekB., BanajiM.2003. Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132:455–469.
33.
Monk-TurnerE., WrenK., McGillL., MatthiaeC., BrownS., BrooksD.2008. Who is gazing at whom? A look at how sex is used in magazine advertisements. Journal of Gender Studies, 17:201–209.
34.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., MurphyS. A.2008. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 20:1–26.
35.
NorenzayanA., HansenI. G., CadyJ.2008. An angry volcano? Reminders of death and anthropomorphizing nature. Social Cognition, 26:190–197.
36.
OrtnerS.1972. Is female to male as nature is to culture?Feminist Studies, 1:5–31.
37.
PeterJ., ValkenburgP.2007. Adolescents' exposure to a sexualized media environment and their notions of women as sex objects. Sex Roles, 56:381–395.
38.
PlumwoodV.1991. Nature, self and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6:3–27.
39.
PlumwoodV.1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.
40.
RivadeneyraR., LeboM. J.2008. The association between television-viewing behaviours and adolescent dating role attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 31:291–305.
41.
RoachM.2003. Mother/nature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
42.
SchultzH. D., EmpacherC., KlugeT., LuxA., SchrammE.et al.2001. Research on Gender, the environment and sustainable development. Paper presented at the Studies on gender impact assessment of the programmes of the 5th framework program for research, technological development and demonstration.
43.
SchultzP.2000. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56:391–406.
44.
SchultzP., ShriverC., TabanicoJ., KhazianA.2004. Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:31–42.
45.
SchultzP., TabanicoJ.2007. Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37:1219–1247.
Van den BergA. E., KooleS. L., van der WulpN. Y.2003. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23:135–136.
50.
WilliamsK., HarveyD.2001. Transcendent experience in forest environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21:249–260.
51.
ZeleznyL., ChuaP., AldrichC.2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56:443–457.
