Nature is often portrayed in the environmental discourse as a mindful agent that has intentions, emotions, and other mental capacities. Built upon recent research on mind perception and mind attribution, the present research examines if this representation of nature bears any implications for environmental conservation. Studies 1 and 2 showed that participants who attributed a mind to nature exhibited more self-report and actual proenvironmental behavior than those who attributed fewer mental capacities to nature. This association held even when controlling for a range of well-documented predictors for proenvironmental behavior. Study 3 further revealed the psychological mechanism underlying this association. When thinking about environmental degradation, attribution of a mind to nature allowed participants to empathize with nature and act in a more proenvironmental manner. Theoretically, these findings offer a new angle to explicate recent research on the proenvironmental effects of anthropomorphic images of nature. More important, the present findings suggest a novel approach to understanding the human-nature relationship. How humans relate to nature could be similar to how they relate to other humans, the prototypical mindful agent. Therefore, researchers can theorize about the human-nature relationship with reference to existing social psychological theories on interpersonal relationships. Given the prevalence of mind attribution in the environmental discourse, the present research also provides valuable evidence for environmentalists to consider. Key Words: Mind attribution—Proenvironmental behavior—Empathy—Perspective taking—Environmental conservation—Anthropomorphism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverillJ. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160.
2.
BarlettP. F. (2008). Reason and reenchantment in cultural change: Sustainability in higher education. Current Anthropology, 49, 1077–1098.
3.
BartlettM. Y., & DeStenoD. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17, 319–325.
4.
BatsonC. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BerenguerJ. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 39, 269–283.
6.
BermanM. (1981). The reenchantment of the world.New York: Cornell University Press.
7.
ClaytonS., FraserJ., & BurgessC. (2011). The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology, 3, 87–96.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
10.
De GrootJ., & StegL. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1817–1836.
11.
EddyT. J., GallupG. G., & PovinelliD. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87–101.
12.
EisenbergN., & MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119.
13.
EpleyN., AkalisS., WaytzA., & CacioppoJ. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120.
14.
EpleyN., & WaytzA. (2010). Mind perception. In FiskeS. T., GilbertD. T. & LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 498–541). New York: Wiley.
15.
EpleyN., WaytzA., & CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886.
16.
GiffordR., & NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.
17.
GrayH. M., GrayK., & WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
18.
GutherieS. (1993). Faces in the clouds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
20.
HinesJ. M., HungerfordH. R., & TomeraA. N. (1986–1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.
21.
HirshJ. B., & DoldermanD. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583–1593.
22.
HoganR. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.
23.
HorowitzA. C., & BekoffM. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism: Behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös, 20, 23–35.
24.
HumeD. (1957). The natural history of religion.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1757)
25.
JohnO. P., DonahueE. M., & KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research
26.
JohnsonS. C. (2003). Detecting agents. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 549–559.
27.
KnightS., VrijA., CherrymanJ., & NunkoosingK. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös, 17, 43–62.
28.
MacKinnonD. P., LockwoodC. M., & WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
29.
MarkowitzE. M., GoldbergL. R., AshtonM. C., & LeeK. (2012). Profiling the “pro‐environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80, 81–111.
30.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
31.
MilfontT. L. (2009). The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour. The Environmentalist, 29, 263–269.
32.
MorewedgeC. K., PrestonJ., & WegnerD. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1–11.
33.
NassC., LombardM., HenriksenL., & SteuerJ. (1995). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14, 229–238.
34.
NassC., & MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103.
35.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ. Y., & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
36.
PreacherK. J., & HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
37.
SchultzP. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.
38.
SchultzP. W., & ZeleznyL. C. (1998). Values and pro-environmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540–558.
39.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
40.
SevillanoV., AragonesJ. I., & SchultzP. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environment and Behavior, 39, 685–705.
41.
ShroutP. E., & BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
42.
SobelD. (1996). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute.
43.
StegL., & VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
44.
StöberJ. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.
45.
TamK.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
46.
TamK.-P. (2014a). Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective?The role of the recipient's motivations.British Journal of Social Psychology.Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bjso.12076
47.
TamK.-P. (2014b). Gratitude toward nature. Manuscript in preparation.
48.
TamK.-P., LeeS.-L., & ChaoM. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 514–521.
49.
ViningJ., MerrickM. S., & PriceE. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15, 1–11.
50.
WatanabeS. (2007). How animal psychology contributes to animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106, 193–202.
51.
WaytzA., CacioppoJ. T., & EpleyE. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 219–232.
52.
WaytzA., EpleyN., & CacioppoJ. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 58–62.
53.
WaytzA., & YoungL. (2014). Two motivations for two dimensions of mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 278–283.
