Emotional connections with nature are important factors in proconservation action and behavior. Empathy has been identified as one way of increasing these emotional connections. Some environmental educators are approaching conservation initiatives by designing education program content that integrates internal motivators such as empathy into camp activities and curriculum. In this study, the authors examine the use of evaluation tools aimed at determining the extent to which learners exhibit empathy for animals. Learners' emotional state, understanding of animal needs, and perspective-taking ability were used as indicators of empathy. Results show that these tools can successfully be used to measure these empathy indicators in learners, although the results vary dependent on the age group. This article demonstrates the ability of these tools to be used in informal settings while presenting opportunities for analyses that render results usable by practitioners and researchers alike.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkermanS. (2019). Best practices for building empathy through live animal encounters. Journal of Museum Education, 44, 89–95.
2.
AllenS. (2003). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In Learning conversations in museums (pp. 265–309). Mahway, NJ: Routledge.
BarrS. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area, 35, 227–240.
5.
Ben-Ze'evA. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6.
BerenguerJ. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39, 269–283.
7.
BrodyM., & StorksdieckM. (2012). Evaluation and analysis of environmental education programs, materials, and technologies and the assessment of learners and learning. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 285–288). Routledge: ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/muohio-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1105876
8.
BuelinJ., ErnstJ. V., KellyD. P., & DeLucaV. W. (2019). Formative evaluation techniques. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 78, 21–23.
9.
Carleton-HugA., & HugJ. W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 159–164.
10.
CauleyK. M., & McMillanJ. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 1–6.
11.
ChawlaL. (2009). Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4, 6–23.
12.
DecetyJ., BartalI. B. A., UzefovskyF., & Knafo-NoamA. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371, 1–11.
13.
FerraroP. J., & PattanayakS. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4, e105.
14.
FlavellJ. H., MillerP. H., & MillerS. A. (2002). Cognitive development. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
FoleyJ. A., DeFriesR., AsnerG. P., BarfordC., BonanG., CarpenterS. R., … HelkowskiJ. H. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574.
16.
GrayJ. (2017). Zoo ethics: The challenges of compassionate conservation. Clayton South Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
17.
GrønhøjA., & ThøgersenJ. (2012). Action speaks louder than words: The effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents' pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 292–302.
18.
HeimlichJ. E. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education as a strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 180–185.
19.
HindsJ., & SparksP. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109–120.
20.
HowellT. J., McLeodE. M., & ColemanG. J. (2019). When zoo visitors “connect” with a zoo animal, what does that mean?. Zoo Biology, 38, 461–470.
21.
IvesC. D., GiustiM., FischerJ., AbsonD. J., KlanieckiK., DorningerC., … RaymondC. M. (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 106–113.
22.
KaposV., BalmfordA., AvelingR., BubbP., CareyP., EntwistleA., … WalpoleM. (2008). Calibrating conservation: New tools for measuring success. Conservation Letters, 1, 155–164.
23.
KenigerL. E., GastonK. J., IrvineK. N., & FullerR. A. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 913–935.
24.
KhalilK., & ArdoinN. (2011). Programmatic evaluation in association of zoos and aquariums–accredited zoos and aquariums: A literature review. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 10, 168–177.
25.
LamB. H. (2019). Social support, well-being, and teacher development. Singapore: Springer.
26.
LamB. H., ChengR. W. Y., & YangM. (2017). Formative feedback as a global facilitator: Impact on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and positive affect. In: S. C. Kong, T. L. Wong, M. Yang, C. F. Chow & K. H. Tse (eds.) Emerging practices in scholarship of learning and teaching in a digital era (pp. 265–288). Singapore: Springer.
27.
LiefländerA. K., FröhlichG., BognerF. X. & SchultzP. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19, 370–384.
28.
LithoxoidouL. S., GeorgopoulosA. D., DimitriouA. T., & XenitidouS. C. (2017). “Trees Have a Soul Too!” Developing empathy and environmental values in early childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 5, 68–88.
MellishS., RyanJ. C., PearsonE. L., & TuckeyM. R. (2019). Research methods and reporting practices in zoo and aquarium conservation-education evaluation. Conservation Biology, 33, 40–52.
31.
MillerS. A. (2012). Theory of mind: Beyond the preschool years. New York: Psychology Press.
32.
MonyP. R., & HeimlichJ. E. (2008). Talking to visitors about conservation: Exploring message communication through docent–visitor interactions at zoos. Visitor Studies, 11, 151–162.
33.
Musitu-FerrerD., León-MorenoC., Callejas-JerónimoJ. E., Esteban-IbáñezM., & Musitu-OchoaG. (2019). Relationships between parental socialization styles, empathy and connectedness with nature: Their implications in environmentalism. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16, 2461.
34.
MyersO. G. (2007). The significance of children and animals: Social development and our connections to other species. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
35.
NeumannD. L., ChanR. C., BoyleG. J., WangY., & WestburyH. R. (2015). Measures of empathy: Self-report, behavioral, and neuroscientific approaches. In J. G. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Mathews (eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 257–289). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36.
PackerJ., & BallantyneR. (2010). The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2010, 25–34.
37.
PalavecinosM., AmérigoM., UlloaJ. B., & MuñozJ. (2016). Environmental concern and ecological responsible behavior in university students: A comparative analysis between Chilean and Spanish students. Psychosocial Intervention, 25, 143–148.
38.
PearsonE. L., LowryR., DorrianJ., & LitchfieldC. A. (2014). Evaluating the conservation impact of an innovative zoo-based educational campaign:‘Don't Palm Us Off’ for orangutan conservation. Zoo Biology, 33, 184–196.
39.
PfattheicherS., SassenrathC., & SchindlerS. (2015). Feelings for the suffering of others and the environment: Compassion fosters proenvironmental tendencies. Environment and Behavior, 48, 929–945.
RoeK., McConneyA., & MansfieldC. (2014). Using evaluation to prove or to improve? An international, mixed method investigation into zoos' education evaluation practices. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 2, 108–116.
42.
SchultzP. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.
SomersC. (2005). Evaluation of the wonders in nature-wonders in neighborhoods conservation education program: stakeholders gone wild!. New Directions for Evaluation, 108, 29–46.
45.
SternM. J., PowellR. B., & HillD. (2014). Environmental education program evaluation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned?. Environmental Education Research, 20, 581–611.
46.
WhartonJ., KhalilK., FryeC., & YoungA. (2019). Effective practices for fostering empathy towards marine life. In G. Fauville, D. L. Payne, M. E. Marrero, A. Lantz-Andersson, & F. Crouch (eds.), Exemplary practices in marine science education: A resource for practitioners and researchers (pp. 157–168). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
47.
WilsonM., & SloaneK. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.
48.
YoungA., KhalilK. A., & WhartonJ. (2018). Empathy for animals: A review of the existing literature. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61, 327–343.
