The three studies reported in this article detail the development of the State of Interdependence with Nature Scale (SINS), a new self-report measure specifically designed to assess momentary fluctuations in feelings of deep connection, or “oneness,” with nature. Using exploratory factor analysis, Study 1 (N = 228) identified eight optimally performing items to be retained in the SINS. Using confirmatory factor analysis, Study 2 (N = 126) supported the SINS' unidimensional structure. Using bivariate correlation analysis and linear modeling, Study 3 (N = 73) found the SINS demonstrated strong positive correlations with legacy measures capturing the dispositional tendency to feel connected with nature and was sensitive to behavioral intervention. Nature-based interventions increased SINS scores relative to a control condition. Together, these three studies provide preliminary evidence that the SINS is psychometrically sound.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative ft indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 28, 97–104.
2.
BentlerP. M. (1995). EQS 5. [Computer program]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.
3.
BraggE. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 93–108.
4.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
BrowneM. W., & CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
BuhrmesterM., KwangT., & GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
7.
CattellR. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.
8.
ChengJ. C.-H., & MonroeM. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children's affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44, 31–49.
9.
ClaytonS. (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, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
DaamenD. D., StaatsH., WilkeH. A., & EngelenM. (2001). Improving environmental behavior in companies: The effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored interventions. Environment and Behavior, 33, 229–248.
11.
DavisJ. L., GreenJ. D., & ReedA. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180.
12.
de GrootJ. I. M., & StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330–354.
13.
de WinterJ. C., DodouD., & WieringaP. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147–181.
14.
DeYoungC. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.
15.
DutcherD. D., FinleyJ. C., LuloffA. E., & JohnsonJ. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493.
16.
FrisonL., & PocockS. J. (1992). Repeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 1685–1704.
17.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GuilfordJ. P. (1954), Psychometric Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
20.
KirwinM., HarperN. J., YoungT., & ItzvanI. (2019). Mindful adventures: A pilot study of the outward bound mindfulness program. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 22, 75–90.
21.
KnezI., ButlerA., OdeSang, Å., ÅngmanE., Sarlöv-HerlinI., & ÅkerskogA. (2018). Before and after a natural disaster: Disruption in emotion component of place-identity and wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 11–17.
22.
KollmussA., & AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401
23.
LucasR. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75–79.
24.
LearyM. R., TipsordJ. M., & TateE. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 137–147). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11771-013
25.
LeviD., & KocherS. (1999). Virtual nature: The future effects of information technology on our relationship to nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 203–226.
26.
LiD., ZhaoL., MaS., ShaoS., & ZhangL. (2019). What influences an individual's pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 28–34.
27.
MasonW., & SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23.
28.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
29.
MayerF. S., FrantzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE., & DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
30.
MundfromD. J., ShawD. G., & KeT. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5, 159–168.
31.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). With nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
32.
OskampS. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help?. American Psychologist, 55, 496–508.
33.
PerkinsH. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 455–463.
34.
ProshanskyH. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment & Behavior, 10, 147–169.
35.
PyleR. M. (2003). Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37, 206–214.
36.
RestallB., & ConradE. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 264–278.
37.
RosaC. D., ProficeC. C., & ColladoS. (2018). Nature experiences and adults' self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–10.
38.
ShafieiA., & MaleksaeidiH. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior of university students: Application of protection motivation theory. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00908.
39.
StegL., & VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
40.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modifcation: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173–180.
41.
StrumseE. (2007). The ecological self: A psychological perspective on anthropogenic environmental change. European Journal of Science and Theology, 3, 11–18.
42.
TamK. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
43.
ThibautJ. W., & KelleyH. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
44.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45.
TuckerL. R., & LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
46.
Van LangeP. A. M., & BallietD. (2015). Interdependence theory. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 65–92). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
47.
VaskeJ. J., & KobrinK. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 16–21.
48.
WamslerC. (2017). Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: Transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake?. Environmental Science and Policy, 75, 148–157.
49.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
YadenD. B., HaidtJ., Hood, JrR. W., VagoD. R., & NewbergA. B. (2017). The varieties of self-transcendent experience. Review of General Psychology, 21, 143–160.
