The article discusses three experiments that replicated and extended prior research on implicit connections with built and natural environments. In Experiment I, participants classify “nature” (e.g., trees) and “self (e.g., me) items faster than “built” (e.g., factory) and “other” (e.g., them) items. This effect may attribute to words that elicit stronger positive associations to nature and stronger negative associations to built categories. In Experiment 2, participants rated nature and self items more positively than built and other items. This finding suggests a propensity to view oneself and the natural environment more favorably in comparison to others and the built environment This positive association to nature, however, was reversed in Experiment 3: Participants classify built and self items faster than nature and self items. Results indicate that stimulus valence moderates implicit associations to built and natural environments. Implications regarding the role of affective processing on implicit attitudes to these environments are discussed.
BarkerK, FongL, GrossmanS, QuinC, and ReidR (1994). Comparison of self-reported recycling attitudes and behaviors with actual behavior.Psychological Reports, 75, 571–577.
2.
BossonJ. K., SwannW. B. Jr., and PennebakerJ. W. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 631–643.
3.
BradleyM. M., and LangP. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida. (Technical Report C-1).
4.
ClaytonS, and OpotowS (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Corral-VerdugoV (1997). Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behavior: Self-reports vs observations of re-use and recycling behavior.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 135–145.
6.
DasguptaN, McGheeD. E., GreenwaldA. G., and BanajiM. R. (2000). Automatic preference for White Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 316–328.
7.
De HouwerJ (2001). A structural and process analysis of the Implicit Association Test.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,37, 443–451.
8.
DuffyS, and VergesM (in press). Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature.Environment and Behavior.
9.
DunlapR. E., Van LiereK. D., MertigA. G., and JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale.Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
10.
EstesZ, and AdelmanJ (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexical decision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006).Emotion, 8, 441–444.
11.
EstesZ, and VergesM (2008). Freeze or flee? Negative stimuli elicit selective responding.Cognition, 108, 557–565.
12.
FazioR (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview.Cognition and Emotion, 15, 115–141.
13.
GovanC. L., and WilliamsK. D. (2004). Reversing or eliminating IAT effects by changing the affective valence of the stimulus items.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 357–365.
14.
GreenwaldA. G., BanajiM. R., RudmanL. A., FarnhamS. D., NosekB. A., and MellottD. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept.Psychological Review, 109, 3–25.
15.
GreenwaldA. G., and FarnhamS. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.
16.
GreenwaldA. G., McGheeD. E., and SchwartzJ. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
17.
GreenwaldA. G., NosekB. A., and BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
18.
HeineS. J., LehmanD. R., MarkusH. R., and KitayamaS (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?Psychological Review,106, 766–794.
19.
MayerF. S., and FrantzCM. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individual's feeling in community with nature.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
20.
MayerF. S., FranzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE, and DolliverK (in press). Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature.Environment and Behavior.
21.
MitchellJ. P., NosekB. A., and BanajiM. R. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,132, 455–469.
22.
NisbetE, ZelenskiJ. M., and MurphyS. A. (in press). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior.Environment and Behavior.
23.
OpotowS, and WeissL (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict.Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.
24.
OskampS, and SchultzW. P. (2005). Attitudes and opinions (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
SchultzP. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
26.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP, & SchultzP. W. (Eds.), The psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
27.
SchultzP. W., ShriverC, TabanicoJ. J., & KhazianA. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.
28.
SchultzP. W., and TabanicoJ (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
29.
SteffensM, and PleweI (2001). Items' cross-category associations as a confounding factor in the implicit association test.Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 123–134.
30.
VergesM, and DuffyS (2008). Unpublished data on valence and frequency of nature items.Indiana University, South Bend.
31.
ZajoncR (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
