Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature

http://eab.sagepub.com

Environment and Behavior

DOI: 10.1177/00139169921972056 1999; 31; 178 Environment and Behavior

Elisabeth Kals, Daniel Schumacher and Leo Montada Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/178 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Environmental Design Research Association

can be found at:Environment and Behavior Additional services and information for

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/2/178SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 25 articles hosted on the Citations

© 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Bogdan Horbaniuc on November 8, 2007 http://eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.edra.org/

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/2/178


ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE

EMOTIONAL AFFINITYTOWARD NATURE AS AMOTIVATIONAL BASISTO PROTECT NATURE

ELISABETH KALS is a senior researcher at the University of Trier, Germany,where she also earned her Ph.D. and did post-doctoral research. Her main researchinterests include educational psychology with a focus on communication as well asthe applied disciplines of environmental and health psychology.

DANIEL SCHUMACHER studied psychology at the University of Trier, Germany.During his studies he mainly focused on environmental psychology. In addition to hisstudies, he engaged in a student organization (IPU) to promote research and lectur-ing on environmental psychology at universities.

LEO MONTADA is a professor of psychology at the University of Trier, Germany.His current research fields embrace social emotions and their control, justiceresearch, moral psychology, psychology of commitments, environmental psychology,and coping with losses.

ABSTRACT: Nature-protective behavior cannot be sufficiently explained using apure rational/cognitive approach. Therefore, in a questionnaire study (N = 281), thefocus was on emotional motivations of this behavior, especially on a newly conceptu-alized construct: emotional affinity toward nature. All constructs were measured byreliable and valid scales. Multiple regression analyses reveal that (a) emotional affin-ity is as powerful to predict nature-protective behavior as indignation and interest innature and together these three predictors explain up to 47% of variance of the crite-rion variables, and (b) 39% of emotional affinity toward nature traces back to presentand past experiences in natural environments. The resulting integrative path model isdiscussed. Theoretical conclusions are drawn, and options for practical interventionare derived.

178

AUTHORS’ NOTE:This study was supported by a grant provided by the “DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft.”

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 31 No. 2, March 1999 178-202© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.



EMOTIONS MOTIVATING NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR

Research on the explanation of nature-protective behavior (like water con-servation) was triggered by the energy crisis during the 1970s. Many of theearlier empirical investigations in environmental psychology dealt with indi-vidual perceptions of the energy crisis, personal energy consumption, and thewillingness to conserve energy resources (e.g., Becker, Seligman, Fazio, &Darley, 1981; Hummel, Levit, & Loomis, 1978). Since this early research, alarge and constantly growing amount of literature is accumulating that dealswith the question of how human behaviors that impact the natural environ-ment can be explained (see Kruse & Schwarz, 1988). One source of thisgrowth is the evidence within science, as well as in people’s views, that eco-logical problems endangering natural systems (pollution of air, water, or soil,greenhouse effects, degeneration of the ozone layer, and so forth) are not onlydue to human activities but, in order to be reduced, require human activitiesand changes in behaviors (Pawlik, 1991).

For an efficient promotion of proenvironmental behavior, knowledge isessential about the underlying motives of both protective behaviors (e.g.,energy conservation in one’s household, using public transportation systemsinstead of one’s own car) and of risk behaviors (e.g., exploiting and pollutingnatural resources).

The theoretical perspectives of existing behavior analyses vary to a greatextent. In a first group of studies, general action theories, like the Theory ofReasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1972) are applied to nature-protectivebehavior (see Hamid & Cheng, 1995; Lynne & Rola, 1988). In most cases,these applications are only successful when the models are adapted to thespecific features of the analyzed behavior and supplemented by specific vari-ables, and often it is the supplementary constructs that are especially power-ful in predicting the behavior. Therefore, in a second group of studies,specific models of environmental behavior models are applied, but thesestudies are still rare (see Fuhrer, 1995).

All empirical investigations, representing either the first or the secondgroup of studies, are only successful when they take the motivational powerof emotions into account: Nature-protective behavior, like reduced energyconsumption, is not purely based on rational decisions but is flanked andmotivated by emotions such as feelings of self-blame because one has con-tributed to wasting energy and its detrimental effects. The power of emotionhas already been reflected in one of the first environmental studies (Amelang,Tepe, Vagt, & Wendt, 1977), but is still very often overlooked today.

The impact of emotions on proenvironmental behavior was analyzed inseveral of our earlier studies, for example, the impact of resentment about

Kals et al. / EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE 179



other individuals’ polluting activities, guilt about own environmental sins,and fear of health problems caused by pollution (Kals, 1996a, 1996b; Kals &Montada, 1994).

In this article we want to introduceemotional affinity toward nature, aconcept embracing various inclinations toward nature such as the love ofnature. Intuitively, this construct seems to be apt for explaining nature-protective behavior. Some authors claim that building up emotional bondstoward nature can serve as a motivation to protect it (see Fischerlehner,1993). To our knowledge, however, empirical research on this emotion andon its motivational function is lacking.

We want to fill this gap by making the construct measurable and by explor-ing its motivational function for proenvironmental behavior. We do this bycomparing the predictive power of emotional affinity toward nature with twoconstructs that have been well-introduced and analyzed in research onnature-protective behavior: indignation about insufficient nature protection(a responsibility-related emotional appraisal), and interest in nature (a cogni-tive appraisal). Moreover, we want to advance a hypothesis about the devel-opment of emotional affinity toward nature by looking at how it is related toexperiences with nature, both past and present.

THE INFLUENCE OF RESPONSIBILITY-RELATEDAPPRAISALS ON NATURE-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR

Many specific models of nature-protective behavior and correspondingempirical studies assume a responsibility-related perspective (see Fuhrer,1995; Gigliotti, 1990; Heberlein, 1981; Kals, 1996a; Lynne & Rola, 1988;Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). This makes sense inregard to the premises of the social trap (Hardin, 1968; Platt, 1973; Stern &Gardener, 1981): It is assumed that personal renunciations intended to pro-tect natural resources are motivated by social responsibility. The entire com-munity will profit from the renunciations in the long run, whereas theimmediate profit for the individuals making sacrifices is lower than for theexploiting individuals. One cannot, for example, expect a significant and sta-ble improvement of the air quality in one’s own living space by using, as alone individual, public transportation systems instead of one’s own car.These positive effects on air quality can only be expected as a long-term con-sequence of many individuals abstaining from using their own cars and whenmany other agents (such as industry) reduce other air polluting activities andprocesses. If, on the other hand, one continues to use one’s own car, thus, as a

180 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 1999



side-effect setting the protection of nature at risk, one would enjoy immediatepersonal advantages (mobility, driving enjoyment, and so forth). This exam-ple reflects the conflict between short-term individual interests and long-term interests of the whole community in a healthy ecology.

This conflict should be overcome by taking over internal ecologicalresponsibility and by accepting corresponding moral norms (see Kals,1996a). In line with this argumentation, the application of the SchwartzNorm Activation Model (Schwartz & Howard, 1980) to ecologically relevantbehavior is popular and successful, especially when the model is conceptu-ally adapted to specific features of nature-protective behavior (see Hopper &Nielsen, 1991; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978).

The significance of responsibility-related attributions and appraisals forexplaining nature-protective behaviors was also confirmed in our own stud-ies (see Kals, 1996a, 1996b; Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, in press; Mon-tada & Kals, 1995). These studies examined, for instance, attribution ofresponsibility for nature protection and several emotional appraisals that pre-suppose attributions of responsibility, like self-blame due to insufficientnature protection by oneself, indignation about insufficient nature protectionby other (responsible) agents or agencies (other citizens, state, industry), andanger about nature-protection measures regarded as going too far and bearingtoo many negative side effects.

Self-blame, indignation, and anger within this context of nature protectioncan all be explained by cognitive models of emotions (Frijda, 1987; Montada,1989; Roseman, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Indignation about insuffi-cient nature protection is, for example, due to (a) an awareness of the endan-germent of nature functioning, (b) the acceptance of the social/moral normthat nature ought to be protected, (c) the belief that other agents (industry,state) have efficient possibilities to reduce the risks for nature, but (d) neglecttheir responsibilities to protect nature (see Kals, 1996a; Kals & Montada,1994).

All three emotions (self-blame, indignation, and anger) are substantiallycorrelated with the willingness for commitments and behaviors that are posi-tively or negatively related to ecological conservation (energy consumption,choice of traffic system, political activities like signing petitions, financialsupport of the protection of nature, active promotion of nature-protectivemeasures, etc.; see Kals, 1996a). In all studies, indignation about insufficientnature protection of others proved to be the most powerful predictor (Kals,1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998; Kals & Montada, 1994).

It is assumed, however, that in addition to responsibility-related emotions,other categories of emotions can account for individual differences in nature-




protective behavior: Emotional affinity toward nature is conceptualized asone important emotion with this function.

EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARD NATURE ANDITS RELATION TO INTEREST IN NATURE

Emotional affinity toward nature is a category of emotion that is not easyto explicate by a set of cognitive appraisals and attributions. It means a posi-tive feeling of inclination in different nuances that are also discussed in litera-ture (e.g., Gebhard, 1994; Maaßen, 1993a, 1993b). The termlove of natureismost often found and reflects a romantic attitude that is used in many differ-ent contexts, such as poems, songs, or product advertising. Feeling good,free, safe in nature, and feeling a oneness with nature are further nuances con-ceived to be closely related to love of nature (see Gebhard, 1994). We sub-sume these different emotional nuances toward nature under the concept ofemotional affinity toward nature.

Emotional affinity toward nature can be distinguished from its cognitivecounterpartinterest in nature(Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986), interest in thefunctioning of flora, fauna, and the variety of natural phenomena andprocesses. One can have scientific interest in nature issues without feelingany emotional affinity.Interestmotivates gathering knowledge to explainand understand phenomena.Emotional affinityis motivating contact and sen-sual experiences. What is known about the origins of these two humancharacteristics?

There is some evidence that affinity toward nature as well as interest innature are both instigated by experiences in nature such as observing animals,phenomena of weather, or the change of the seasons (Lyons & Breakwell,1994). Affinity probably requires positive experiences; interest may alsosomehow result from negative experiences as well. Stays in nature are con-sidered especially helpful to build up emotional bonds and cognitive interest(see Maaßen, 1993a).

The sharing of experiences with significant others may function as anamplifier of the impact of stays in nature. The communication of feelings andthe transference of positive social emotions to the natural environment bothmay contribute to the emergence of an emotional affinity. Security feelingsmediated by significant others may prevent negative associations. Curiosityand cognitive interest may also be stimulated by the questions, hints, andinformation communicated by significant others (for the role of place vs. ac-companimentbysignificantothersseeSilbereisen,Eyferth,&Rudinger, 1986).




Although emotional affinity toward nature is not yet established as a sci-entific construct in the literature, there is an extensive discussion on theeffects of direct encounters with nature and the assumed resulting emotionalbonds toward nature or cognitive interest in nature on nature-protectivebehaviors (see Göpfert, 1987; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Langeheine & Leh-mann, 1986; Maaßen, 1993a, 1993b; Seel, Sichler, & Fischerlehner, 1993).Yet, there are only a few conclusive theories or empirical research on themechanisms that account for these presumed effects.

On a theoretical level, all classical schools of thought are represented froma psychoanalytic approach that argues with the metaphor of mother earth(Gebhard, 1994) to the application of learning theories (Fietkau & Kessel,1987). Of special interest is the biophilia hypothesis that has been put forth byWilson and Kellert (e.g., Kellert, 1997) and traces back to Fromm’s ethicalconcept of biophilia (love of life or emotional commitment to life, seeEckardt, 1992). Thebiophilia hypothesis claims that humans possess a bio-logically based attraction to nature and that their well-being depends, to agreat extent, on the relationships with the surrounding natural world (Kellert,1997). As a result, humans need to affiliate with nature.

On an empirical level, the few existing data support the hypothesis thatdirect encounters with nature (e.g., playing or walking outdoors, experienc-ing nature with all five senses) can promote affinity toward nature and, subse-quently, behavior to protect its natural functioning.

• Langeheine and Lehmann (1986) have shown that such concrete experiencesof nature explain willingness and behaviors to protect nature, especially whenthe effects are reinforced by family norms to treat objects and values carefully.

• Finger (1994) demonstrated that experiences with nature are powerful predic-tors of nature-protective behaviors by showing that environmental experi-ences are even more important than environmental value orientations.

• Qualitative analyses (like content analyses of pupils’ essays) conducted byFischerlehner (1993) supplement these quantitative data and confirm thebasic assumptions of the positive effects of experiences with nature.

These comparably few theoretical discussions and empirical findings pro-vide the foundation for modern intervention programs aiming to promoteecological behavior by providing direct experiences with nature (seeBolscho, Eulefeld, Rost, & Seybold, 1990; Eulefeld, 1987).

Based on these theoretical thoughts and backed by some empirical find-ings, we assume that experiences with nature—especially when the experiencetakes place together with significant others—dispose to nature-protectivebehaviors. However, our hypothesis is that this effect is mediated or




moderated by an emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature.These emotional ties and cognitive interests should increase nature-protective behavior (Vining, 1992) and might have functions to overcome thesocial trap: Even when the state of ecology is perceived as not to be improv-able by own single acts, people might act proenvironmentally to avoid thepsychological costs of not acting in accordance to their motives.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Two questions were guiding the present investigation: (a) Does emotionalaffinity have an impact on proenvironmental activities? and (b) Is it possibleto add a bit of knowledge about its origins by taking present and past experi-ences with nature into account?

To answer these questions, a set of subquestions has to be answered inadvance.

1. How and which proenvironmental activities are to be assessed?2. Is it possible to differentiate emotional affinity toward nature and cognitive

interest in nature empirically?3. Compared to which competing or additional hypothesized predictors should

the impact of emotional affinity toward nature be tested? (We have chosen in-dignation about insufficient protection of nature and interest in nature for thepurposeof testing thespecificcontributionofemotionalaffinity towardnature.)

4. How can emotional affinity toward nature and all other constructs be opera-tionalized?

These research questions are illustrated in Figure 1.

METHOD

VARIABLES ASSESSED

The first subquestion concerns the proenvironmental activities that are tobe assessed. It was decided to assess a broad variety of willingness for com-mitments and manifest behavioral decisions that serve for the protection offlora, fauna, landscapes, and natural resources, including water, soil, and air(Markl, 1989; Stipproweit, 1987). The criteria can be distinguished into pri-vate and public willingness and behavioral decisions. The criteria that are




performed privately as an individual citizen are represented by (I) the will-ingness to commit one’s self privately for the protection of nature (e.g.,installing nature-protective devices in one’s own household, such as theinstallation of water-saving devices or solar panels), and (II) personal behav-ioral decisions for the protection of nature (e.g., protecting nature during out-door stays). The public decisions and behaviors embrace (III) thewillingness to sign public petitions for promoting measures that protectnature (e.g., supporting stricter prohibitive laws for animal rights and eco-logical protection), (IV) the willingness to show public commitment aspart of a group for the protection of nature (e.g., actively campaigning forsupport of local conservation groups), and (V) behavioral decisions toprotect nature in groups (e.g.,participating in public demonstrations aimingto promote nature conservation).

The three categories of willingness (I, III, IV) focus on future behaviorand are not related to one single act or decision but to a specified category ofacts or decisions. Previous longitudinal studies have shown that the


Figure 1: Illustration of the Hypotheses



willingness criteria are valid predictors of the manifest behavioral decisions(see Montada & Kals, 1998). The transference from willingness into mani-fest behavior is, however, triggered by moderating effects of situational cir-cumstances (see Montada & Kals, 1998).

Present membership in nature conservation groups (such as Greenpeace)are taken into account as objective measures of willingness and manifestbehavior.

The second subquestion concerns the empirical differentiation of

1. emotional affinity toward nature and2. interest in nature.

To test the predictive power of emotional affinity toward nature (thirdsubquestion), it is necessary to analyze its effect on behavior against vari-ables that have already proven to be powerful predictors of behavior to pro-tect nature. Interest in nature proved to be such predictor (see Langeheine &Lehmann, 1986).

3. Indignation about insufficient nature protection by others should be anotherpowerful predictor (see Kals, 1996a).

All three predictors (1 through 3) should have direct effects on the acquisi-tion of nature-protective willingness and behaviors. For the interest andindignation variables, this assumption has been proven in many empiricalinvestigations (see Kals, 1996a, Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986; Montada &Kals, 1995; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). The empirical proof for emotionalaffinity is still missing.

Emotional affinity and interest in nature should be acquired in a structur-ally parallel manner: Both variables should be promoted by direct experi-ences with nature. Our model encompasses present as well as pastexperiences. Past experiences refer to the time between the ages of 7 and 12years to both ensure sufficient cognitive development and to avoid interfer-ence caused by reaching puberty (see Fischerlehner, 1993).

The accompaniment by others during nature stays is also taken intoaccount as additional variables (see “Emotional Affinity Toward Nature”section); considering that the “casting” of significant others should changewith varying age, slightly different variables are considered concerningchildhood and the present adult life phase.

This leads to the following variables concerning the present life phase:




4. a general measure of the frequency of present time spent in nature, enlight-ened by the additional information of

5. whether these experiences take place alone or in the meaningful company ofthe partner, family members, or friends.

Concerning the past life phase of childhood, the model embraces

6. a general measure of the frequency of past time spent in nature and7. whether the stays were spent with the meaningful company of friends and

youth groups,8. of teachers, or9. of family members.

All constructs (I through V; 1 through 9) were measured by various itemson 6-point Likert-type scales (1 =completely disagreeto 6 = completelyagree). The items contain an explicit key expression representing the specificconstruct (one item example is given for all constructs in Table 1). Positiveand negative formulations of the items were presented for guaranteeing thecontent balance of the study.

With the exception of emotional affinity toward nature, all items are basedon scales that have been previously validated (see Kals, 1996a). For the meas-urement of emotional affinity toward nature (fourth subquestion), a new scalewas developed that encompasses the following four subscales representingemotional affinity (see “Emotional Affinity Toward Nature” section): love ofnature, feelings of freedom, feelings of safety, and feelings of oneness withnature. Each subscale is represented by four items.

Behaviors to protect nature are of normative relevance; therefore, a con-trol of the influence of socially desirable answering behavior was includedvia an adapted social-desirable answering scale (Lück & Timaeus, 1969,based on the scale of Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).

An additional assessment of the sociodemographic variables (sex, age,educational level, and profession) was anonymously conducted to provide adescription of the sample as well as to check the generalizability of the resultson various subgroups. Based on these variables, the two main research ques-tions can be specified as (a) Is emotional affinity toward nature as powerfulfor the prediction of the nature-protective behavior (I through V) as interest innature and indignation about insufficient nature protection by others? Morespecifically, can the variables of experiences with nature (4 through 9)explain any behavior variance beyond emotional affinity, interest, or indigna-tion? Do the regression models of willingness (I, III, IV) versus manifest





TABLE 1Item Examples for All Constructs

Construct Item Example

Behavioral criteriaWillingness to commit one’s selfprivately (I)

I am willing to take steps in my own house-hold for the protection of natural re-sources (e.g., installation of water flowregulators, solar panels, and so forth).

Personal behavioral decisions (II) I counteract the destruction of the land-scape by my frequent use of public trans-portation instead of my own automobile.

Willingness to sign public petitions (III) I am willing to sign a petition supportingthe enactment of stricter laws for the pro-tection of animals and plants.

Willingness to show publiccommitments in groups (IV)

I am willing to recruit support in public fororganizations that fight for the protectionof natural landscapes (e.g., forests, rivers,and so forth).

Behavioral decisions in public or ingroups (V)

In my professional and private life, I oftenurge other people to create carpools or touse public transportation instead of theirown automobiles.

Emotions and interestEmotional affinity toward nature (1) If I spend time in nature today, I feel a deep

feeling of love toward nature.Interest in nature (2) Nowadays, I strive to learn a lot about na-

ture.Indignation about insufficient natureprotection (3)

I am indignant about the unnecessaryconsumption of natural resources (e.g.,ground, water, air, energy, and so forth) bymany citizens.

Experiences with natureFrequency of present time spent innature (4)

Nowadays, I spend a lot of time in nature.

Meaningful company of others duringpresent nature stays (5)

(a) Mostly, I am accompanied by my part-ner/family when I spend time in nature.(b) The accompaniment by my partner innature means very much to me.

Frequency of past time spent in nature(6)

I spent a lot of time in nature during mychildhood (age 7 to 12 years).

Meaningful company of friends andyouth groups during past nature stays(7)

(a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12years), I spent time in nature accompa-nied by my friends/youth groups.(b) The accompaniment in nature byfriends/youth groups during my childhoodmeant very much to me.



behaviors (II, V) and of private behaviors (I, II) versus public behaviors (IIIto V) differ?; and (b) To what extent can the variables of experiences withnature in the present life phase (4 and 5) and the past life phase (6 through 9)explain emotional affinity toward nature as well as interest in nature? On amore specific level, what are the relative prediction weights of present versuspast experiences and of general measures on the frequency of stays versus themeaningful accompaniment by others?

SAMPLE

A questionnaire study with 281 respondents was conducted in Germany(Schumacher, 1996). The sample was divided into 200 representatives ofthe general population who were expected to express no specific interests innature and nature protection, and the remaining 81 subjects were activemembers in various groups or organizations for nature protection (such asGreenpeace).

The total sample consisted of 152 men and 127 women (two missing val-ues) with a mean age of 33 years. An overall response rate of 70.3% wasachieved. Most of the subjects were recruited by public appeals for participa-tion and a corresponding snowball system because many subjects not onlyanswered a questionnaire themselves but also were willing to distribute addi-tional questionnaires. As a result of these rarely controllable effects of self-selective processes, an overrepresentation of higher educational levels isfound within the sample.


TABLE 1 Continued

Construct Item Example

Meaningful company of teachers dur-ing past nature stays (8)

(a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12years), I spent time in nature accompa-nied by my teachers.(b) The accompaniment in nature by myteachers during my childhood meant verymuch to me.

Meaningful company of family mem-bers during past nature stays (9)

(a) During my childhood (age 7 to 12years), I spent time in nature accompa-nied by my family.(b) The accompaniment in nature by myfamily during my childhood meant verymuch to me.



RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SCALES

All scales were subjected to principal axis factor analyses followed by anorthogonal varimax rotation. The empirical factors confirm the a prioridimensions of the scales. Concerning affinity toward nature, the items of allfour subscales were loaded on the same factor. Mean scores were measuredacross those items belonging to one factor.

An estimation of the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), two types ofsplit-half reliabilities (Guttman and Spearman Brown), and all other currentitem and factor statistics (mean value, standard deviation, loading coeffi-cients, corrected item total correlation, and so forth) were successfully con-trolled. For the willingness and behavioral decisions (I through V),Cronbach’s alpha lies between .80 and .92 and between .84 and .93 for thepredictors (1 through 9) with one outlier alpha of .74 (predictor 2).

Furthermore, the validity of the scales was successfully demonstrated bycomparison of the mean scores of the active members of conservation groupswith those of an equally sized group of nonmembers with matching age, gen-der, and educational level. It was confirmed that, in nearly all scales, theactive members scored higher than the corresponding nonmembers.

RESULTS

Both research questions were answered by conducting stepwise multipleregression analyses with the entire sample. The large proportion of activemembers within the sample (81), however, makes it necessary to verify thegeneralizability of the results with the general population. Therefore, allanalyses were also conducted within the group of active members and thematched group of nonmembers. The generalizability of the results are con-firmed for both groups. Only the explained criterion variance becomes some-what lower due to smaller response variance (standard deviation), but theprediction patterns remain stable. Besides, it could be shown that sociallydesirable answering behavior does not correlate with any of the criteria sig-nificantly on a 5% level and is also a nonsignificant predictor in all subse-quent regression equations.

PREDICTING NATURE-PROTECTIVE WILLINGNESS AND BEHAVIORAL DECISIONS

To answer the first research question on the prediction of nature-protectivewillingness and behavioral decisions, affinity toward nature (1), interest innature (2), and indignation about insufficient nature protection (3) are the




analyzed predictors. However, all variables of experiences with nature (4through 9) are also included in the predictor set to empirically test whetherthey additionally qualify. The analyses were conducted on all willingness andbehavioral decisions (I through V). All regression equations are presented inTable 2.

The prediction patterns for all criteria are very similar: In all equations,emotional affinity toward nature (1), interest in nature (2), and indignationabout insufficient nature protection (3) qualify. Together they explain up to47% of the variance of the criteria.

For willingness to commit one’s self privately for the protection ofnature (I), the accompaniment of past experiences with nature by familymembers (8) qualifies (see Table 2, upper equation). Even in this equation,however, the significance of experiences with nature is lower than the effectsof emotional affinity, interest, or indignation.

There are only two differences between the prediction of various behaviorcriteria, (a) the three categories of willingness for commitments (I, III, IV)can be better predicted than the manifest behavior (II, V). This difference isdue to the fact that the situation variables are omitted here but moderate thetransference from willingness into manifest behavior; and (b) private behav-iors (I, II) tend to be based more strongly on emotional affinity toward nature,whereas the interest variable is especially powerful for those forms of publicbehaviors that take place in groups (IV and V). This makes sense because pri-vate behaviors and emotional affinity are both hidden and difficult to bejudged by others. In contrast, public behaviors taking place in groups can eas-ily be judged socially, and interest should lead to increased knowledge thathelps to support one’s standpoint in the public.

PREDICTING EMOTIONAL AFFINITY TOWARDNATURE IN CONTRAST TO INTEREST IN NATURE

The second research question concerns the prediction of emotional affin-ity toward nature and interest in nature as its cognitive counterpart. In the pre-dictor set, all variables representing present and past experiences with nature(4 through 9) are included.

As demonstrated in Table 3, nearly 40% of the variance in emotional affin-ity toward nature traces back to four variables of experiences with nature. Themost powerful predictor is the present frequency of time spent in nature (4).Its significance is followed by past frequency of time spent in nature (6) andtwo variables of past and present accompaniment (9, 5). Of nonsignificanceis the past accompaniment by peers or teachers (7, 8).





TABLE 2Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Various Behavioral Criteria to

Emotional Affinity Toward Nature (predictor 1), Interest in Nature (predictor 2),Indignation About Insufficient Nature Protection (predictor 3), and All

Predictors Referring to Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9)

R2 B r

Predictors of willingness to commit one’s self privatelyfor the protection of nature (I)

Indignation of insufficient nature protection .33 .49** .57Emotional affinity toward nature .40 .26** .50Interest in nature .42 .23* .51Past significant accompaniment during experiences

with nature by family members .43 .14* .34(Intercept) –.63

Ftotal = 50.47**, df = 4/269

Predictors of the manifest personal behavioral decisions forthe protection of nature (II)

Emotional affinity toward nature .25 .35** .50Indignation of insufficient nature protection .33 .34** .48Interest in nature .35 .27* .50(Intercept) –.69

Ftotal = 48.24**, df = 3/271

Predictors of willingness to sign public petitions for promotingnature-protective measures (III)

Indignation of insufficient nature protection .39 .47** .63Emotional affinity toward nature .46 .23** .51Interest in nature .47 .17* .51(Intercept) 1.07

Ftotal = 79.64**, df = 3/271

Predictors of willingness to show public commitments as partof a group for the protection of nature (IV)

Interest in nature .36 .44** .60Indignation of insufficient nature protection .40 .23** .47Emotional affinity toward nature .42 .28** .55(Intercept) –.55

Ftotal = 66.51**, df = 3/271

Predictors of manifest public behavioral decisions to protectnature in groups (V)

Interest in nature .24 .35** .49Indignation of insufficient nature protection .30 .28** .44Emotional affinity toward nature .31 .23* .46(Intercept) –1.05

Ftotal = 41.05**, df = 3/273

*p < .05. **p < .01.



This reflects that the present as well as past experiences with nature aremost powerful for the acquisition of emotional affinity toward nature. Thequestion with whom these experiences take place improve the prediction ofthe emotional tie.1

In a second analysis, interest in nature is predicted by the same set of pre-dictors (see Table 4, upper equation). The prediction pattern is in full accor-dance with the first analysis of emotional affinity: The same four variables onnature experiences qualify in the same sequence and with comparable predic-tive power (43% of explained variance of the criterion).

This shows that emotional affinity toward nature and interest in nature are,to a considerable degree, both tracing back to experiences with nature withsignificant others. This is in full accordance with our hypothesis. Togetherwith the fact that the affinity and interest variables are highly correlated (r =.68), this reflects that both variables are structurally parallel emotive and cog-nitive representations of experiences with nature.

As a discriminative validation of these results, only 18% of the variance inindignation about insufficient nature protection by others can be explainedby the variables of experiences with nature (see Table 4, lower equation).This is in full accordance with our expectations because indignation shouldbe predicted by responsibility-related valuations (see “The Influence ofResponsibility-Related Appraisals” section) and not by experiences withnature. As indignation is correlated with affinity toward nature (r = .46) andwith interest in nature (r = .49), this small determination coefficient is a goodindicator of validity.

All multiple analyses are in full accordance with the bivariate correlationpatterns (see Table 5).


TABLE 3Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Emotional Affinity Toward Natureto Present and Past Direct Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9)

R2 B r

Predictors of emotional affinity toward nature (1)Present frequency of time spent in nature .26 .28** .51Past frequency of time spent in nature .36 .27** .44Past significant accompaniment during experiences with

nature by family members .38 .12** .36Present significant accompaniment during experiences with

nature by partner, family members, and friends .39 .09* .22(Intercept) 1.03

Ftotal = 42.88**, df = 4/270

*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01.



INTEGRATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Emotional affinity toward nature proved to be as important for the predic-tion of nature-protective willingness and behavioral decisions as interest innature and indignation about insufficient nature protection. Three reasonsspeak for the importance of this finding. First, all three mediators are highlyintercorrelated but can nevertheless explain different parts of the criterionvariance. Second, experiences with nature have only few direct effects onwillingness and behavioral decisions, but explain about 50% of the varianceof emotional affinity and interest. Third, the few differences in the predictionpattern of various criterion variables are easy to interpret (see “PredictingNature-Protective Willingness” section).2

The main predictive findings can be integrated into a path diagram. Thiswas done for the manifest personal behavioral decisions for the protection ofnature (see Figure 2). Altogether, Figure 2 summarizes the clear predictivepower of emotional affinity toward nature in addition to the constructs ofinterest in nature and responsibility-related indignation about insufficientnature protection. Emotional affinity and interest are equally based on


TABLE 4Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of Interest in Nature and

Indignation About Insufficient Nature Protection to Present and PastDirect Experiences With Nature (predictors 4 through 9)

R2 B r

Predictors of interest in nature (2)Present frequency of time spent in nature .35 .37** .59Past frequency of time spent in nature .39 .17** .37Past significant accompaniment during experiences

with nature by family members .42 .12** .36Present significant accompaniment during experiences

with nature by partner, family members, and friends .43 .11* .23(Intercept) .93

Ftotal = 50.52**, df = 4/270

Predictors of indignation about insufficient nature protection (3)Present frequency of time spent in nature .13 .26** .36Present significant accompaniment during experiences

with nature by partner, family members, and friends .16 .14* .21Past significant accompaniment during experiences with

nature by family members .18 .13* .26(Intercept) 2.29

Ftotal = 19.73**, df = 3/271

*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01.



195

TABLE 5Zero-Order Correlations Between Emotional Affinity Toward Nature and Present and Past Direct Experiences With Nature

Present Present PastFrequency Accompaniment Frequency of Past Past Past

of Time Spent by Partner, Time Spent Accompaniment Accompaniment Accompanimentin Nature Family, Friends in Nature by Family by Peers by Teachers

Emotional affinitytoward nature .51** .22** .44** .36** .13* .14*

Interest in nature .59** .23** .37** .36** .10 .15*Indignation about insufficient

nature protection .36** .21** .18** .26** .15* .14*

*.01 < p < .05. **p < .01.

©

1999 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. by B

ogdan Horbaniuc on N

ovember 8, 2007

http://eab.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


present as well as past experiences with nature, especially when past stayswere conducted with family members and present stays with comparableclose social companions. Whether past stays took place with teachers orpeers makes no difference. This makes sense if one considers the importantrole of the family for socializational effects at the time before puberty3 andthe lower occurrence of quality of nature oriented school courses in the past.

Before conclusions are drawn from this model, the validity of the datashould be questioned as (a) only a cross-sectional survey was conductedinstead of a longitudinal study, (b) all data are based on self-reports, and (c)the sample is in some respects not representative for the general population.These objections cannot be completely refuted but they can be limited: (a) Nolongitudinal data could be offered and experiences with nature with respect tochildhood were retrospectively measured. As a consequence, the amount oftime spent in nature might have been overestimated due to romantic distor-tions (see Fischerlehner, 1993). Besides, other causal relationships are possi-ble. Two examples are that positive emotions toward nature might causepeople to recall more time that they spent in childhood as a child, and emo-tional affinity toward nature and interest in nature might cause people tospend more time in nature. These arguments should be integrated in Figure 2


Figure 2: Integrative Model of Emotional Affinity Toward Nature and Nature-Protective Behavior (with unstandardized regression weights).

NOTE: Indignation is predicted by responsibility-related cognitions (e.g., attribution of ecologi-cal responsibility).



by including feedback effects from emotional affinity and interest in nature tothe time spent in nature. However, a complete reverse of the causal relation-ship of the model in Figure 1 is very unlikely. On a theoretical level, it is notexperiences with nature themselves but rather their psychological represen-tation that should have effects. Besides, at least for children during the ages of7 to 12 years, it is more likely that nature experiences trigger their emotionsthan vice versa because children in this age group should mainly spend timein nature as a result of someone else’s choices rather than their own. On anempirical level, the findings are in line with other investigations (see Hamid& Cheng, 1995), and the data do not match alternative models. Indignation,for example, can not be very well predicted by experiences with nature (seeTable 2). The same is true when a prediction of experiences with nature byemotional affinity or interest is attempted. Nevertheless, the full modelshould be tested by a longitudinal design that allows causal conclusions. (b)Although the data are based on self-reports, three findings speak for theirvalidity. First, there are significant differences in the behavioral criteriabetween members of criterion groups and a matched group of nonmembers.Second, qualitative analyses of answers and remarks made in the question-naire were in full correspondence with the quantitative data, and third, noeffects of social desirable answering behavior were found.4 Nonetheless,additional ratings from people who know the subject well should be includedin future research. (c) All analyses were successfully replicated without themembers of the criterion groups to exclude stabilizing effects by theirhighly consistent and extreme answers. Nevertheless, the generalizabilityof the results should be cross-validated by a larger sample with a lower edu-cational level.

CONCLUSION

This article focuses on the role of emotions and more specifically, on emo-tional affinity toward nature for explaining nature-protective behavior. As anoverall result, the power of emotional affinity toward nature to explainnature-protective behavior is confirmed. This result together with others leadto the following theoretical conclusions: All main predictors (emotionalaffinity, interest, indignation, and experiences with nature) that were consid-ered within this article should be considered in models for explaining behav-iors to protect nature. Many models already take responsibility attributionsand interest variables into account (see Fuhrer, 1995; Kals, 1996a; Lange-heine & Lehmann, 1986) but should, however, be expanded byresponsibility-related emotions such as indignation about insufficient nature




protection and, most important, by the new emotional construct of affinitytoward nature.

For interventional purposes, the results lead to the formulation of two sup-plementary intervention aims. On one hand, a discourse on ecologicalresponsibility and moral ethics should take place (see Gigliotti, 1990), and onthe other hand, direct experiences with nature with all five senses should beoffered to promote emotional affinity toward and interest in nature.

In a few modern approaches this combination of transmitting experienceswith nature in addition to responsibility-related aims has been promoted (seeKaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). The majority of educa-tional programs, however, either promote discussions on ecological ethicsand norms or transmit mere experiences with nature (see Kruse & Schwarz,1988). The latter approach is especially common, and the hypothesis isupheld that the provision of concrete experiences with nature is an effectivestrategy to promote ecologically conscious attitudes and decisions, althoughit has a fairly weak empirical base (see Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The presentdata explain, in line with the biophilia hypothesis, the underlying mechanismby emotional affinity toward nature and cognitive interest in nature as themoderating variable.

Emotional affinity toward nature should become stronger the more con-crete and specific nature contacts are (Göpfert, 1987; Maaßen, 1993a, 1993b;Seel, Sichler, & Fischerlehner, 1993). Therefore, even in environmental edu-cational programs for adults, it should be of help to integrate these contacts,preferably those that are shared with significant others.

For programs with younger pupils, it seems to be important that experi-ences with nature are educationally integrated (see Margadant-van Arcken,1989). The youngsters should be accompanied by significant others (mainlyfamily members) who take the role of transmitting nature values and enjoy-ment (see Langeheine & Lehmann, 1986). This increases the possibility thatlater in life the personal tradition to seek contact with nature is continued,thus establishing the significant emotional affinity toward nature and a cogni-tive interest in it. Long-term evaluation of these programs (De Young, 1993)have to demonstrate how sensible these target aims are for establishingbehaviors for the protection of nature.

NOTES

1. The possibility of alternative directions of causation is not overlooked but is discussed inthe Results and Discussion section.




2. As a presumption of these results, emotional affinity toward nature as a very private emo-tion could be reliably assessed in the same way as cognitive attitudes by anonymous quantitativemeasurement instruments.

3. This is the case in Germany where pupils attend school for only half a day, thus spendingmore time with the family than do students in the United States.

4. This insignificance was achieved by careful avoidance of social desirable answeringbehavior (e.g., guaranteeing anonymity, appealing directly to the subjects’ honesty).

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behav-ioral intentions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 1-9.

Amelang, M., Tepe, K., Vagt, G., & Wendt, W. (1977). Mitteilung über einige schritte derentwicklung einer skala zum umweltbewußtsein [Report of some steps in the developmentof a scale of environmental awareness].Diagnostica, 23, 86-88.

Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residentialenergy use.Environment and Behavior, 13, 590-609.

Bolscho, D., Eulefeld, G., Rost, J., & Seybold, H. (1990). Environmental education in practice inthe Federal Republic of Germany: An empirical study.International Journal of Science Edu-cation, 12, 133-146.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psycho-pathology.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

De Young, R. (1993). Changing behavior and making it stick.Environment and Behavior, 25,485-505.

Eckardt, M. H. (1992). Fromm’s concept of biophilia.Journal of the American Academy of Psy-choanalysis, 20(2), 233-240.

Eulefeld, G. (1987). Umweltzentren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Environmental centersin the Federal Republic of Germany]. In J. Calließ & R. E. Lob (Eds.),Handbuch praxis derumwelt- und friedenserziehung[Handbook of practical education for a natural environmentand peace] (pp. 636-644). Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

Fietkau, H.-J., & Kessel, H. (1987). Umweltlernen [Environmental learning]. In J. Calließ &R. E. Lob (Eds.),Handbuch praxis der umwelt- und friedenserziehung(pp. 311-315).Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environ-mental experiences, learning, and behavior.Journal of Social Issues, 50, 141-160.

Fischerlehner, B. (1993). “Die natur ist für die tiere ein lebensraum, und für uns kinder ist es soeine art spielplatz.” Über die bedeutung von naturerleben für das 9-13 jährige Kind [“Natureis a home for animals and for us children a type of playground.” About the meaning of experi-ences with nature for the 9 to 13 year old]. In H.-J. Seel, R. Sichler, & B. Fischerlehner (Eds.),Mensch—Natur[Men-nature] (pp. 148-163). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency.Cognition and Emotion,1, 115-143.

Fuhrer, U. (1995). Sozialpsychologisch fundierter theorierahmen für eine umweltbewußt seins-forschung [Social psychologically based theory for environmental awareness research].Psychologische Rundschau, 46, 93-103.

Gebhard, U. (1994).Kind und natur[Child and nature]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.




Gigliotti, L. M. (1990). Environmental education: What went wrong? What can be done?Jour-nal of Environmental Education, 22, 9-12.

Göpfert, H. (1987). Zur grundlegung einer naturbezogenen pädagogik [Foundations of nature-related education]. In J. Calließ & R. E. Lob (Eds.),Handbuch praxis der umwelt- und frie-denserziehung[Handbook of practical education for a natural environment and peace](pp. 21-31). Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S.-T. (1995). Predicting antipollution behavior.Environment and Behav-ior, 27, 679-698.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.Science, 162, 1243-1248.Heberlein, T. A. (1981). Environmental attitudes.Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 4, 241-270.Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behav-

ioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program.Environment andBehavior, 23, 195-220.

Hummel, C. F., Levit, L., & Loomis, R. J. (1978). Perceptions of energy crisis. Who is blamedand how do citizens react to environment-lifestyle tradeoffs?Environment and Behavior,10,37-88.

Kals, E. (1996a).Verantwortliches umweltverhalten[Responsible environmental behavior].Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Kals, E. (1996b). Are proenvironmental commitments motivated by health concerns or by per-ceived justice? In L. Montada & M. Lerner (Eds.),Current societal concerns about justice(pp. 231-258). New York: Plenum.

Kals, E. (1996c). Motieven voor preventief en riskant gezondheidsgedrag ten aanzien vankanker [Motives of cancer preventive and health risk behaviors].Gedrag & Gezondheid, 24,384-391.

Kals, E. (1998). Übernahme von verantwortung für den schutz von umwelt und gesundheit[Acceptance of responsibility for the protection of natural environment and health]. In E.Kals (Ed.), Umwelt und gesundheit: Verknüpfung ökologischer und gesundheitlicheransätze[Environment and health: Connecting environmental and health-relatedapproaches] (pp. 101-118). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Kals, E., & Montada, L. (1994). Umweltschutz und die verantwortung der bürger [Pollution con-trol and the responsibility of the citizen].Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 326-337.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (in press). Naturerfahrungen, Verbundenheit mit dernatur und ökologische verantwortung als determinanten naturschützenden verhaltens[Experiences with nature, emotional ties to nature, and ecological responsibility as determi-nants of nature protective behavior].

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989).The experience of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Kellert, S. R. (1997).Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Wash-ington: Island Press.

Kruse, L., & Schwarz, V. (1988).Environment and behavior. Part II. An international and multi-disciplinary bibliography. 1982-1987.München: Saur.

Langeheine, R., & Lehmann, J. (1986).Die bedeutung der erziehung für das umweltbewußtsein[The importance of education for ecological awareness]. Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik derNaturwissenschaften (IPN).

Lück, H. E., & Timaeus, E. (1969). Skalen zur messung manifester angst (MAS) und sozialerwünschbarkeit (SDS-E und SDS-CM) [Scales for the measurement of manifest fear (MAS)and social desirability (SDS-E and SDS-CM)].Diagnostica, 15, 134-141.




Lynne, G. E., & Rola, L. R. (1988). Improving attitude-behavior prediction models with eco-nomic variables: Farmer actions toward soil conservation.Journal of Social Psychology,128, 19-28.

Lyons, E., & Breakwell, G. M. (1994). Factors predicting environmental concern and indiffer-ence in 13- to 16-year-olds.Environment and Behavior, 26, 223-238.

Maaßen, B. (1993a). Naturerleben mit Kindern und Jugendlichen [Experiences with nature withchildren and teenagers]. In H. G. Homfeldt (Ed.),Erlebnispädagogik[Experience peda-logics] (pp. 181-189). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.

Maaßen, B. (1993b).Beiträge zur theorie des naturerlebens als pädagogische antwort auf dieökologische Krise[Contributions to the theory of nature experience as an educationalresponse to the ecological crisis]. Ph.D. dissertation, Flensburg, Pädagogische Hochschule.

Margadant-van Arcken, M. (1989). Environmental education, children, and animals.Anthro-zoös, 3, 14-19.

Markl, H. (1989). Die ökologische wirklichkeit [Ecological reality]. In R. Wildenmann (Ed.),Stadt, kultur, natur: Chancen zukünftiger lebensgestaltung[City, culture, nature: Chancesfor future life organization] (pp. 72-89). Baden Baden: Nomos.

Montada, L. (1989). Bildung der gefühle [On the formation of emotions].Zeitschrift für Päda-gogik, 35(3), 293-312.

Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmentalcommitments.Social Justice Research, 8, 305-327.

Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1998).A theory of continued responsible commitment: Research exam-ples from the fields of pollution control and health protection. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Pawlik, K. (1991). The psychology of global environmental change: Some basic data and anagenda for cooperative international research.International Journal of Psychology, 26, 547-563.

Platt, J. (1973). Social traps.American Psychologist, 28, 641-651.Roseman, J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotions. A structured theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.),

Review of personality and social psychology. Emotions, relationship, and health(pp. 11-36).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern.Environment andBehavior, 22, 767-786.

Schumacher, D. (1996).Bindungen an die natur und ökologische verantwortung als motiveumweltrelevanten verhaltens[Ties with nature and ecological responsibility as motives ofenvironmentally relevant behavior]. Diplomarbeit Trier: Universität Trier, FachbereichI—Psychologie.

Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1980). Explanations of the moderating effect of responsibilitydenial on the personal norm-behavior relationship.Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 441-446.

Seel, H.-J., Sichler, R., & Fischerlehner, B. (Eds.). (1993).Mensch—Natur[Man—nature].Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Silbereisen, R. K., Eyferth, K., & Rudinger, G. (Eds.). (1986).Development as action in context.Problem behavior and normal youth development. Berlin: Springer.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental con-cern.Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.




Stern, P. C., & Gardener, G. T. (1981). The place of behavior change in the management of envi-ronmental problems.Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 2, 213-239.

Stipproweit, A. (1987). Naturschutzbewegung und staatlicher naturschutz in Deutschland—einhistorischer abriß [Nature protection movement and national nature protection in Ger-many—a historical outline]. In J. Calließ & R. E. Lob (Eds.),Handbuch praxis der umwelt-und friedenserziehung[Handbook of practical education for a natural environment andpeace] (pp. 29-41). Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An applica-tion of Schwartz’norm-activation model of yard burning.Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 8, 181-197.

Vining, J. (1992). Environmental emotions and decisions.Environment and Behavior,24, 3-34.




Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature

Documents

Transcript of Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature