Indigenous Nature Connection: A 3-Week Intervention Increased Ecological Attachment

Many studies in environmental psychology have emphasized a longstanding worldview of the last centuries, that humans are actors and that nature is largely inert (Merchant, 1983). Such studies aim to increase conservation behaviors such as recycling or water conservation by increasing knowledge about effects and thereby hoping to change attitudes and behavior. But merely learning how to reduce consumption does not necessarily lead to increases in corresponding behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; see Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005, for a review). Nor does a positive attitude toward energy conservation consistently lead to behavior change (Costanzo, Archer, Aronson, & Pettigrew, 1986; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In effect, many attempts at inciting behavior change have not been successful (Ro, Brauer, Kuntz, Shukla, & Bensch, 2017).

Amel, Manning, Scott, and Koger (2017) note that at the root of the current ecological crisis is the fact that individuals view themselves as separate from the natural world, a view initiated by the Cartesian revolution (Moore, 2015; Worster, 1994). The human relationship with the environment evolved over the last centuries to become increasingly one sided. The one-sided relationship grew to be devoid of much emotion, as plants and animals were seen as mere objects in nature (“resources”) without purposes of their own. Industrialized societies developed a practical reliance on the environment, taking and using resources, typically without much regard for nature's well-being, despite warnings by observers for the past couple of centuries (e.g., Wulf, 2015). More recently, the lines between humans and nature may have become less stark as interest in a green economy—an economy that is sustainable and reduces environmental risks and degradation—has increased (Bernstein, Szuster, & Phillips, 2017).

Despite these moves, attitudes and behavior have not shifted enough or perhaps in the way needed. Berry (2013) noted that while an intellectual approach to the environmental crisis can be helpful, over decades it has not changed fundamental practices. What is needed instead is “informed, practical, and practiced affection” for humanity to be able to break out of its current state of ecological crisis, revitalize, and maintain a sustainable lifestyle (Berry, 2013, p. 14, italics added). It is essential, he argues, that people sense their well-being is intertwined with the well-being of the planet as a whole. Simply raising awareness of the crisis at hand, or even understanding it, does not address the rupture in the relationship between humans and the more than human. Indeed, some researchers propose that an “ecological self”—a self-identity that feels “continuous” with nature, holding a sense of connectedness and oneness between the self and the larger natural world—is key to environmental action because it shapes both values and action (Naess, 1985; see also Bragg, 1996; Kidner, 2001). With this in mind, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer & Frantz, 2004) was developed to measure an individual's emotional and affective relationship with the natural world and to lifestyle patterns and ecological behavior. Testing the CNS, Mayer and colleagues (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009) compared three conditions: watching videos of natural and urban settings, walking through urban settings, or walking through natural settings. The immersion studies demonstrated that experience with and engagement in the natural world were associated with an increase in attentiveness, positivity, and CNS scores. Direct contact, moreover, was more impactful than indirect, virtual experience.

What mechanism lies behind the increase in connectedness to nature? Some posit that empathy for the natural world is an important mechanism that can help strengthen a positive relationship between the self and nature. For example, when participants were shown photographs and asked to take the perspective of animals shown being harmed by environmental conditions, the participants experienced an increase in biospheric concern, or concern for all living things (Schultz, 2000), an effect assumed to be due to an increase in empathy (Sevillano, Aragones, & Schultz, 2006). Adopting an ecological-self perspective, meaning that the view of the self is integrated with the natural world, is associated with increases in ecological behavior in that participants who increased in empathy for the biosphere tended to increase in willingness to allocate money to wild species conservation and environmental education (Berenguer, 2007). Such studies suggest that an ecological-self perspective requires adjustments in cognition, emotion, and motivation that result in increased empathy and connection to nature, thereby shifting values toward environmental concern (Bragg, 1996).

Humanity as a species has spent most of its existence moving with instead of against nature, feeling integrated with the local landscape and responding cooperatively to its rhythms (Descola, 2013), corresponding with an Indigenous worldview (Four Arrows & Narvaez, 2016; Redfield, 1953). Daily practices of attending to the well-being of the more than human characterize First Nation communities. The individual understands himself or herself as integrated into, instead of feeling apart from, the natural world (Narvaez, Four Arrows, Halton, Collier, & Enderle, 2019). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) represents wisdom gained from thousands of years of observational and immersed human experience, which some have suggested is a perspective required for sustainable development (Berkes, Folke, & Gadgil, 1995). Similarly, scholars have pointed out the parallels between the Indigenous worldview and the “deep ecology” movement, which reaches beyond the surface level “symptoms” of the ecological crises, to focus on underlying value systems and worldviews which can be engaged via social change in political, educational, spiritual practices (Booth, 2000; Bragg, 1996; Naess, 1973). As noted by Nadasdy (2005), First Nation communities commonly display a deep reverence for nature and a belief in the oneness of humans and nature, though not the ecocentrism of deep ecology. Amel and colleagues (2017) suggested that a return to Indigenous perspectives is critical to revitalize the relationship between humanity and the rest of the biosphere. Some have already begun this work by embedding Indigenous teachings in sustainability pedagogy (Burns, 2015) and examining the role of TEK in adapting to climate change in the Canadian Arctic, because of Indigenous knowledge of coping with environmental change (Pearce, Ford, Willox, & Smit, 2015). The current studies attempted to examine and promote this kind of Indigenous perspective toward the natural world—a perspective that is both mindful of and empathic with more-than-human entities as part of one's relational community.

Existing measures of environmental attitudes tend to emphasize connection with nature generally and awareness of ecological problems (e.g., CNS, New Ecological Paradigm [NEP]). However, NEP, a measure of proecological worldview, may be outdated because environmental problems and our understanding of them have shifted (LaLonde & Jackson, 2002). In some ways, public perception regarding the opposition between humans and nature has shifted with an incorporation of proenvironmental values with economic and technological advancements (Bernstein et al., 2017). Even so, not all viewpoints have been captured in existing measures.

One area that is not addressed in current measures, specifically NEP and CNS, is an Indigenous orientation to the natural world—treating entities in nature as sentient and members of one's community. In response to this gap, we created and tested items based on the reading of multiple Indigenous sources (e.g., Cajete, 2000; Cooper, 1998; Deloria, 2006; Four Arrows, 2016; WindEagle & RainbowHawk, 2003). Although the CNS measures feelings of connection toward the natural world, we wanted to test items reflecting relational concern (ecological empathy). Rather than focusing on awareness of the state of ecology as NEP tests, a new set of items (ecological mindfulness) focused on intentional awareness and action toward natural entities.

After several pilots, we selected two sets of items to further analyze. One set reflected feelings of empathy and concern for the more than human (e.g., an animal, a tree), which was mixed with items about other concerns a person might have. The second set included intentional behavior toward entities in the natural world (e.g., making decisions with humility as one of many earth creatures) along with other influences on one's decisions. The aim of the pilot study was to employ exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to establish coherent sets of items. Methodology for all following studies was approved by the institutional review board.

The goal of Study 1 was to finalize the two new scales, ecological empathy and ecological mindfulness, with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Then, using correlation, we assessed convergent validity with existing measures of nature connectedness, divergent validity with existing measures of empathy and perspective taking, and concurrent validity with the green action index. We wanted to assess how ecological empathy and ecological mindfulness would relate to green behavior, and whether existing measures of ecological connectedness would relate to our green behavior indices. We also predicted that ecological empathy and ecological mindfulness would be modestly related to but also distinctive from sociomoral variables, specifically empathy and perspective taking, based on previous research (Schultz, 2000; Sevillano et al., 2006). We expected personal distress to be negatively correlated with measures of nature connection and ecological attachment.

Amel and colleagues (2017) suggested the goal of behavior studies should be to methodically empower individuals to change their behavior, which requires not only education but also effective tools and courage for behavior change. The aim of Study 2 was to test whether we could alter Indigenous ecological attachment (ecological mindfulness and ecological empathy) with a behavioral intervention to help participants reconnect to the natural world. As Amel et al. (2017) pointed out, there are initial difficulties in adopting sustainable behavior, so we followed the behavior change model suggested by Heath and Heath (2010), where one must take a three-pronged approach: First, “direct the rider”—alert the intellect or explicit mind that the behavior change is needed. Second, “motivate the elephant”—move the implicit mind through habits, emotions, and intuitions. Third, “shape the path” with specific steps to be taken. Unlike the design implemented by Mayer and colleagues (2009), whose conditions involved one-time immersion experiences, our study used daily exposure over 3 weeks. We aimed to facilitate a mindset shift with the daily practices adopted by participants. Specific interventions (sustainable groceries) have been effective at changing very specific behaviors (Hanss & Bohm, 2013). We thought that specific actions selected by participants might influence not only their daily behavior but their attitudes. We assigned two conditions and measured effects on ecological empathy and mindfulness. We hypothesized that the Indigenous ecological attachment condition would increase ecological empathy scores, that the conservation condition would increase green action scores, and that both groups would increase ecological mindfulness scores. Because others have found that immersion in nature has restorative effects (Cooper Marcus & Barnes, 1999), we hypothesized that stress would decrease only for those in the ecological attachment condition.

We created several measures to investigate ecological orientations. After testing and validating ecological empathy and ecological mindfulness measures, representative of an Indigenous ecological orientation, we conducted an intervention study to examine the effects of daily behavior practice on attitudes and behaviors. We attempted to increase orientations to ecological issues by having participants practice actions on a daily basis. In the intervention study, we followed Heath and Heath's (2010) program for behavior change. (a) Direct the rider: We did this with the readings at the first session. (b) Motivate the elephant: We did this with extra-credit incentives. (c) Third, we “shaped the path” by providing a specific daily task over 3 weeks. One thing we did not provide was an explicit goal to be aimed for, which is the typical approach in intervention research. Instead, we were more focused on shifting implicit systems of habits and preferences (the “elephant”). We review the findings.

An Indigenous worldview is characteristic of sustainable societies around the world, some in existence for millennia or even tens of millennia (Lawlor, 1991; Suzman, 2017). It may be that in order to reverse the ecological catastrophes underway, humanity must return to the Indigenous worldview (Narvaez et al., 2019). The current studies suggest that acting with intentional awareness of ecological entities over the course of several weeks may aid in a return to the Indigenous worldview.

Of course, increasing ecological attachment and mindfulness are not sufficient to change the larger system that contributes to environmental destruction. As Amel and colleagues (2017) point out, internal factors such as emotion, beliefs, and attitudes interact with contextual issues such as politics and social policy. Many environmentally destructive activities occur at the institutional and corporate levels (e.g., 90 businesses generate 63% of global greenhouse emissions; Heede, 2014). While many interventions aim to shift values and emotion, powerful components of individual behavior, larger situational and contextual factors like the “social milieu” and surrounding infrastructure can remain unchanged by these internally focused behavior-change campaigns. Due to the intensity of the environmental crisis, broader implementation strategies are needed, such as community-based social marketing and storytelling that emphasize connection rather than separation and control. Exactly how individual components such as those examined here can impact the political and legal levels of a society needs investigation.

This work was supported by the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame.