8/12/2019 Do Humans Belong With Nature the Influence of Personal vs. Abstract Contexts on HumanNature Categorization

1/5

Do humans belong with nature? The inuence of personal vs. abstract contextson humanenature categorization at different stages of development

Wallis E. Levin, Sara J. Unsworth*

San Diego State University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Available online 10 September 2012

Keywords:

Humanenature categorization

Children

Stages of development

Priming

Folkbiology

a b s t r a c t

Previous research examining the inuence of context (e.g., using a more subjective vs. objective frame of

reference) on thinking about humans and the rest of nature has focused on shared biological properties

and environmental attitudes (Gutheil, Vera, & Keil, 1998; Schultz, 2000). More research is needed to

examine the inuence of context on humanenature categorization more directly, especially given other

research showing that perceived self-nature overlap predicts pro-environmental behaviors. The goal of

the present research was to investigate whether there are differences in categorizing pictures of humans

and other nature items as belonging together depending on whether children and adults are rst primed

to think about personal experiences in nature (i.e., a personal frame of reference condition), or abstract

knowledge of nature (i.e., an abstract frame of reference condition). The results showed that 5- to 8-year-

old children are more likely to categorize humans as belonging with nature when thinking about nature

from a personal frame of reference compared to an abstract frame of reference, and that the reverse is

true for adults. The 9- to 12-year-old children did not exhibit differences in humanenature categoriza-

tion across conditions. Overall, there was no main effect of age in categorizing humans as belonging with

nature when collapsing across priming conditions. Possible explanations and implications of develop-

mental shifts in associations between concepts of self, human, and nature are discussed.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In early research examining childrens intuitive concepts of the

biological world (i.e., folkbiological thought), Carey (1985) found

that young children reason differently about humans and other

animals until about 10 years of age, andJohnson, Mervis, and Boster

(1992)obtained evidence suggesting that children are unlikely to

learn about similarities between humans and other animals until

well after 10 years of age. Subsequent research has shown that for

young children, perceived overlap between humans and the rest of

nature varies depending on language (Anggoro, Waxman, & Medin,

2008), cultural worldview (Herrmann, Waxman, & Medin, 2010;Unsworth et al., 2012), andthe amountof direct experience children

have with nature (Inagaki & Hatano, 2002; Medin, Waxman,

Woodring, & Washinawatok, 2010; Ross, Medin, Coley, & Atran,

2003). These ndings provide evidence for exibility in the devel-

opment of folkbiological concepts, and morespecically, in concepts

of humans vs. the rest of nature. There is also evidence suggesting

that folkbiological reasoning varies within children and adults when

either subjective (i.e., more empathetic) or objective (i.e., more

detached or scientic) views of nature are primed (Gutheil, Vera, &

Keil, 1998; Schultz, 2000). These studies have focused on induc-

tions about shared biological properties (i.e., category-based

induction) and environmental attitudes, and very little research

has examined developmental differences in humanenature cate-

gorization (i.e., concepts of humansplace in nature) more directly

when more subjective or objective frameworks are primed. In the

present research, we examined whether there are different devel-

opmentaltrends forcategorizing humansas belongingwith therest

of nature depending on whether personal or abstract frames of

reference for reasoning about nature are primed. These ndings canhelp us to better understand developmental trajectories for

conceptsof the relationshipbetween self,human, and nature, which

is important in light of research ndings showing that people who

perceive greater overlap between themselves and nature are more

likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Davis, Green, &

Reed, 2009;Schultz, 2001).

1.1. Previous research

InCareys (1985)research, she used a category-based induction

task and found that young children (5- to 7-years old) were more

* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University,

5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-4611, USA. Tel.: 1 619 594 1327; fax: 1

619 594 1332.

E-mail address:unsworth@sciences.sdsu.edu(S.J. Unsworth).

Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m/ l o c a t e / j e p

0272-4944/$e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001

Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 9e13

mailto:unsworth@sciences.sdsu.eduhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02724944http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jephttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.001http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jephttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02724944mailto:unsworth@sciences.sdsu.edu

8/12/2019 Do Humans Belong With Nature the Influence of Personal vs. Abstract Contexts on HumanNature Categorization

2/5

likely to think that non-human animals possess a biological prop-

erty after rst learning that a human possesses the property than

they were to think that a human possesses the property after rst

learning that a non-human animal possesses the property. She

arguedthat children reason about humans and animals in distinctly

different ways, and that qualitative changes in conceptual organi-

zation must take place before children can view humans as one

kind of animal. She found that 10-year-old children did not exhibit

humaneanimal asymmetries in the category-based induction task,

suggesting that this conceptual change occurs near or around age

10. In support of Careys ideas, Johnson et al. (1992) found that

adults were more likely than 7- and 10-year-old children to

conceptualize humans and non-human primates as the same kind

of thing. According to Johnson et al., this nding ts with Careys

proposal regarding developmental changes in conceptual organi-

zation of biological knowledge.

Other researchers, however, have shown that several factors,

including nature experience, can inuence young childrens views

of humans vs. other animals (Inagaki & Hatano, 2002;Medin et al.,

2010; Tarlowski, 2006). For instance, Inagaki and Hatano found that

young children who were raising goldsh were less anthropocen-

tric than children who were not raising goldsh. Similarly, Medin

et al. compared the category-based inductions of urban and ruralchildren and found that rural children, who have greater experi-

ence with a wider array of animals, were less likely to exhibit

anthropocentric patterns of responses (see also Herrmann et al.,

2010).

Previous research has shown that language and culture also play

an important role in the organization of folkbiological knowledge

for both children and adults (Anggoro et al., 2008;Astuti, Solomon,

& Carey, 2004; Atran, Medin, & Ross, 2005;Au et al., 2008;Bang,

Medin, & Atran, 2007; Cimpian & Markman, 2009; Evans, 2001;

Hatano & Inagaki, 1994; Hay, 1998; Inagaki & Hatano, 2002;

Kelemen, 1999;Kellert, 1993;Legare & Gelman, 2008;Lpez, Atran,

Coley, Medin, & Smith, 1997;Medin, Unsworth, & Hirschfeld, 2007;

Medin et al., 2010; Proftt, Coley, & Medin,2000; Rhodes& Gelman,

2009; Ross et al., 2003; Walker, 1992,1999; Waxman, Medin, &Ross, 2007;Wolff, Medin, & Pankratz, 1999). Evidence for cultural

variation in concepts of humans vs. the rest of nature more

specically comes from research showing cultural differences in

subjective proximity or psychological closenessto nature. Specif-

ically, Bang et al. (2007) found that Menominee Native American

adults are more likely than rural European American adults to

describe personal relationships with plants and animals (e.g., ways

in which species are personally utilized for food and medicine) and

to report that they want their children to understand that they are

a part of nature. Unsworth et al. (2012) observed similar cultural

differences in Menominee and European American children as

young as 5 years of age, suggesting that cultural orientations

toward nature can be learned early in development.

In research examining the relationship between language andfolkbiological thought, Anggoro et al. (2008) found differences in

humaneanimal categorization across English-speaking children in

the US and Indonesian-speaking children in Indonesia. Anggoro

et al. noted that the label used for non-human animals among

Indonesian speakers typically excludes humans, but that the

English word animal is polysemous and can either include or

exclude humans, depending on the context. To conrm these

linguistic differences, Anggoro et al. presented 6- and 9-year-old

childrenwith a picture of a human and asked Couldyou call this an

animal? (Mungkinkah ini hewan? in Indonesian). While 25%

of English-speaking children responded that a human could be

called an animal, only 3% of Indonesian-speaking children gave

such a response. To examine differences in English- and

Indonesian-speaking children

s concepts of humans vs. the rest of

nature, they presented 6- and 9-year-old children with pictures of

a human and of non-human animals and asked children to put

pictures into piles according to what belongs together. Consistent

with differences in naming practices, 36% of English-speaking

children grouped a human with a non-humananimal, whereas only

5% of Indonesian-speaking children grouped a human with a non-

human animal.

Importantly, previous research has shown that concepts of

humans and nature do not only vary between individuals, but also

within individuals across contexts. For instance, Gutheil et al.

(1998) found that 4-year-old children who learn that a human

possesses a biological property are more likely to generalize the

property to other animals when the property is framed within

a biological context (e.g., has a heart that pumps blood around his

body) than when the property is framed within a psychological

context (e.g., has a heart that pounds when he is happy and

excited). Schultz (2000)presented images of animals being harmed

in nature and found that adults who were instructed to take the

perspective of the animals (i.e., a more subjective view) were more

likely than adults who were instructed to concentrate on the

images objectively to report environmental concern for all living

things.Together, these ndings show that both adults and children

possess multiple frameworks for reasoning about nature, and thatit is possible to prime these different frameworks. However, neither

of these studies examined humanenature categorization directly.

Investigating developmental differences in humanenature

categorization across contexts that prime more personal vs.

abstract frames of reference for reasoning about humanenature

associations could have implications for our understanding of

pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, given previous

research showing that people who perceive greater overlap

between themselves and nature are more likely to engage in pro-

environmental behavior (Davis et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001).

Although we did not measure pro-environmental attitudes or

behaviors in the present research, results from this study can

increase our understanding of concepts of self, human, and nature

by investigating developmental trends for these concepts whenthinking about personal relations with nature vs. abstract views of

nature. Our goal was to investigate developmental differences in

the relationship between personal associations with nature and

concepts of humanenature associations more generally. Are people

more or less likely to think that humans belong with nature after

rst thinking about personal associations with nature, and what is

the developmental trajectory for these tendencies?

1.2. The present research

The present research included 5- to 8-year-old children, 9- to

12-year-old children, and adults. Participants were randomly

assigned to one of two priming conditions. In a condition priming

personal frames of reference for reasoning about nature, partici-pants were asked to talk about personal experiences involving

nature (i.e., a personal experience with birds). In a condition

priming a more abstract frame of reference for reasoning about

nature, participants were asked to talk about everything they know

about some aspect of nature (i.e., everything they know about

birds) and were not explicitly encouraged to talk about personal

experiences in nature. After priming personal or abstract frames of

reference for reasoning about nature, we conducted a human-

categorization task similar to the task conducted in Anggoro

et al.s (2008) research. In this task, we presented participants

with pictures of a human, plants, animals, and natural kinds (e.g.,

rocks) and an artifact (bike), and we asked participants to group

them according to what belongs together.We were interested in

comparing developmental trends in humane

nature categorization

W.E. Levin, S.J. Unsworth / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 9e1310

8/12/2019 Do Humans Belong With Nature the Influence of Personal vs. Abstract Contexts on HumanNature Categorization

3/5

across contexts that primed more personal vs. abstract frames of

reference.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thirty-four 5- to 8-year-olds (17 males, 17 females, average

age 6.63), forty-two 9- to 12-year-olds (17 males, 25 females,

average age 9.68), and sixty-ve undergraduate students (29

males, 36 females) participated in this study. Children were

recruited through Benito Juarez Elementary School. The student

population includes approximately 40% Hispanic, 25% White, 20%

Asian, and 15% African American children, and approximately 40%

of the children speak a language other than English at home.

Children were interviewed at their school, and the school received

$10 in compensation for every child who participated. The adults in

this study consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in an

introductory psychology course at San Diego State University.

Undergraduates were given the option of participating in a series of

psychology experiments or submitting a written assignment to

their instructor in exchange for course credit.

2.2. Materials

The materials included 12 laminated pictures that were

approximately 300 by 400 in size. The pictures included one human,

three mammals (panda, coyote, dog), one bird (hummingbird), one

insect (buttery), one sh (trout), two plants (bush monkeyower,

oak tree), and two nonliving natural kinds (rock, sun), and one

artifact (bike). All participants were audio-recorded using an

Olympus VN-4100PC digital voice recorder.

2.3. Procedure

Participants completed the priming task before completing the

humane

nature categorization task.

2.3.1. Priming task

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two priming

conditions: the personal frame of reference condition or the

abstract frame of reference condition. In the personal frame of

reference condition, the experimenter asked participants to talk

about a personal experience with nature. Participants in this

condition received the following instructions: Now were going to

do storytelling. Can you tell me about when you ve seen birds?In

the abstract frame of reference condition, the experimenter asked

participants to think about nature more generally and did not

explicitly encourage participants to talk about personal experiences

or relationships with nature. Participants in the abstract frame of

reference condition received the following instructions: Nowwere going to just talk. Can you tell me everything you know about

birds? Participants were assured that there were no right or wrong

answers and were encouraged to say whatever comes to mind.

2.3.2. Humanenature categorization task

Before completing the humanenature categorization task,

participants began with a warm-up trial designed to familiarize

participants with the task. Participants were presented with 9 solid

color cards and were asked to group everything that belongs

together into as many groups as they like. Participants were reas-

sured that there were no right or wrong answers. Participants then

completed the humanenature categorization task. In this task,

participants were rst presented with pictures of the artifact, the

human, and the other natural kinds and were asked to name each

item in English. Thepictures were presented in a new, randomorder

for each participant. The goal in this rst step was to assess partici-

pantsfamiliarity with the English labels of the items. The experi-

menter then asked participants to group everything that belongs

together into as many groups as they like. The experimenter recor-

ded thecategories on a separate sheet of paper. After completing the

humanenature categorization task, participants were thanked for

their time and debriefed about the purpose of the study.

3. Results

An examination of responses to the priming questions indicated

that our personal vs. abstract frame of reference primes were

effective in priming personal associations with nature or abstract

knowledge of nature. All but two of the participants in the personal

frame of reference condition talked about personal experiences

involving both themselves and birds (e.g., One timeI saw a birdfall

out of its nest). All of the participants in the abstract frame of

reference condition talked about general knowledge of the bird

category (e.g., have wings, lay eggs), and none talked about

personal experiences with birds. In addition, all participants

demonstrated familiarity with the English labels for the items

depicted in the categorization stimuli.

The results showed that there was a decreasing likelihood to

group a human with other nature items throughout development,

but only when primed to think about nature from a personal frame

of reference. To examine the likelihood that participants grouped

the human with nature, we categorized participants according to

whether they ever grouped the human with other nature items. We

usednonparametric statistics to analyze these categorical data, and

the results of these analyses are reported below.

We used logistic regression to examine the relationship

between age group (5e8 years, 9e12 years, and adults) and

condition (personal vs. abstract frame of reference), with humane

nature categorization as the dependent variable (see Table 1 for

a summary of the analysis). The results showed that the full model

(including main effects and the interaction term) was a good t tothe data. There was a main effect of condition, with a greater

likelihood to categorize humans with other nature items in the

personal frame of reference condition than in the abstract frame of

reference priming condition. This main effect was qualied by

a signicant interaction between age group and condition. Chi-

Table 1

Summary of logistic regression analysis for variables predicting humanenature

categorization.

Predictors Humanenature categorization

B SEB eB

Condition

Personal frame of reference 1.79* .77 5.96

Age group

9- to 12-year-olds .70 .67 2.02

Adults .61 .62 1.83

Condition age group

Effect of condition for 5- to 8- vs.

9- to 12-year-olds*

2.17* .99 .11

Effect of condition for 5- to

8-year-olds vs. adults

3.10** .94 .05

Constant .61

c2 16.57**

df 5

Note: eB exponentiatedB; abstract frame of reference and5- to 8-year-olds arethe

reference categories; *p