b.a. senior thesis

The Relationship between Childhood Experiences and Future Environmental Behaviors

Submitted by Jade Lawson

As part of a Tutorial in Psychology April 7, 2015

Chatham UniversityPittsburgh, PA


Acknowledgements

This tutorial would not have been possible if it were not for the following people:

To my tutor and advisor, Dr. Wister, thank you for helping me expand a theory into a

concrete study. If it were not for you, this tutorial would not have been possible. I certainly

could not have done it without you.

To the members of my board, Dr. Bruckner and Dr. Riordan, thank you for taking the

time to read my tutorial. Thank you also for the many helpful suggestions that helped to shape

the tutorial into a stronger study. I greatly appreciated all your aid and words of encouragement

you gave me throughout the entire process.

To my mother and father, thank you for being so supportive. I greatly appreciated all

your help with keeping me sane during crunch time. Also thank you for taking the time to

attempt to learn SPSS in order to understand my results and help me with the final steps of this

project. I do not think I could have finished the project without your help.

Finally, a big thank you to all the participants in my study. I certainly could not have

done this without your help and time.

1


Table of Contents

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………1Table of Content.…………………………………………………………………….2List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………3List of Figures……………………………………………………………….4Abstract……………………………………………………………………...5Introduction………………………………………………………………….6Literature Review……………………………………………………………6Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………..20Methods……………………………………………………………………...21

Participants……………………………………………………………21Materials………………………………………………………………21Procedures…………………………………………………………….23

Results……………………………………………………………………….23Discussion…………………………………………………………………...32References…………………………………………………………………...40Appendix A………………………………………………………………….47Appendix B………………………………………………………………….48Appendix C………………………………………………………………….50Appendix D………………………………………………………………….51Appendix E………………………………………………………………….52Appendix F…………………………………………………………………. 53Appendix G………………………………………………………………….54Appendix H………………………………………………………………….55

2


List of Tables

Table 1…………………………………………………………………….....26Table 2……………………………………………………………………….27Table 3……………………………………………………………………….27Table 4 ……………………………………………………………………....28Table 5……………………………………………………………………….28Table 6…………………………………………………………………….....28Table 7……………………………………………………………………….29Table 8……………………………………………………………………….29Table 9 ……………………………………………………………………....29Table 10……………………………………………………………………...30Table 11……………………………………………………………………...32Table 12……………………………………………………………………...33Table 13……………………………………………………………………...33Table 14 ……………………………………………………………………..34

3


List of Figures

Figure 1……………………………………………………………………...31

4


Abstract

This study is designed to see if a person’s level of environmentalism is affected by their

childhood experiences. From personal accounts of environmentalists and other studies on similar

topics, it is evident that a person’s childhood experiences could influence their connectedness

with the natural world. The idea of looking at free play has also been illustrated to link a child’s

level of connectedness with nature. This study therefore broke down the components of free

play into where they played, how they played, and how much supervision they had between the

ages of 1-14. This study also aims to illustrate if media such as books and movies could

influence a person’s level of environmentalism by having the participants rate a list on their

importance to their life. The study was geared towards undergraduate students who were 18

years and older at Chatham University. While this study was not able to support its entire

hypothesis, it was able to show strong relationships within individual variables. It became

apparent through the research that where a child plays and what style of play they used could

influence their future level of environmentalism.

5



“We do not inherit this earth from our parents to do with it what we will. We have

borrowed it from our children and we must be careful to use it in their interests as well as our

own” (GoodReads, 2014). For decades humans have been changing the Earth drastically from

what it used to be. However, during this time there have been a few who have seen the value of

what the Earth has to offer and have worked to protect it. Many of these environmentalists have

written in their biographies or stated in interviews, that their relationship with the natural world

stems from their childhood. They were exposed to nature, had a mentor teaching them about

what they saw, or was given free reign to explore for him or herself. These links to early

childhood experiences are the focus of this study. This study is designed to look at current

college students’ level of environmentalism and whether it was influenced by past experiences

with free play and environmental literature and film.

What is Environmentalism?

Environmentalism is defined in the Merriam Webster as “advocacy of the preservation,

restoration, and improvement of the natural environment” (Merriam Webster, 2014). Being an

environmentalist does not follow a strict system. There are, in fact, many different levels to

being an environmentalist. Some levels of environmentalism include those who are only

concerned about the nature around them, others who only recycle, and those who are politically

involved with environmental movements. However, before it was even possible for a person to

demonstrate their environmentalism, the field of environmentalism first had to experience a long

6


history of development. This history started long before Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was

published or Greenpeace defied whalers (Environmental Issues Are Part of History, 2012). Its

start can be found in the late 19th century when three different kinds of environmental problems

became a national debate. The first, a conservation movement, became popular in 1910 when

people tried to ensure that there would be an adequate supply of raw materials for future

generations. The second movement was concerned with the fate of the wilderness, and the third

was concern over pollution (Rome, 2003). These movements increased slowly up until the

1960s when it became a powerful force.

Although today, the environmental movement is not as intense as it was in the 1960s,

their messages are still being spread and new career markets have emerged to continue to ensure

the safety of our environment. Some of the new jobs created include environmental chemistry,

environmental engineering, environmental psychology, and environmental policy. These new

jobs have led to new discoveries and understanding of not only the world we live in and want to

protect, but also how to enlist others to be concerned with the natural world.

As stated, environmentalism is not cut and dry. There are many different ways that a

person can show care for the environment. For this study, environmentalism has been broken

down into three levels: environmental awareness, environmental attitude, and environmental

behavior. Environmental awareness “is to understand the fragility of our environment and the

importance of its protection. Promoting environmental awareness is an easy way to become an

environmental steward and participate in creating a brighter future for our children” (Panchama

Alliance, 2014). In other words, those who are environmentally aware are those who have

knowledge of environmental issues. For example, those who are environmentally aware

7


understand that global warming exists. This level is for individuals who are aware of any new

environmental issues or information and possess basic knowledge on the subjects.

The next level is for those who have an environmental attitude. Someone with an

environmental attitude is aware of environmental issues and makes small contributions to

helping the cause. Examples of this would be people who use reusable cups/bottles, recycle, or

donate time or money to environmental causes. This level has people who may work other jobs,

but still spend a small percentage of time helping the environment. They are not entirely

dedicated to the cause, but care enough to help in little ways.

The final level is an environmental behavior. An environmental behavior is “any active

responsiveness to current environmental issues, believed to be pro-environmental by the person

performing the response” (Eilam & Trop, 2012). This is someone who works in an

environmental job, chooses environmental studies, or puts a lot of time and effort in

environmental causes. An example of this would be people who work for the Environmental

Protection Agency or in any environmental field such as environmental engineering.

To be able to get to the point of expressing environmental behavior, behaviors can be

formed into habits. Here the behaviors become instinctive to act in a certain way.

“Neuroscientists have traced our habit-making behaviors to a part of the brain called the basal

ganglia, which also plays a key role in the development of emotions, memories and pattern

recognition. Decisions, meanwhile, are made in a different part of the brain called the prefrontal

cortex. But as soon as a behavior becomes automatic, the decision-making part of your brain

goes into a sleep mode of sorts” (Duhigg, 2012). In one study, researchers found that exposure

to a particular medium and the identification to it can be linked to later behaviors in adulthood.

In this longitudinal study, a positive correlation was discovered between watching aggressive

8


shows and later aggressive behavior as adults (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003).

If a child can gain aggressive behaviors from watching and identifying with aggressive

characters on TV, then it is equally possible for a child to attain an environmental behavior from

reading or watching environmental books and films and interacting directly with the

environment.

Connecting Children to the Natural World

If a child is introduced to the environment, there is a chance they can form an attachment

to the natural world. However, it involves more than just sending them outside once in a while

to play. There have been many studies that have looked at how environmentalists came to be.

Many of the studies looked at where children played and how storytelling can influence their

connection to nature.

Louise Chawla released two studies on the topic of connecting children to their natural

environment: “Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural World: A

Theoretical Frame Work for Empirical Results” and “Learning to Love the Natural World

Enough to Protect It.” In both studies Chawla emphasized the importance of having a mentor

who helps push children out into nature, answers their questions, and inspires them to want to

learn more. However, another important factor is the ability to go out and explore the land for

themselves without supervision or a set lesson plan. In her “Learning to Love the Natural World

Enough to Protect It,” Chawla writes of conducting many interviews with current

environmentalists about their experiences and what contributed to their decision to enter this

field. She also interviewed many individuals in Kentucky and Norway about their experiences

outdoors as they grew up. Louise Chawla found the two common motives were positive

9


experiences in the natural area during childhood and having role models (Chawla 2006). Many

of the participants shared stories of a family member directing their attention to elements in the

natural world.

Meanwhile, in her other study, Chawla highlighted how her previous findings proved true

not just in the United States, but internationally. For example, a survey conducted only in the

United States in 2004 found that “nature activities in childhood predicated pro-environmental

attitudes and behaviors like recycling, ‘green’ voting, and participation in programs like Earth

Day” (Chawla, 2007). In Switzerland a survey of about 1004 citizens found that those who took

part in environmental actions through recycling, voting, signing petitions, and civic engagements

at the local level had a history of participating in these actions because they simply enjoyed their

experiences out in nature. They also found that many had the most impressionable experiences

before the age of twenty (Chawla, 2007). Finally, in a study conducted in Germany found that

those with an interest in nature, had indignation at its inadequate protection, and a love for the

environment in general were connected with a sense of safety, love, and oneness within nature.

The findings showed these feelings were significantly related to the “time spent in nature,

including time in childhood, and the meaningful company of family members or teachers”

(Chawla, 2007). Chawla was able to conclude between her two studies that for future generations

of children to steer toward environmentalism, they need to be outside in nature with a mentor

guiding them, or spend time there by themselves.

Having good mentors to guide children to nature and allow them to play and explore

nature by themself is only one factor to get them to connect with their surroundings. In a study

by Marketta Kyttä, she looked at the level of affordance to the children had based on the

different environments in where they played. In regard to the level of affordance, in other terms

10


the researcher was looking at the relationship between an environment and an organism. Kyttä

interviewed 8-9 year olds in both Finland and Belarus who lived in urban, suburban, and rural

areas, asking such questions as where they played and what activities they played when outside

(Kyttä, 2002). Kyttä found through her study that the level of affordance in the available

neighborhood was connected to the level of urbanization. In both the Belarus and Finnish

studies, the greatest number of affordance was found in country villages/small towns, and the

lowest in cities (Kyttä, 2002). This higher number of affordance is believed to have come from

the fact that those areas have a higher level of accessibility to natural environments (Kyttä,

2002). Marketta Kyttä’s results stressed the importance of having a yard or nature in immediate

surroundings as key factors for the children to create a connection to the earth.

Along with where children played, another group of researchers found that storytelling

can help to connect children with their local environment. In a study done by Clifford Blizzard

and Rudy Schuster, they found that through stories, they were able to create a connection

between the children of the study and the environment they used. In Clifford Blizzard and Rudy

Schuster’s study, they share how storytelling helps to foster a connection to the natural world for

children (Blizzard & Schuster, 2007). The two researchers allowed six groups of elementary

students to venture in a wooded area in upstate New York. During the first visit, they were

allowed to explore along set parameters and do whatever they liked. On their second trip, they

were split into two groups. One group focused on the naturalistic aspects of the environment

through storytelling and the other focused on the social. Each group had an expert who told the

children stories of the region. In the social group, the children were told of the old school house

where the older storyteller used to walk, and of the people who used to reside there, and of the

graveyard on the property. Meanwhile, in the naturalistic group, they were shown images of

11


how the property used to be farmland in comparison to the present area being wooded and what

creatures could be found in the creek (Blizzard & Schuster, 2007). On the third visit, they were

allowed to explore the pre-made parameters again without guidance. During this visit, the

children wrote about how they found things they did not notice before or about how they were

purposely seeking certain things from the stories, such as names on gravestones or salamanders

in the creeks (Blizzard & Schuster, 2007).

Even though during the first visit the children were interested in the woods, they wrote

about how they became more fascinated with the area after hearing the stories. Many wrote

about how they would come back (Blizzard & Schuster, 2007). The stories sparked their interest

in the region by giving them something tangible to seek. They were given a goal. By sharing

stories of the different species that inhabit the creek and trees, many students went out in search

of them to see them first hand. The stories made the woods seem less common, but rather more

personal to the children. They knew of its history and who once lived there, resulting in the

students creating a more personal connection to the natural world around them.

Storytelling has proven to help improve children’s connection to the natural world. With

stories, children can use them to imagine great worlds outside their own or learn about the

history of the natural world. Today, children like to learn the same lessons through movies.

Disney and Pixar have made the two most iconic environmental children’s movies. Bambi and

Finding Nemo have earned millions of dollars from their franchise and awards for their beautiful

and realistic view of the natural world. Both movies had spent a lot of time and money to have

their creators get to know and understand the basics of these two ecosystems in order to portray

them properly. While these two films have successfully shown children how wonderful these

12


two ecosystems are, children and most adults saw past the message of the dangers of human

intervention.

In the case of Finding Nemo, many wanted to recreate the tank from the dentist office,

not realizing that most of the fish cannot live in the same environment (Bruckner, 2010).

Others wanted to release their fish from captivity and did not realize the dangers a new fish could

add to a new ecosystem. Though some viewers misunderstood some of the messages of the film,

others saw it as a call for action. After the release of Finding Nemo, many started working

towards preserving the coral reef (Bruckner, 2010). As with anything else, it is hard to know

how someone may interpret the book or movie, it was not surprising to see both results from the

release of these movies. These movies also did help to create a generation of children who loved

Nemo, seeking to learn more about these creatures and their ecosystems.

In addition to these two films, there have been numerous other environmentally

conscious films released to children and have help led to children seeking to know more. There

are numerous lesson plans available for teachers to use in their classrooms that incorporate some

of these movies and learning about the natural environment. One example is a lesson plan made

for the movie Ferngully. In the lesson plan, teachers can talk about animals in the rainforest, the

food chain, living in the rainforest, and how to protect the environment (Rio Cinema). By loving

these creatures, children can create a connection with the natural world and seek to protect it.

Free Play Out in Nature

Free play is a style of play for children that have been shown in a handful of studies to

benefit the child. Free play has been defined as

13


“… children choosing what they want to do, how they want to do it and

when to stop and try something else. Free play has no external goals set by adults

and has no adult imposed curriculum. Although adults usually provide the space

and resources for free play and might be involved, the child takes the lead and the

adults respond to cues from the child” (Santer, et al., 2007).

Free play has been linked to mental, social and physical improvement in children.

For decades, researchers have studied the importance of play for children. When it comes

to the power of play in development, Peter Gray, a psychologist and research professor from

Boston College, has written a book on this subject titled Children at Play: An American History.

The book described the early half of the 20th century as a prime time for children to play. During

this period, there was not a high demand for child labor. Because of this, children were given

more freedom to go out and play. By about the 1960s, adults began taking away some of that

freedom due to the increase in time children had to spend doing schoolwork. This reduced their

freedom to play by themselves (Gray, 2013). Slowly play changed from unconstructed free play

to play that was structured. This included sports teams and hobby practices, such as piano

lessons after school.

In addition to identifying the change in culture, Peter Gray also shares his own research

on the difference between children of western societies and those who live in hunter-gather

cultures. In hunter-gatherer cultures, adults believe that children learn through observation,

exploration, and playing. From the age of four to their mid/late teens, children are free to play

and explore wherever and however they please. Children of these cultures do not partake in

adult responsibilities until their late teen years. Gray argues that it is evolution that causes

children to want to act out culturally appropriate activities. This includes activities such as play

14


debates that mimic their elders to see if they can answer a problem better. This form of play is

believed to help them become skilled and knowledgeable adults (Gray, 2013).

What Gray emphasized most in this piece is how play helps children develop appropriate

social skills. They learn how to play, work, and live with other people. Through social play,

they work out how to negotiate and compromise, learn the Golden Rule (treat others how one

would like to be treated), and how to work with difficult people (ex. bullies) (Gray, 2013).

These are skills that today’s generation of children are lacking. Through his book, Peter Gray is

hoping to show parents, teachers, and other influential leaders how free play is a good thing for

their children.

Play in general has been shown through research to be extremely beneficial throughout a

human’s lifetime. When someone plays, the entire brain lights up (Raz, 2015). It activates many

different sections of the brain, causing the different lobes to be exercised and used together.

Exercising different sections has helped in many aspects, such as creating a connectedness

between other humans and possibly with nature. Stuart Brown was the founder of the National

Institute of Play, and in 2008 gave a TED Talk about some of his research involving play. In one

study, the National Institute of Play had two groups of young mice. At one point, one group of

mice were stopped from playing with one another. Later, both groups were introduced to a cat’s

collar with its scent still on it. Immediately after being introduced to this collar, both groups

would go run and hide. However, the difference was the group who was allowed to play would

eventually come out of hiding and investigate the collar. Meanwhile, the group that was not

allowed to play would never come out of hiding and often ended up dying (Davis, 2008). Now

our children are not dying because they do not play. However, we can see a difference in those

who played as a child and those who did not. Those who played have the skills to interact with

15


others and had the opportunity to work out situations through play as evident through Peter

Gray’s work. On the other hand, Stuart Davis researched murders and found that along with all

the common factors examined, Davis found these individuals were not given the ability to play

as often. This inability to experience free play caused them not to be able to experience rough

and tumble play or develop empathy (Raz, 2015).

Similar to Stuart Davis’s findings, a study done by Sergio Pellis at the University of

Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada found that “experiencing play can change the connections of the

neurons at the front end of your brain” (Hamilton, 2014). Pellis’s study looked more in depth at

the brain’s activity and development from children playing. Sergio Pellis was able to see that

those changes in the prefrontal cortex during childhood influenced the critical roles of that

region: regulating emotions, making plans, and solving problems. Pellis later described how he

believed the best way to achieve this development is to let them get plenty of free play. He

emphasized this by saying that meant no coaches, no teachers, no parents, and no rule books

(Hamilton, 2014). Pellis’s other study emphasized researchers did find that the best predictor

for doing well academically in eighth grade was their social skills in third grade. There has been

a correlation found in those nations that do well academically, also have more recess time

(Hamilton, 2014).

In addition to the power of play on social brain development, Paul Starling’s empirical

study looked at children’s mental and physical well-being in relation to their playing outdoors

(Starling, 2011). In this study, Starling had 21 participants between the ages of 8-12 spend 2-5

days playing outside for 45 minutes for a 3-week period. The subjects were asked to complete a

before-play and after-play questionnaire using the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) and emotional Self-

Efficacy Scale (ESES) to see if the exposure to the outdoors affected their self-efficacy (Starling,

16


2011). During their time outdoors, Starling observed that the children not only enjoyed each

other’s company, but would also help each other out or would excitedly share what they had

found. The children started to love the areas where they played. During one particular

observation, some wished to stay in the area building their fort despite the threat of an incoming

thunderstorm (Starling, 2011). Starling found that through outdoor play, the children were able

to adapt accessible social behaviors, gain leadership skills, develop a sense of wonder for the

natural world, and enhance problem-solving skills (Starling, 2011). Starling observed the

children displaying key components of self-efficiency during their time of unconstructed play.

Although his study was not able to yield strong support, his observations show that children do

benefit from engaging in unconstructed play in nature (Starling, 2011).

While Sterling was able to illustrate that going out in nature was beneficial to a child’s

mental development, researchers Martin Maudsley and Hilary Smith looked at children between

the ages of 4-14 in the Southwestern region of the United Kingdom in terms of where and how

they played outside. They found that 71% of the 104 participants were playing in parks.

Following that, 57% said they played in their garden and 46% said around their homes

(Maudsley & Smith, 2004). When asked what they do outside, 66% said their played outdoor

games and 57% relaxed outdoors (Maudsley & Smith, 2004). When asked if they explored

nature, only about 30% said they do, but around 50% said they would like to. The questionnaires

used in this study also asked deeper questions. Some of these questions included barriers to

environmental play and improving environmental play provisions. For the barriers to the

environmental play section, 45% responded that barriers included health and safety and another

40% reported parental fears (Maudley & Smith, 2004). When asked how to improve

environmental play provision, 90% said they would likely attend environmental play training

17


(environmental games, exploring nature, and physical outdoor play) offered in their region

(Maudley & Smith, 2004). In a separate survey done for this study, the participants were asked

what they believed the benefits were for play outdoors. Under the category of Value of Play, the

results showed that 21% said they enjoyed a positive relationship with the natural environment.

Closely following at 19% were physical health and exercise (Maudley & Smith, 2004).

This study has helped shed light on where children like to play, how they play, and the

benefits of outside play. Meanwhile, in a different study by Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt’s, they

found that there is a direct connection between playing out in nature and environmental

competencies and preferences (Bixler, Floyd, & Hammitt, 2002). The researchers looked at two

schools in different areas of the United States. They asked the children to rate how often they

played in common outdoor environments and then measured environmental preferences and

perceptions (Bixler, Floyd, & Hammitt, 2002). While this study highlighted many key points

about the connection of play and environmentalism, other researchers have looked in greater

depth into more specific areas.

When children are given the ability to playing anyway they want, their creativity,

independence, life skills, and social skills flourish. Although free play does not have to involve

nature, typically free play coincides with play out in natural environments. Often the

environment allows an opportunity for children to learn about nature itself: learn about life and

death through nature and introduce them to the right amount of danger which helps teach life

skills (Gray, 2012). Despite what parents of today are socialized to believe, fear is healthy. By

allowing children the freedom to play on their own, they will on occasion put themselves in

fearful situations that allow them the opportunity to learn on their own how to get out. This

allows them to understand that fear is healthy, and can be overcome and controlled. A child that

18


overcomes fear understands later in life, how to control their fears. This does not happen when

parents always remove the obstacle and get them out of the situations.

Literature and film are other means to introduce nature to children. Books being

inspiration for children’s imaginative play has been a topic of a handful of research. As stated

above, play has been found to help children socially and cognitively, another tool to enhance

their play has been a book. These studies have encouraged parents to read to their children, give

them a variety of stories, and a place to play (Root-Bernstein, 2010). Many today can name a

book or a story that elevated them after it ended, causing them to dream of the story, act out

scenes, or even extend the story through their own games. Stories help to make their play more

diverse and enriching. Stories offer the children the use of different settings or problems to be

able to act out how they would address the issue. Going out in nature can also be useful for this

imaginative play because it is a blank slate where children can to create new worlds. In Bridge

to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, two children venture into the woods and create a whole new

kingdom where they are able to tackle their everyday problems (Paterson, 1977). Free play is an

unstructured play that allows children to explore and learn. Many famous environmentalists and

naturalists have talked in their biographies about their times out in the natural world, exploring

and learning from it on their own. No parents were supervising them and they were not

restricted to a form of structured play. Many have become who they are today, because they were

able to imagine these worlds and how they wanted to change or preserve it.

19


Hypothesis

This study will help to show that participants who give high ratings to environmental

books and movies and were able to experience free play during their childhood will have a

higher rate of performing environmental behaviors. Based on works such as Chawla, Kyttä,

Erikson, and Blizzard and Schuster, we are able to see how children connect to their natural

environment when these elements are present. The importance of play was illustrated by studies

done by Starling, Midsley, Smith, Bixler, Floyd, and Hammit. These studies illustrated how

children can increase the chance for children to be environmentally engaged. By combining all

the work by these researchers, this study aims to see if the combination of play and

environmental media can help to increase the chances for children to be environmentally

engaged. There will be some variables involved such as memory. Since the test is being

administered to college students based on their childhood experiences, the results might be

skewed. Another issue that may arise is from the study looking for environmental behaviors

adapted from childhood experience. Those who are currently environmentally involved may

skew their memories to adapt their answers toward those that follow their current beliefs. This

major factor will be taken into consideration when looking at the results.

Methods

Participants

The subject population for this study will consist of Chatham University undergraduate

students. Students recruited will be 18-years-old and older. Since the university is an all-women

institution, the subjects in this study will be all female.

20


Measures

Demographics: This measure asks for age, sex, major/minor, hometown, state they grew up

in, and if they lived predominantly between the age of 1-14 in a rural, suburban, or urban setting.

Movies and Books: Next the participants are asked to write down their favorite book and movie

from childhood. Following that, participants are asked to rate various children books and movies

for their importance to them while they were growing up. Within this list, there are books and

movies with an environmental theme mixed with other movies that would have been read or

watched by the participants between the ages of one and fourteen. The rating scale for this one

survey is a five-point Likert Scale. The participants also have the ability to mark the

books/movies they have not read or seen with a zero.

Free Play: The next set of scales is designed to measure the level of free play the participants

were able to engage in during their childhood. Free play is style of play where the child is

allowed to explore and play without or with limited supervision and intervention from adults.

The fifth scale looks at where the participants played as children. This scale is based on a survey

designed by Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt (2002). It is measured on a scale of 0-4, 0 is never

played there all the way up to 4 as always played there. The places in this measure include:

ponds, their backyards, or indoors. The next survey examines how the participants played as

children. This one asks questions as to what activities they participated in during play. The

survey uses the same scale of 0-4. The variables within this measure include fantasy play or

symbolic play where children use objects such as a string to representing a wedding ring.

Hughes developed this survey. The scale in this set is designed to measure the amount of

supervision the participants had from adults during play as a child. This scale asks the

participants to rate how much supervision they received from adults while playing. This scale is

21


from 0-4 where 0 is never supervised to 4 being always supervised. The participants will be

asked to rate their level of parental supervision they received during the following age groups:

1-5, 6-10, and 11-14.

The last scale measures the participants’ level of environmentalism. The scale is

comprised of 24 true or false questions. The scale will measure the following three factors:

environmental awareness, environmental attitude, and environmental behavior. The American

Environmental Value Survey from 2006 inspired this scale.

Procedure

After departmental approval was granted, the researcher obtained permission from

professors at Chatham University to administer the survey in their class. The survey was

administered over a 2-week period to students present on the day of the survey through a

Qualtrics web survey format. Students were informed that the survey is voluntary and

anonymous, and that they are free to withdraw at any time. The researcher and professor will

leave the room while the participants complete the surveys using their personal computers. If the

students did not have their computer, they were given a hard copy of the survey. The students

then would place the survey in an envelope at the front of the classroom or submit it

electronically when they are finished. After all the data was collected, the researcher put the

results into SPSS and Excel. Then through SPSS, the researcher calculated the correlations

between all the variables.

22


Results

Within the results, the researcher hoped to find a few answers to the individual variables

within her hypothesis. The Level of Environmentalism vs. Where You Play test was designed to

be able to show that those who played in more of an outdoor setting would have a higher level of

environmentalism. It is expected that the correlation score for “wild” nature settings such as the

woods and near water sources would be higher than “controlled” nature such as the yard and

“domestic” settings like indoors or the street. When the test is done again to replace the total

Level of Environmentalism for each level (awareness, attitude, and behavior), the scores are

hypothesized to demonstrate at which places the participants had played in were higher in each

level. It is also believed that the “wild” nature settings would be the highest when correlating

with Environmental Behavior. And when the researcher takes the sum of Where You Play,

which will represent how much they had played, the results are believed to show that more play

would equal higher levels of environmentalism. No hypothesis was formed for the test for

Level of Environmentalism vs. How You Play. However, the researcher was looking to see if

certain styles of play would affect the level of environmentalism in the participants. Meanwhile,

the researcher believed the Supervision vs. Level of Environmentalism test would show that the

participant’s level of environmentalism would be higher if they had less supervision from adults

or parental figures throughout their childhood. When the researcher runs the tests for each level

of environmentalism, she hopes to find which style of play may influence Environmental

Behavior. All three aspects of play will also be combined to create a final sum that will

represent each participant’s score for overall Free Play. It is believed by the researcher that the

overall score for Free Play will show a strong influence on the participants’ level of

environmentalism. Tests are run for Environmental Books and Environmental movies in

23


relations to the participants total and different Level of Environmentalism. The hypothesis as

stated from the beginning believes that those who rated the environmental books and movie

higher will also have a higher score for Level of Environmentalism. More specifically, it would

be more influential for those who rated Environmental Behavior high.

After compiling the data and running the statistical testing, the researcher was able to find

correlations in her testing and also some other interesting findings. In total, there were 68

responses to this survey. Demographically, the average age of the participants in this study was

21.5. At the highest, 59% of the participants lived in the suburbs between the ages of 1-14.

Meanwhile, 23% lived in an urban setting and 15% in a rural. 51% of the participants also listed

Pennsylvania as the state they grew up in during their childhood. Regarding the participants

level of environmentalism, the average for the study came out to be about 64% environmental.

Between the individual levels, Environmental Awareness had the highest average score with 6.4

out of 7. Following was Attitude with 5.5 and Behavior with 2.8. A high score means that they

agreed with more of the statements within each category. This represents that the individual has

a higher level of awareness about the environment, attitude, or behavior.

The surveys was able to help establish where participants predominantly played, how

they played, and how much supervision they had during their childhood. These scales were

measured between 0-4. Regarding where they played, the results were able to illustrate that the

participants played by far the most in a yard. The second highest answer was in the

neighborhood. Areas such as farmland or pastures were by far the least likely place the

participants would play in. And when they would play, the participants marked that they would

use fantasy play and locomotors play by far the most. Unlike where they played, how they

played was close in scores. The difference between the highest and lowest score for how they

24


played was 1.35 points, where the difference between where they played was 2.41. Out of 5, the

scores showed that participants played a little or kind of played these specific styles of play. As

for the amount of supervision they had throughout the ages decreased on average from 3.29 up

until the age of 5, to 2.29 between the ages of 6-10, and finally between 11-14 it went down to

1.4. Here, this shows that the participants on average had a higher level of supervision when

they were younger with being supervised a lot to being supervised a little as they got older.

While looking at the average scores between the importance of movies and books, it

appeared that movies in general were scored higher than books. The average score out of 5 for

movies was 2.16 compared to book’s average rating of 1.88. Although the difference is not

significant, it still showed that on average movies were rated slightly higher on their importance

in the participants’ lives than books. The highest rating movies were Finding Nemo at 3.36 and

the Lion King at 3.51. For books, Winnie the Pooh was rated the highest at 2.97. Similar to the

overall scores, environmental books on averaged scored a 1.65 in comparison to environmental

movies getting a 2.69.

With these statistics in mind, the researcher then put the data into SPSS to find any

correlations between Environmentalism and the other five variables. In order to be able to

compare the Levels of Environmentalism and the other variables, the researcher first calculated

for each level (Awareness, Attitude, and Behavior) and for the total level of environmentalism.

To find the score for each level, the survey’s questions were broken down into their subsections.

For example, questions 1, 4, and 7 represented a person’s level of awareness, while 2, 5, and 8

represented attitude. The amount of questions for each individual level the participant answered

true was added together. This sum would represent how high their awareness/attitude/behavior

towards the environment was out of seven. The participant’s total Level of Environmentalism

25


was also calculated by adding up all the questions they answered true and scored it out of 21.

After the calculations were made for all the levels and total Level of Environmentalism, the

researcher was able to run a Pearson Correlation Coefficient test for the four variables. The

three free play surveys were measured as a Likert scale with the options being between 0 as

never played to 4 as always played. The two media surveys were also Likert scales. However,

these two surveys had a scale of 0 representing never read/seen to 5 as very important.

In the survey regarding where the participants played during their childhood, the

researcher conducted a Pearson Correlation Coefficient test five different times. The first test

was to look at the total Level of Environmentalism and all the different places the participants

could have played. In this test, there was a correlation for three variables: Yard r(68)=0.259, P =

0.33, Park r(68) = 0.302, P=0.012, and In the Neighborhood r(68) = 0.261, P=0.032. The P

scores here showed that they were strong correlations between these outdoor settings and the

participant’s level of environmentalism. It was especially interesting to see two of the three

places that correlated to be from “controlled” nature settings and one from “domestic” (See

Tables 1, 2, and 3).

Table: 1

Correlations Between Level of Environmentalism and “Wild” Settings

Woods Overgrown Field

Water Source

Level of Environmentalism

r 0.159 0.055 0.098

P 0.241 0.552 0.495

26


Table: 2

Correlations Between Level of Environmentalism and “Controlled” Settings

Yard Playground Park Pasture/

FarmLevel of Environmentalism

r 0.259 0.17 0.302 0.048

P 0.033 0.166 0.012 0.695

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table: 3

Correlations Between Level of Environmentalism and “Domestic” Settings

Street Indoors Neighborhood


r -0.075 0.111 0.261

P 0.543 0.366 0.032

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Three more Person Correlation Coefficient tests were also run for the different places the

participants could have played vs. all three levels of environmentalism. There was not a

significant correlation for Environmental Attitude. A significant correlation represents that there

is a relationship between how the participants’ rated the different settings to play in and their

level of environmentalism. However, both Awareness and Behavior had a few correlations.

27


Awareness had correlations with Yard r(68) = 0.312, P = 0.010, Park r(68)=0.242, P = 0.046, and

Neighborhood r(68) = 0.253, P = 0.032 (See Table 4, 5, and 6).

Table: 4

Correlations Between Environmental Awareness and “Wild” Settings


Water Source

Awareness r 0.156 0.017 0

P 0.166 0.152 0.691

Table: 5

Correlations Between Environmental Awareness and “Controlled” Settings


Farm

Awareness r 0.312 0.223 0.242 0.253

P 0.01 0.068 0.046 0.32

Table: 6

Correlations Between Environmental Awareness and “Domestic” Settings


Awareness r -0.09 0.182 0.253

P 0.464 0.137 0.037

Behavior had only one correlation: Park r(68) = 0.246, P = 0.043 (See Table 7, 8, and 9).

28


Table: 7

Correlations Between Environmental Behavior and “Wild” Settings


Water Source

Behavior r 0.176 0.113 0.1

P 0.15 0.358 0.417

Table: 8

Correlations Between Environmental Behavior and “Controlled” Settings


Farm

Behavior r 0.113 -0.04 0.246 0.437

P 0.36 0.774 0.043 0.437

Table: 9

Correlations Between Environmental Behavior and “Domestic” Settings


Behavior r -0.027 -0.087 0.135

P 0.826 0.48 0.274

29


The final test ran for Where You Played was for the sum of play and the total Level of

Environmentalism. The researcher found a correlation between these two variables: r(68)=0.273,

P = 0.025 (See Table 10). The total of where they played was able to demonstrate the

participant’s total score showed how much they played. This was interesting because it showed

that there was a positive relationship between playing a lot and the person’s level of

environmentalism (See Figure 1). The researcher also ran a frequency test for the sum of where

they played. The average amount of play found was a 23.03 out of a possible 40 points. The

scores ranged anywhere between 5 points to 35 points.

Table: 10

Correlations Between Levels of Environmentalism and Sum of Where You Play

Sum of Where You Play

Level of Environmentalism r 0.273

P 0.025*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

30


Figure: 1

Following the calculations for where the participants had played during their childhood,

the researcher then calculated How You Played in a similar fashion. As done before, the

researcher ran four Pearson Correlation Coefficient tests. The dependent variable was the

different levels and total Level of Environmentalism. The independent variable this time was the

different styles of play the participants may have used during their childhood. In one test that ran

31


the correlation between the total Level of Environmentalism and the different styles of play

found correlations between five different styles of play: Imaginative Play r(68)=0.233, P=0.056,

Fantasy Play r(68) = 0.291, P =0.016, Rough and Tumble Play r(68) = -0.274, P=0.024, Creative

Play r(68) = 0.253, P = 0.039, and Other r(68)=0.276, P-0.061 (See Table 11).

Table: 11

Correlations Between Level of Environmentalism and How You Played


r PObject Play 0.129 0.296

Deep Play 0.083 0.501

Communication Play 0.114 0.355

Imaginative Play 0.233 0.056

Fantasy Play 0.291 0.016

Rough and Tumble -0.274 0.024

Locomotors Play -0.099 0.424

Mastery Play 0.132 0.238

Creative Play 0.253 0.039

Other Play 0.276 0.061

The results for the other tests ran for each Level of Environmentalism also found

correlations. For Awareness there was a correlation for Fantasy r(68) = 0.298, P=0.014 and

Rough and Tumble Play r(68) = -0.260, P = 0.032 (See Table 12).

32


Table: 12

Correlations Between Environmental Awareness and How You Played

Awareness

r PObject Play 0.116 0.348Deep Play 0.021 0.865Communication Play 0.088 0.474Imaginative Play 0.134 0.176Fantasy Play 0.298 0.014Rough and Tumble -0.26 0.032Locomotors Play 0.001 0.993Mastery Play -0.045 0.717Creative Play 0.134 0.28Other Play 0.088 0.555

Environmental Attitude had six correlations: Imaginative Play r(68) = 0.276, P = 0.23,

Communication Play r(68)=0.219, P=0.072, Fantasy Play r(68) = 0.323, P=0.007, Rough and

Tumble Play r(68) = -0.273, P = 0.024, Creative Play r(68) = 0.298, P=0.014, and Other

r(68)=0.261, P=0.077 (See Table 13).

Table: 13

Correlations Between Environmental Attitude and How You Played

Attituder P

33


Object Play 0.172 0.16Deep Play -0.037 0.766

Communication Play 0.219 0.072

Imaginative Play 0.276 0.023

Fantasy Play 0.323 0.007Rough and Tumble -0.273 0.024Locomotors Play -0.013 0.917Mastery Play 0.131 0.288Creative Play 0.298 0.014Other Play 0.261 0.077

Environmental Behavior on the other hand had only three correlations: Imaginative Play

r(68)=0.258, P = 0.034, Rough and Tumble r(68) = -0.270, P = 0.026, and Locomotors Play r(68)

= -0.249, P = 0.048 (See Table 14). The results were interesting because while all three shared

similar correlations such as Rough and Tumble Play, they each had one that did not show up in

the others. For example, the Locomotors Play showing up on in the test vs. Environmental

Behavior.

Table: 14

Correlations Between Environmental Behavior and How You Played

Behavior

r PObject Play -0.029 0.812Deep Play 0.078 0.526Communication Play 0.008 0.95Imaginative Play 0.258 0.034Fantasy Play 0.259 0.087Rough and Tumble -0.27 0.026Locomotors Play -0.249 0.04Mastery Play 0.09 0.465Creative Play 0.102 0.413

34


Other Play 0.214 0.149

In the final free play tests, the researcher looked at the correlation between the levels and

total environmentalism and the level of supervision the participants had overall and at varying

points of their childhood. For the Supervision survey, the participants were asked to rate their

level of supervision from an adult or parental figure between the ages of 1-5, 6-10, and 11-14. In

the test, the overall score was established by averaging each participates scores from the three

groups. Between all four tests run, there was no significant correlation between the independent

and dependent variables.

After the different styles of free play were measured, the researcher then measured the

correlations between the different levels and total Level of Environmentalism with

Environmental Books and Environmental Movies. Within the survey, participants were given a

list of books and movies that had both environmental and non-environmental themes. The

participants were asked to rate the level of their importance. The total score the participants put

for the environmental books were added to give a final score out of 75 that would be used for the

test. The same process was done for the movies, only the final score was out of 80. Here, the

researcher used Pearson Correlation Coefficient tests again to measure the correlations between

the independent and dependent variables. After the tests were run, the results showed that there

was no significant correlation between any level of environmentalism or total level

environmentalism and Environmental Books or Environmental Movies. When a frequency test

was run for both Environmental Books and Environmental Movies, it showed that while there

was no correlation, participants still rated the two medias relatively high. For Environmental

Books, the average total score was 26.36 and with a range of 6 to 57 out of 75. And

Environmental Movies had an average of 30.88 and with a range of 9 to 59 out of 80.

35


Discussion

This study was designed to examine the participants’ level of environmentalism and if

this level would be affected by their childhood experiences. As stated in the hypothesis, the

researcher believed that childhood experiences from playing and the media could affect one’s

level of environmentalism.

After having conducted the study and analyzing her results, the researcher found that her

findings overall did not support her hypothesis. While the majority of the tests did not correlate,

the researcher was able to find a correlation between where the participants played during

childhood and how they played in relationship with their level of environmentalism. The tests for

the Sum of Where You Play were also able to illustrate how much they were playing. This

finding also helped to show that where a child plays might have a stronger impression on their

level of environmentalism than some of the other variables. Meanwhile certain styles of play

have been found to possibly influence a person’s level of environmentalism. Certain styles such

as Rough and Tumble Play or Imaginative Play found to be correlated with the participants’ level

of environmentalism. This can help to illustrate what styles of play may cause there to be an

opportunity to help connect children with the natural world and improve their level of

environmentalism.

The results were able to show that there was no significant correlations between the

participants’ level of environmentalism and a few of the other variables, such as how much

36


supervision they had and influences from media. However, each test was able to give some

interesting findings. The supervision survey was able to illustrate how the level of supervision

decreased with age. The highest score was 3.3 between the ages of 1-5 and decreased to about

1.4 between the ages of 11-14. This helped to show that the participants were given more

liberty to explore by themselves as they got older. These results were what was expected by the

researchers. However, the lack of correlation between supervision and environmentalism did not

support the hypothesis for this study.

When analyzing between Environmental Books and Environmental Movies and the Level

of Environmentalism there was no significant correlation found. The researcher believed

through other studies that books or movies would hold a stronger importance in the participants’

lives to impact their level of environmentalism. While the results could not find a correlation

between media and level of environmentalism, they did illustrate that this generation of

participants were more affected by movies than books. On average, movies were rated slightly

higher than books on their importance. There is also a possibility that during childhood, the

participants did not see the environmental message. Unless an adult pointed the message out to

them, they would more likely engrossed with the general story, songs, and other more eye-

catching distractions. For example, some people decided they wanted to recreate the dentist’s

fish tank from Finding Nemo rather than seeing the harm humans were doing by intervening with

nature.

These results may have been because of some limitations. Many of the surveys asked the

participants to look back between the ages of 1-14 on how much time there were spending

playing, how much supervision they had, and how important particular books and movies were

to them. This study did not account fully the changes in memory regarding these questions. Also

37


perceptions of certain events, books, and movies could change with later experiences. For

instance, someone who is an English or Environmental major may rate certain books higher than

other participants to support their current beliefs and standing. Another limitation to the scores

was the vagueness in the options the participants could choose from in the surveys. Many of the

options were up to the participants’ interpretation of how they would define “kind of played,” for

instance. This fact could have skewed people’s opinion on many of the questions asked

throughout the survey.

A third limitation has to account for the higher level of environmentalism found. The

average level of environmentalism within the group was 64%. The higher scores could possibly

come from the fact all the participants go to Chatham University, a college who is known for

being environmental. Dan Kahan has found from his own research that your setting can affect a

person’s belief (Wells, 2011). For instance, by Chatham University being more

environmentally aware, it is common for people to align their beliefs with the popular one. This

information could explain why the score for level of environmentalism was high. This could

also explain for the lack of correlation between their level of environmentalism and some of the

other variables.

While this study did not prove the researcher’s hypothesis of all childhood experiences

affecting a participant’s level of environmentalism, it was able to reinforce the theory that where

children play and some styles of play can affect their level of environmentalism. This study

could aid in looking at how to influence the future generations of children to appreciate nature

enough to protect it by seeing what influences such as where they played had on their level of

environmentalism. The study could also be expanded in many different aspects. For example, it

could incorporate current children, to look at influences of a role model directing them towards

38


nature, if the rest of the participant’s time was spent doing structured activities, or if they used

their freedom from supervision to explore the outdoors instead of sitting around inside? Overall,

this study was able to show one generation’s experience with the natural world and with their

understanding of being environmental. As evident through the Level of Environmentalism

survey, many of the participants are already taking actions, both small and large, towards helping

the Earth.

39


References

Bixler, Robert D., Floyd, Myron F, and Hammitt, William E. (2002). Environmental

Socialization: Quantitative Tests of the Childhood Play Hypothesis. Environmental

Behavior, Volume 34. Retrieved from

http://eab.sagepub.com/content/34/6/795.full.pdf+html

Blizard, Clifford R., Shuster, Rudy M. (2007). Fostering Children’s Connections to Natural

Places through Cultural and Natural History Storytelling. Children, Youth, and

Environments, Volume 17. Retrieved from

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/17_4/17_4_09_FosteringConnections.pdf

Boer, Arend P. (1968). Application of a Simple Recording System to the Analysis of Free-Play

Behavior in Autistic Children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Volume 1.

Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311022/pdf/jaba00086-

0075.pdf

Bragg, Rachel, Wood, Carly, Barton, Jo, and Pretty, Jules. (2013). Measuring Connection to

Nature in Children aged 8-12: A Robust Methodology for RSPB. University of Essex.

Retrieved from http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/methodology-report_tcm9-354606.pdf

Bruckner, Lynne. (2010). Bambi and Finding Nemo A Sense of Wonder in the Wonderful World

of Disney?. In Paula Willoquet-Maricondi (Eds.), Framing the World: Explorations in

Ecocriticism and Film (pp. 181-202). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Chawla, Louise. (2007). Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural World: A

Theoretical Framework For Empirical Results. Child, Youth, and Environments, Volume

40

http://eab.sagepub.com/content/34/6/795.full.pdf+html


17. Retrieved from

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/17_4/17_4_07_CareForNaturalWorld.pdf

Chawla, Louise. (2006). Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It. Barn, Volume

2. Retrieved from https://www.ntnu.no/documents/10458/19133135/Chawla1.pdf

Cheng, Judith Chen-Hsuan and Monroe, Martha C. (2012). Connection to Nature: Children’s

Affective Attitude Towards Nature. Environment and Behavior, Volume 44. Retrieved

from http://eab.sagepub.com/content/44/1/31.full.pdf+html

Children & Nature Network. (2012). Health Benefits to Children From Contact With the

Outdoors & Nature. Children & Nature Network. Retrieved from

http://www.childrenandnature.org/downloads/CNNHealthBenefits2012.pdf

Clements, Rhonda. (2004). An Investigation of the Status of Outdoor Play. Contemporary Issues

In Early Childhood, Volume 5. Retrieved from

http://www.imaginationplayground.com/images/content/2/9/2960/An-investigation-Of-

The-Status-Of-Outdoor-Play.pdf

Cutter-Mackenzie, Amy, Payne, Phillip G., and Reid, Alan. (Eds.). (2011). Experiencing

Environment and Place through Children’s Literature. New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, Stuart. (2008, May). Play is more than just fun. Retrieved from:

http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital?

language=en#t-915811

Duhigg, Charles. (2012, March 5). Habits: How They Form and How to Break Them. NPR.

Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147192599/habits-how-they-form-and-

how-to-break-them

41

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/17_4/17_4_07_CareForNaturalWorld.pdf


Eagles, Paul F. J. and Demare, Robert. (1999). Factors Influencing Children’s Environmental

Attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education 30:4.

Eilam, Efrat & Trop, Tamar. (2014) Environmental Attitudes and Environmental Behavior –

Which is the Horse and Which is the Cart? Sustainability 4:2210-2246.

Erickson, Martha Farrell. (2008). Ensuring That All Children Can Spend Quality Time

Outdoors. The Children & Nature Network. Retrieved from

https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200801/BTJNatureErickson.pdf

Environmental History Timeline. (2012). Environmental issues as part of history. Environmental

History Timeline. Retrieved from http://66.147.244.135/~enviror4/2012/07/16/about-

environmental-history/#more-164

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. (2010). Environment Rating Scales.

Retrieved from http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/how-free-play-defined

Fjørtoft, Ingunn. (2001). The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children: The Impact of

Outdoor Play Activities in Pre-Primary School Children. Early Childhood Education

Journal, Volume 29. Retrieved from

http://blogs.longwood.edu/thomasjohnhickman/files/2013/02/KINS280-Article.pdf

GoodReads. (2014). Moss Cass Quote. Retrieved from

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/446497-we-rich-nations-for-that-is-what-we-are-have

Gray, Peter. (2012, June 21). Free Play is Essential for Normal Emotional Development.

Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-

learn/201206/free-play-is-essential-normal-emotional-development

Gray, Peter. (2014). The Play Deficit: Children today are cossetted and pressured in equal

measure. Without the freedom to play they will never grow up. Aeon Media. Retrieved

42


from http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/children-today-are-suffering-a-severe-deficit-of-

play/

Hamilton, Jon. (2014, August 6). Scientists Say Child’s Play Helps Build a Better Brain.

NPREd: How Learning Happens. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/08/06/336361277/scientists-say-childs-play-helps-

build-a-better-brain

Henley, Jon. (2010, August 16). Why Our Children Need to Get Outside and Engage with

Nature. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/16/childre-nature-outside-play-health

Huesmann, L. Rowell, Moise-Titus, Jessica, Podolski, Cheryl-Lynn, and Eron, Leonard D.

(2003). Longitudinal Relations Between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and Their

Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992. Development

Psychology, Volume 39. Retrieved from

http://academic.udayton.edu/RondaScantlin/CMM449_Fall2003/Comm449_Fall/

3_Topic3/Media_Violence_March2003.pdf

James, J. Joy, Bixler, Robert D., Vadala, Carin E. (2010). From Play in Nature, to Recreation

then Vocation: A Developmental Model for Natural History – Oriented Environmental

Professionals. Children, Youth, and Environments, Volume 20. Retrieved from

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/20_1/20_1_09_DevelopmentalModel.pdf

Kyttä, Marketta. (2002). Affordances of Children’s Environments In The Context of Cities,

Small Towns, Suburbs, and Rural Villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, Volume 22. Retrieved from

http://www.landscapemap2.org/publications/marketta_child.pdf

43


Littledyke, Michael. (2002). Primary Children’s Views on Science and Environmental Issues:

Examples of Environmental Cognitive and Moral Development. University of

Gloucestershire. Retrieved from

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002338.htm

Maudsley, Martin and Smith, Hilary. (2004). Wild about Play Research Report. Playwork

Partnerships. Retrieved from

http://www.playwork.co.uk/media/8501/wap_research_report.pdf

National Park Services. (2003). Conservation, Preservation, and Environmental Activism: A

Survey of Historical Literature. History E-Library. Retrieved from

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSThinking/nps-oah.htm

Pachamama Alliance. (2014). Environmental Awareness. Pachamama Alliance. Retrieved from

http://www.pachamama.org/environmental-awareness

Raz, Guy. (2015, March 27). Press Play [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/390249044

Ryan, Anthony and Spash, Clive L. (2008). Measuring “Awareness of Environmental

Consequences”: Two Scales and Two Interpretations. Socio-Economics and the

Environment in Discussion CSIRO Working Paper Series, Volume 10. ISSN: 1834-5638.

Santer, Joan, Griffiths, Carol, and Goodall, Deborah. (2007). Free Play in Early Childhood.

National Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120426/free-play-in-early-childhood.pdf

Siw Linde. (2010). The Skogsmulle Concept. Retrieved from

http://www.friluftsframjandet.se/documents/3187811/3338348/Rationale+for+Skogsmull

e+concept.pdf

44


SRIC-BI and EcoAmerica. (2006). The American Environmental Values Survey: American

Views on the Environment in an era of Polarization and Conflicting Priorities. Retrieved

from http://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AEVS_Report.pdf

Stalling, Penny. (2012, March 20). Maybe the Lorax, Bambi, and Wall-E Can Save the Planet.

Ecology Global Network. Retrieved from: http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/20/lorax-

bambi-wall-e-save-planet/

Stanley, Linda R., Lasonde, Karen M., and Weiss, John. (1996). The Relationship Between

Environmental Issue Involvement and Environmentally-Conscious Behavior: An

Exploratory Study. Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 23. Retrieved from

http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7940

Starling, Paul E. (2011). An Investigation of Unstructured Play in Nature and its Effect on

Children’s Efficacy. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. Retrieved from

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1016&context=edissertations_sp2

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Guide to using the Connection to Nature Index.

Retrieved from http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/guide_tcm9-354604.pdf

Wells, Katherine. (2011, November 23). The Truth Is Out There ….Isn’t It?. Freakonomics.

Retrieved from http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/23/the-truth-is-out-there

%E2%80%A6isn%E2%80%99t-it-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Williams, J. Allen Jr., Podeschi, Christopher, Palmer, Nathan, Schwadel, Philip, and Meyler,

Deanna. (2012). The Human-Environment Dialog in Award-Winning Children’s Picture

Books. Sociology Inquiry 82:1. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

45


article=1175&context=sociologyfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F

%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfluences%2Bthe%2Blorax%2Bhas

%2Bon%2Bchildren%2Band%2Benvironment%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt

%3D0%252C39#search=%22influences%20lorax%20has%20children%20environment

%22

Wikipedia. (2014). Forest Kindergarten. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_kindergarten

46


(Appendix A)

Demographic

Age:

Sex:

Majors & Minors:

State you grew up in:

Primarily, do you consider yourself having grown up in urban, suburban, or rural areas

between the ages of 1-14? Please list which one.

47


(Appendix B)

Children’s Literature and Film: Please write in your favorite book and movie from your childhood. Here childhood is being classified as between the ages of 1-14.

Book: ____________________________________________Movie: ____________________________________________

Rate the level of importance this book/movie was in your life. 0 you have not read or seen it, 1 being no importance to 5 being very important

0 1 2 3 4 5Never No Importance Little Important Sort of VeryRead/Seen Importance Important Important

LiteratureImportance

1. ________ Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling2. _________ The Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder *3. ________ The Lorax by Dr. Seuss *4. _________ The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss5. _________ The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein *6. _________Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak 7. _________ Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White *8. ________ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum9. ________ The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett *10. ________ Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll 11. ________ James and the Giant Peach by Ronald Dahl *12. ________ Island of the Blue Dolphins by Julie Craighead George *13. ________ Julie and the Wolves by Julie Craighead George *14. ________ Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson *15. _______ Curious George by H.A. Rey *16. _______ The Giver by Lois Lowry17. _______ Harriet the Spy by Luise Fitzhugh 18. _______ Holes by Louis Sachar 19. _______ Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren20. _______ The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle *21. _______ Winnie-the-Pooh by A.A. Milne 22. _______ Hoot by Carl Hiaasen *23. _______ Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain *

48


24. ________Wind and Willow by Kenneth Grahame *25. ________ Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling *

FilmImportance1. _______ Ferngully: The Last Rainforest (1992) *2. _______ The Wizard of Oz (1939)3. _______ Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937)4. _______ Finding Nemo (2003) *5. _______ Harry Potter & The Soccer’s Stone (2001)6. _______ Mary Poppins (1964)7. _______ It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)8. _______ Jungle Book (1963) *9. _______ Princess Mononoke (1997) *10. _______ Babe (1995) *11. _______ Bambi (1942) *12. _______ Aladdin (1992)13. _______ The Little Mermaid (1989)14. _______ James and the Giant Peach (1996) *15. _______ A Bug’s Life (1998) *16. _______ Shrek (2001)17. _______ Lion King (1994) *18. _______ Chicken Run(2000) *19. _______ Bridge to Terabithia (2007) *20. ______The Secret Garden (1993) *21. _______ Walle-E (2008) *22. _______ Happy Feet (2006) *23. _______ Hoot (2006) *24. _______ Free Willy (1993) *

49


(Appendix C)

Free Play Survey: Where You Played

This scale is to measure where you played as child (ages 1-14). For each of the following, please rate the extent to which you agree with each statement using the scale from 0 to 4 as shown below. 0 is never played to 4 almost always played. (Bixler et al., 2002).

0 1 2 3 4

Never Played Kind of Played Always Played A Little Played A Lot Played

1. ________ In the woods 2. ________ Around a water source (pond, lake, creek, ocean, etc.)3. ________ In an overgrown field 4. ________ In a farm field/pasture 5. ________ In the street 6. ________ In a yard 7. ________ On a playground 8. ________ Indoors 9. _________ Park 10. ________ In the neighborhood

50


(Appendix D)

Free Play Survey: How You Played

This scale is to measure how you played as child (ages 1-14). For each of the following, please rate the extent to which you agree with each statement using the scale from 0 to 4 as shown below. 0 is never played to 4 almost always played. (Hughes, B. (2002) A Playworker’s Taxonomy of Play Types, 2nd edition, London: PlayLink).

0 1 2 3 4

Never Played Kind of Played Always Played A Little Played A Lot Played

1. ________ Object play (with toys, paintbrush, cloth, etc.) 2. ________ Deep play (play that involves risky situations. Ex. Rolling skating or

balancing on a high beam) 3. ________ Communication play (ex. Mime, charades, play acting) 4. ________ Imaginative Play (imagination has some conventional rules that govern the

physical world do not apply. Ex. Pretending to be a tree or ship) 5. ________ Fantasy Play (ex. Pretending to be a pilot, a character, or being very small,

imagination can run wild).6. ________ Rough and tumble play (involves with physical contact that doesn’t involve

someone being hurt) 7. ________ Locomotors play (ex. Chase, tag, hide and seek, and tree climbing) 8. ________ Mastery play (Ex. Digging holes, changing the course of a stream, and

constructing a shelter) 9. ________ Creative play (allows children to design, explore, try out new ideas, and use

their imagination) 10. ________ Other

51


(Appendix E)

Free Play Survey: Supervision

This scale is to measure how often did were you not supervised while playing as child (ages 1-14). This would be how often as a child were you allowed to go play by yourself or with your friends without a parental figure or adult watching you. For each of the following, please rate the extent to which you agree with each statement using the scale from 0 to 4 as shown below. 0 is never played to 4 almost always played.

0 1 2 3 4

Never Supervised Somewhat Supervised Always Supervised A Little Supervised A Lot Supervised

Ages 1-5: ______________Ages 6-10: ______________Ages 11-14: ______________

52


(Appendix F)

Level of Environmentalism Write either true or false

1. ______ I have taken a basic environmental class2. ______ I enjoy learning more about environmental issues3. ______ I hope to work in something involving environmentalism4. ______ I believe that global warming exist 5. ______ I am worried about global warming6. ______ I currently am taking measures to decrease my effects on global

warming/greenhouse effects7. ______ I believe that pollution is affecting our Earth8. ______ I support pollution standards, even if it means shutting down some factories9. ______ I am actively pushing for more pollution standards to be in place through the

government 10. ______ I believe that animals are endangered11. ______ I support causes and charities who help endangered animals12. ______ I am actively working with causes and charities who help endangered animals13. ______ I believe that factory farming exist14. ______ I support causes to stop factory farming15. ______ I actively work towards stopping factory farming16. ______ I am aware of local farmers17. ______ I support local farmers18. ______ I often buy from local farmers19. ______ I understand recycling can help20. ______ I occasionally recycle21. ______ I often to almost always recycle

53


(Appendix G)

Cover Letter: Qualtrics

My name is Jade Lawson and I am a senior at Chatham University completing my senior tutorial under the direction of Dr. Joseph Wister. I am asking that you complete a fifteen-minute Qualtrics survey on childhood experience with books and movies as well as three short questionnaires on environmental attitudes and behaviors. If you agree to participate, go to the following address. If you do not have a computer, a hard copy of the survey will be provided. You must be 18 years old to be eligible to participate in this study. Participation in this study is completely voluntary, and can be terminated at any time up until the survey is completed answered and submitted. If the study does not interest you, you are not required to answer the survey at all. You can opt out of doing the survey by not clicking the link to start. Furthermore, if at any point while answering the survey, you feel that you no longer would like to be a participant, you may withdraw from the survey. The survey itself does not ask for any identifying information. All data that is collected is anonymous and all results are analyzed in aggregate such that no individual comments or responses that can be tied back to any individual participant. Please note, you are consenting your answers by submitting your answers in electronically through Qualtrics. Please do not sign the survey. There are no known risks to participating in this study. Thanks for your help, Jade LawsonJade Lawson

Joseph A. WisterJoseph A Wister, Ph.D.Department of PsychologyChatham University

54


(Appendix H)

Cover Letter: Hard Copy of the Survey

My name is Jade Lawson and I am a senior at Chatham University completing my senior tutorial under the direction of Dr. Joseph Wister. I am asking that you complete a fifteen-minute Qualtrics survey on childhood experience with books and movies as well as three short questionnaires on environmental attitudes and behaviors. If you agree to participate, go to the following address. If you do not have a computer, a hard copy of the survey will be provided.

You must be 18 years old to be eligible to participate in this study. Participation in this study is completely voluntary, and can be terminated at any time up until the survey is completed answered and submitted. If the study does not interest you, you are not required to answer the survey at all. If you do not want to do the study you are allowed to hand in a blank hardcopy of the survey. Furthermore, if at any point while answering the survey, you feel that you no longer would like to be a participant, you may withdraw from the survey.

The survey itself does not ask for any identifying information. All data that is collected is anonymous and all results are analyzed in aggregate such that no individual comments or responses that can be tied back to any individual participant. Please note, you are consenting your answers by turning in your hardcopy of the survey in the envelope. Please do not sign the survey. There are no known risks to participating in this study.

Thanks for your help,

Jade LawsonJade Lawson

Joseph A. WisterJoseph A Wister, Ph.D.Department of PsychologyChatham University

55

b.a. senior thesis

Documents