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 University
Pittsburgh, PA

The Relationship between Childhood Experiences and Future Environmental Behaviors 1
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.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………1
Tableof Content.…………………………………………………………………….2
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………3
List of Figures……………………………………………………………….4
Abstract……………………………………………………………………...5
Introduction………………………………………………………………….6
Literature Review……………………………………………………………6
Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………..20
Methods……………………………………………………………………...21
Participants……………………………………………………………21
Materials………………………………………………………………21
Procedures…………………………………………………………….23
Results……………………………………………………………………….23
Discussion…………………………………………………………………...32
References…………………………………………………………………...40
Appendix A………………………………………………………………….47
Appendix B………………………………………………………………….48
Appendix C………………………………………………………………….50
Appendix D………………………………………………………………….51
Appendix E………………………………………………………………….52
Appendix F………………………………………………………………….53
Appendix G………………………………………………………………….54
Appendix H………………………………………………………………….55

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

List of Figures
Figure 1……………………………………………………………………...31

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.

The Relationship between Childhood Experiences and Future Environmental Behaviors
“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… 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

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

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,

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

(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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Table: 2
Correlations Between Level of Environmentalism and “Controlled” Settings
Yard Playground Park Pasture/Farm
Level 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
Level of
Environmentalism
r -0.075 0.111 0.261
P 0.543 0.366 0.032
**. 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.
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
Woods
Overgrown
Field
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
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).

Table: 7
Correlations Between Environmental Behavior and “Wild” Settings
Woods
Overgrown
Field
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
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
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

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
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
Level of
Environmentalism
r P
Object 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).

Table: 12
Correlations Between Environmental Awareness and How You Played
Awareness
r P
Deep Play 0.021 0.865
Communication Play 0.088 0.474
Imaginative Play 0.134 0.176
Rough and Tumble -0.26 0.032
Locomotors Play 0.001 0.993
Mastery Play -0.045 0.717
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
Attitude
r P
Deep Play -0.037 0.766

Locomotors Play -0.013 0.917
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 P
Object Play -0.029 0.812
Deep Play 0.078 0.526
Locomotors Play -0.249 0.04
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.

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
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
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
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.

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

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?languag
e=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

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

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_Topic
3/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

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

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_sp
2
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?article=1175&context=sociologyfacp

ub&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%20ch
ildren%20environment%22
Wikipedia. (2014). Forest Kindergarten. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_kindergarten

(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.

(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 5
Never No Importance Little Important Sort of Very
Read/Seen Importance Important Important
Literature
Importance
1. ________ Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling
2. _________ The Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder *
3. ________ The Lorax by Dr. Seuss *
4. _________ The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss
5. _________ 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 Baum
9. ________ 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 Lowry
17. _______ Harriet the Spy by Luise Fitzhugh
18. _______ Holes by Louis Sachar
19. _______ Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren
20. _______ 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 *
24. ________Wind and Willow by Kenneth Grahame *
25. ________ Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling *
Film
Importance
1. _______ 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) *

(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

(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

(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: ______________

(Appendix F)
Level of Environmentalism
Write either true or false
1. ______ I have taken a basic environmental class
2. ______ I enjoy learning more about environmental issues
3. ______ I hope to work in something involving environmentalism
4. ______ I believe that global warming exist
5. ______ I am worried about global warming
6. ______ I currently am taking measures to decrease my effects on global
warming/greenhouse effects
7. ______ I believe that pollution is affecting our Earth
8. ______ I support pollution standards, even if it means shutting down some factories
9. ______ I am actively pushing for more pollution standards to be in place through the
government
10. ______ I believe that animals are endangered
11. ______ I support causes and charities who help endangered animals
12. ______ I am actively working with causes and charities who help endangered animals
13. ______ I believe that factory farming exist
14. ______ I support causes to stop factory farming
15. ______ I actively work towards stopping factory farming
16. ______ I am aware of local farmers
17. ______ I support local farmers
18. ______ I often buy from local farmers
19. ______ I understand recycling can help
20. ______ I occasionally recycle
21. ______ I often to almost always recycle

(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 Lawson
Jade Lawson
JosephA. Wister
Joseph A Wister, Ph.D.
Departmentof Psychology
Chatham University

(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 Lawson
Jade Lawson
JosephA. Wister
Joseph A Wister, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Chatham University

B.A. Senior Thesis

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to B.A. Senior Thesis

B.A. Senior Thesis