Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:11:21.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the Measure of Love for Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2020

Laura Pasca Open the ORCID record for Laura Pasca [Opens in a new window] ,
David Paniagua Open the ORCID record for David Paniagua [Opens in a new window]  and
Juan Ignacio Aragonés Open the ORCID record for Juan Ignacio Aragonés [Opens in a new window]
Laura Pasca*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
David Paniagua
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Juan Ignacio Aragonés
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Pasca. Universidad Complutense. 28040 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several instruments have been developed to measure the human beings-nature relationship, one of which is the Love and Care for Nature Scale. Three studies were conducted with the aim of analyzing to what extent the construct of love and care for nature, responds to two empirically different dimensions, as well as conducting a psychometric study of the scale. The analysis of construct components showed a large cluster formed by two others (connectedness and well-being), considered “love for nature”, and one two-items cluster referring to “care” (Study 1, n = 51). Considering the “love” items, it was found that ten of the items present adequate psychometric properties (Study 2, n = 1071), and adequate levels of reliability and validity (Study 3, n = 151). Consequently, an appropriate measure of love of nature is established, while an interesting future research line would be to separately study the scale’s two components.

Keywords

connectednesslove for naturenaturewell-being
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 23 , 2020 , e47
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: None.

Funding Statement: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J. I., de Frutos, B., Sevillano, V., & Cortés, B. (2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J. I., & García, J. A. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern. An integrative proposal. PsyEcology, 3, 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119712802845723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amérigo, M., García, J. A., Pérez-López, R., Cassullo, G., Ramos, A., Venumbaka, S. K., & Aragonés, J. I. (2020). Analysis of the structure and factorial invariance of the Multidimensional Environmental Concern scale (MECS). Psicothema, 32(2), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.281Google Scholar
Aragonés, J. I., Olivos, P., Pasca, L., & Talayero, F. (2015, July). The dimensions of nature and the moderating role of connectedness [Paper presentation]. XXXV Congreso Interamericano de Psicología. Lima, Perú. http://sip2015.org/Google Scholar
Aragonés, J. I., & Pasca, L. (2017). La conectividad con la naturaleza: Un paseo por el jardín botánico [Connectedness to nature: A walk through the botanical garden] (Unpublished manuscript). Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Complutense. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cai, L., du Toit, S. H. C., & Thissen, D. (2011). IRTPRO: Flexible professional item response theory modeling for patient reported outcomes (Version 2.1) [Computer software]. Scientific Software International. https://vpgcentral.com/software/irtpro/Google Scholar
Calderón Garrido, C., Navarro González, D., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando Piera, P. J. (2019). Multidimensional or essentially unidimensional? A multi-faceted factor-analytic approach for assessing the dimensionality of tests and items. Psicothema, 31(4), 450–457. http://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.153Google ScholarPubMed
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45–65). MIT PRESS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, X., Liu, S., Li, H., Yang, Z., Liang, S., & Deng, N. (2020). Love of nature as a mediator between connectedness to nature and sustainable consumption behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, Article 118451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236–241. http://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304Google ScholarPubMed
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1988-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203056615Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Reserch Methods, 38, 88–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merino, M. D., & Privado, J. (2020). Is love triarchic or monarchical-hierarchical? A proposal of a general factor of love and a scale to measure it. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 23, Article e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. User's guide. Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Pasca, L. (2018). Nature, connectedness and well-being. (Published doctoral dissertation) Universidad Complutense. Madrid, Spain. https://eprints.ucm.es/55335/Google Scholar
Pasca, L., & Aragonés, J. I. (2018). Contacto con la naturaleza: Favoreciendo la conectividad y el bienestar [Contact with nature: promoting connectedness and well-being]. Manuscript submitted for publication. Faculty of Psychology. Universidad Complutense, Madrid. Spain.Google Scholar
Pasca, L., Aragonés, J. I., & Coello, M. T. (2017). An analysis of the connectedness to nature scale based on item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasca, L., Coello, M. T., Aragonés, J. I., & Frantz, C. M. (2018). The equivalence of measures on the Connectedness to Nature Scale: A comparison between ordinal methods of DIF detection. PloS ONE, 13, Article e0207739. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207739CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-López, R., Pasca, L. & Aragonés, J. I. (2018, July). A longitudinal study about connectedness to nature, wellbeing and climate change concerns among Spanish teenagers [Paper presentation]. 25th IAPS Conference. Rome, Italy. http://iaps2018.com/Google Scholar
Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 34, 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stålhammar, S., & Pedersen, E. (2017). Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? Ecosystem Services, 26, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson.Google Scholar
Tam, K.-P. (2013a). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, K.-P. (2013b). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigon, M. (2016). Conectividad con la Naturaleza e implicación en su concepción [Connectedness to Nature and involvement in its conception]. (Unpublished Master’s dissertation) Universidad Complutense. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar