Abstract
The current article explores the impact of mindfulness on belief in climate change and the mediating effect of connectedness with nature in this relationship. Belief in climate change was assessed both explicitly (using a self-report questionnaire) and implicitly (using an Implicit Association Test [IAT]). A total of 103 university students were recruited for a between-subjects experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to a mindfulness or mindlessness intervention and then completed IAT and several questionnaires. The results showed that mindfulness significantly increased belief in climate change, both explicitly and implicitly. Our findings also showed that the relationship between mindfulness and climate change beliefs was mediated by an increase in connectedness with nature. These results indicate that mindfulness is an effective way to promote belief in climate change and that connectedness with nature plays an important role in this process.
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges faced by humans today (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010). Although the science is clear that climate change is happening and mainly human-caused, public opinion is still equivocal (Carmichael & Brulle, 2017; Lee, Markowitz, Howe, Ko, & Leiserowitz, 2015; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Hence, a consistent effort has been made to investigate the influencing factors of belief in climate change, and several variables have been identified. These include demographic variables, knowledge and education, values and ideologies, political allegiances, and psychological factors (Guy, Kashima, Walker, & O’Neill, 2014; Hart, Nisbet, & Myers, 2015; Weber, 2016; Whitmarsh, 2011). Among these variables, psychological factors have attracted much attention as they are more susceptible to interventions than are other constructs (Hornsey, Harris, Bain, & Fielding, 2016). One potentially important psychological factor is the cognitive separation of humans from nature, which has been correlated with more self-focused concerns about environmental issues and lower levels of proenvironmental behavior (Schultz, 2001). In this article, we test the influence of mindfulness on individuals’ belief in climate change, and we explore the role of connectedness with nature in explaining this relationship.
Mindfulness and Belief in Climate Change
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to understanding “mindfulness.” One is rooted in the Buddhist mindfulness meditation tradition, which defines mindfulness as the awareness that emerges through nonjudgmentally and purposefully paying attention, in the present moment, to the unfolding of experience moment by moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Mindful meditation is widely used in accordance with this definition in the clinical and medical fields to reduce emotional disturbance, psychological stress, and behavioral maladaptation (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The other approach to mindfulness, which was conceived from a cognitive and information-processing framework (Haigh, Moore, Kashdan, & Fresco, 2011), defines mindfulness as a flexible state of mind in which individuals divide their attention between novel distinctions of objects (Langer, 1989a, 2000; Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000b; Rodin & Langer, 1977). Taking into account the differences between the two definitions, we adopted the second conceptualization of mindfulness. This approach includes four specific aspects: The (a) ability to create novel categorizations and conceptions, (b) sensitivity and perception to one’s environment, (c) capability to think and solve problems from multiple perspectives, and (d) openness to accepting unfamiliar things (Langer, 1992; Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000b; Pirson, Langer, Bodner, & Zilchamano, 2012). Since the time when the definition and characteristics of mindfulness were put forward, mindfulness has been applied in many fields and has been shown to have a positive impact on various outcomes such as memory, creativity, physical well-being, psychological well-being, and social cognition (Langer, 2000; Pirson et al., 2012). In the area of social cognition, in particular, mindfulness has been used as a positive intervention to reduce prejudice (Djikic, Langer, & Stapleton, 2008; Langer, Bashner, & Chanowitz, 1985) and stigma (Tang & Geng, 2013) and to promote cognitive skills (Anglin, Pirson, & Langer, 2008; Geng, Zhang, & Zhang, 2011; Ie, Haller, Langer, & Courvoisier, 2012).
Although mindfulness has been applied to a range of topics, to our knowledge, the effect of mindfulness on belief in climate change has not been explored. Despite this, some clues can be drawn from research in related domains. Previous studies have shown that a person’s belief in climate change and ameliorative action intentions can be hindered by several psychological barriers (Biesbroek, Klostermann, Termeer, & Kabat, 2013; Gifford, 2011). For example, Greenway (2011) argued that the prevalence of the cognitive assumption of dualism leads to the separation and opposition of humans and nature. More recently, Weber (2017) pointed out that some cognitive barriers, such as present bias, status quo bias, and risk aversion, could influence our perception and belief in climate change. To overcome these cognitive barriers, researchers have offered many suggestions, ranging from the use of role models to the reframing of issues or focusing on the future in other ways (Gifford, 2013; Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). These approaches are undoubtedly valuable; however, a more effective way seems to be to a shift of cognitive thinking patterns (Weber, 2017), which could be accomplished through mindfulness (Langer, 2000). Mindfulness, as mentioned above, involves breaking preexisting thinking patterns and promoting a flexible and open cognitive mind set through which individuals can extend their attention into novel distinctions and categorizations of context (Langer, 2000). Thus, through mindfulness, individuals are more prone to developing new critical thinking patterns instead of falling into rigid and constrained thinking patterns. In a nutshell, mindfulness may result in a cognitive shift and thereby increase a person’s belief in climate change.
Previous research exploring belief in climate change has mostly focused on its explicit aspects. However, we are also interested in exploring the effect of mindfulness on implicit belief in climate change. Explicit and implicit attitudes are different concepts: explicit attitudes represent attitudes that are at the conscious level and are deliberately formed, whereas implicit attitudes represent attitudes that are at the unconscious level and are involuntarily formed (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). It is noteworthy that mindlessness is a mental state in which individuals rely on automatic cognitive processing and are oblivious to alternative ways of knowing. On the contrary, mindfulness is a flexible state of mind in which people are actively engaged in the present, notice new things, and are sensitive to context (Langer, 2000). In other words, mindfulness is a simple act of drawing novel distinctions (Djikic et al., 2008), which could lead to an active mind-set, free limited cognitive resources (Langer, 2000). Hence, it is reasonable to believe that mindfulness could contribute to improving one’s implicit belief in climate change.
In exploring the distinction between implicit and explicit beliefs, it is also worthwhile to point out the different measuring techniques. Traditionally, climate change beliefs were measured using self-report questionnaires (e.g., Heath & Gifford, 2006; Mase, Cho, & Prokopy, 2015; McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, 2014). However, considering that self-report questionnaires are susceptible to the influence of social desirability bias, it would be valuable to measure climate change belief implicitly. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) provides a useful tool for measuring implicit attitudes (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005). A large body of research has demonstrated that the IAT is particularly suitable for measuring attitudes and beliefs that people may be unwilling or unable to report (Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005). Furthermore, previous studies have concluded that the IAT has a predictive validity independent of the predictive validity of explicit measures (Greenwald et al., 2009), and scores of the IAT are moderately correlated with explicit measures (Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004). Therefore, in this study, we investigate participants’ belief in climate change both explicitly (using a self-report questionnaire) and implicitly (using an IAT).
Potential Mediating Role of Connectedness With Nature in the Relationship Between Mindfulness and Belief in Climate Change
Researchers of environmental psychology have long focused on the relationship between humans and nature, in which connectedness with nature has repeatedly been reported to play an important role (Cervinka, Röderer, & Hefler, 2012). Schultz (2002) first defined connectedness with nature as “the extent to which an individual includes nature within his/her cognitive representation of self” (p. 67). Based on this definition, Schultz (2002) presented the Inclusion of Nature in the Self (INS) Scale to measure individuals’ beliefs about their connection to nature. Connectedness with nature has been reported to be valuable in many areas such as environmental education (Liefländer, 2015), environment management (Gosling & Williams, 2010), subjective well-being (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009; Zhang, Howell, & Iyer, 2014), environmental attitudes (Schultz et al., 2004), and proenvironmental behaviors (Geng, Xu, Ye, Zhou, & Zhou, 2015; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007).
To date, there is limited direct research on the relationship between connectedness with nature and belief in climate change, but a few indirect studies have involved these constructs. For example, studies on connectedness with nature and environmental behaviors have indicated that individuals who have a stronger sense of being connected with nature are less likely to engage in behavior that is harmful to the environment. This is because they cognitively and affectively regard harming the environment as harming themselves (Schultz et al., 2004). In addition to this finding, Mayer and colleagues (2009) noted that exposure to nature could positively affect one’s mood and cognitive processing, thus people would be more sensitive to the changes in their natural surroundings and the broader environment. More recently, a meta-analysis (Hornsey et al., 2016) on belief in climate change has provided stronger evidence. After a careful examination on the relationship between belief in climate change and 20 antecedent variables, the study concluded that the relationship between people’s belief in climate change and New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was the strongest, indicating that people’s belief in climate change tends to be stronger when they endorse the NEP. Notably, the NEP measures beliefs about the relationship between humans and the natural world (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) and is highly correlated with the Connectedness With Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). In other words, the NEP is also an effective measure of connectedness with nature (Perrin & Benassi, 2009). Hence, individuals with a higher degree of connectedness with nature are more concerned about the natural environment and are more sensitive to the dangers of climate change. Based on this evidence, we speculate that individuals with higher levels of connectedness with nature hold stronger belief in climate change.
Researchers have proposed several ways to cultivate connectedness with nature, such as direct contact with nature (Bruni, Fraser, & Schultz, 2008) and environmental education (Liefländer, Fröhlich, Bogner, & Schultz, 2013). The abovementioned methods are generally affective and informationally oriented; however, connectedness with nature is a reflection of one’s cognitive beliefs that he or she is part of the natural world. Consequently, it may be more effective to improve the self-nature connection with a cognitively oriented method. Recent research on mindfulness has provided such an alternative way. For instance, in an experimental study, Wang and colleagues (2016) confirmed that participants performed better on an IAT and scored higher on the INS Scale after mindful learning, indicating that mindfulness could effectively promote connectedness with nature both implicitly and explicitly.
On the basis of the above discussion, we propose that connectedness with nature may play a mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness and belief in climate change. Specifically, we propose that mindfulness could contribute to creating a novelty focused and flexible cognitive mind-set, breaking the routine thinking pattern that represents the antinomy between humans and nature. Thus, mindfulness promotes a new pattern of thinking whereby “self” and “nature” overlap and bring about a reconnection and integration between humans and nature. Furthermore, the enhancement of connectedness with nature could lead to a cognitive application of precautionary principles in weighing the amount of evidence for climate change (Hornsey et al., 2016) and, consequently, increase the likelihood of believing in climate change.
Overview of the Study
The current research utilized experimental methods to expand on previous research by investigating the impact of mindfulness on belief in climate change and exploring the potential mediating effect of connectedness with nature in this relationship. Particularly, the mindfulness/mindlessness intervention was based on the previous work of Wang et al. (2016). Belief in climate change was measured both explicitly (using a self-report questionnaire) and implicitly (using an IAT). We hypothesized that mindfulness would significantly increase participants’ belief in climate change both explicitly and implicitly (Hypothesis 1). In addition, considering the close relationship between connectedness with nature and climate change beliefs, we also hypothesized that connectedness with nature would mediate the relationship between mindfulness and belief in climate change (Hypothesis 2).
Method
Participants
We recruited 115 university students from a university in China by online advertisement. Twelve participants did not meet the criteria for questionnaires and IAT test: Four of them did not complete the questionnaires; five of them had a high error rate (error rate > 20%) of the IAT; three participants’ latencies of the IAT were more than 10,000 ms or less than 300 ms (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). The data of these participants were therefore excluded from data analysis. Thus, the final sample included 103 participants (47 female; age range: 17-29 years, mean age = 21.43 years, SD = 2.53; major: 44 Arts, 37 Science, 20 Engineering, and two missing values). Participants were randomly assigned to a mindlessness (n = 54) or a mindfulness group (n = 49). All participants provided written informed consent. This experiment was carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines by the institutional review board of Nanjing University.
Mindfulness Intervention
The current study adopted the Western, social-cognitive mindfulness concept, which could be accessed through a nonmeditative way. Previous research confirmed that using different wording could induce either a mindful or a mindless state (Geng et al., 2011; Langer & Piper, 1987). Therefore, the mindfulness intervention (Geng et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016) was performed in such a way that it altered the participants’ mental state and produced a situation in which the participants could cognitively draw distinctions and notice new things (Bodner & Langer, 2001). The intervention materials for the mindfulness condition consisted of tasks of categorization (e.g., the participants were instructed to categorize 30 items using different classifying standards), free association (e.g., participants were required to create a story according to the given pictures), and multiperspective thinking (e.g., the participants were required to describe 10 different uses of water). However, the intervention materials for the mindlessness condition included simple, rigid tasks such as categorization (e.g., participants were requested to categorize 30 items using three fixed standards, including tools, fruits, and animals), true or false task (e.g., “The capital of China is Beijing”), completion task (e.g., “What do we call mother’s husband?”), choice task (e.g., “What kind of animal could live in desert?”), and uniperspective thinking (e.g., the participants were required to describe one use of water). It is noteworthy that although the two conditions of the intervention comprised different tasks, the length of the interventions was controlled to allow both groups the same amount of time. The whole intervention for both conditions lasted for approximately 20 min.
Materials
Inclusion of Nature in the Self Scale (INS)
Connectedness with nature was measured using the INS Scale. The scale is a single-item graphical measure of an individual’s cognitive pattern of relationship between the self and nature (Schultz, 2002). INS consists of seven increasingly overlapping circles, with the labels of “Self” and “Nature.” Participants are asked to select the image that best describes their relationship with nature. In comparison with other measures, the INS is concise and easy to administer (Martin & Czellar, 2016). The INS has been found to be reliable across time (Schultz, 2002) and to correlate positively with biospheric attitude scores on the NEP (Schultz, 2001) and with self-reported environmental behavior (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz et al., 2004). A higher score on this questionnaire reflects stronger connectedness with nature.
Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS)
Mindfulness was measured using the LMS. The scale includes 21 items; each item uses a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). It assesses four domains associated with mindfulness: novelty seeking, novelty producing, engagement, and flexibility (Bodner & Langer, 2001). Novelty seeking involves the tendency to have an open and curious orientation to one’s environment (e.g., “I like to investigate things”). Novelty producing refers to generating new information and creating new categories rather than relying on previously constructed categories and distinctions (e.g., “I find it easy to create new and effective ideas”). Engagement refers to noticing more details about the environment and actively attending to changes in the environment (e.g., “I am rarely alert to new developments”). Flexibility refers to welcoming a changing environment rather than resisting it (e.g., “I have an open mind about everything, even things that challenge my core beliefs”) (Langer, 1989b). The LMS has been widely used to assess mindfulness and has been shown to have high reliability and validity (Pirson et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2016). A higher score on this questionnaire reflects higher mindfulness. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .84.
Climate Change Belief Scale (CCBS)
To investigate belief in climate change explicitly, we adopted Weber and colleagues’ brief questionnaire about climate change belief (Zaval, Keenan, Johnson, & Weber, 2014). The three-item questionnaire was adapted from previous public opinion studies about global warming (Leiserowitz, Shome, Marx, Hammer, & Broad, 2008). Respondents reported how convinced they were that “global warming (climate change) is happening,” “global warming (climate change) is caused mostly by human activities,” and how much they were “personally worried about global warming (climate change).” Response options ranged from 1 (not at all convinced/worried) to 4 (completely convinced/worried a great deal). This scale has been reported to have good reliability and validity (Li, Johnson, & Zaval, 2011; Zaval et al., 2014). A higher score on this questionnaire indicates a stronger belief in climate change. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was .80.
IAT
The IAT measures automatic concept–attribute associations using reaction time as an indicator (Greenwald, Mcghee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT has been used widely in various fields and has been reported to have good psychometric properties (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2005). To measure the implicit belief in climate change, the current study used a single category IAT (SC-IAT), which is a modification of the IAT and measures the strength of evaluative associations with a single attitude object (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006). SC-IAT’s reliability and validity have been considered satisfactory across many fields (e.g., De Cuyper, Pieters, Claes, Vandromme, & Hermans, 2013; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006).
In our study, the IAT test consisted of 192 trials in four blocks (two practicing blocks with 24 trials and two testing blocks with 72 trials). The trials of the IAT were counterbalanced, and the order of the words was randomized. Participants were instructed to complete a categorization task: one distinguishing between words suggesting “believe” (e.g., trust, real, true, certain) and “suspect” (e.g., doubt, suspect, false) and the other representing words suggesting “climate change” (e.g., global warming, glaciers melting). Then, participants were required to respond to two kinds of pairings by clicking different keys according to instructions: One pair was compatible (e.g., “believe” and “climate change”) and the other pair was incompatible (e.g., “suspect” and “climate change”). According to IAT theory, the greater the implicit association one feels, the easier and faster one will categorize a compatible pairing (Greenwald et al., 2003). The main indicator of the IAT is D-score (ranging from −2 to 2), which is the difference between the mean response time for incompatible trials and the mean response time for compatible trials (Greenwald et al., 2003). In the present study, larger D-scores indicate stronger implicit belief in climate change.
Procedure
Participants were informed that they were involved in a cognition task. A final inquiry and an informal interview showed that no participant had surmised the actual purpose of the study. All participants were tested individually in a private room, and all procedures were presented in Chinese. Participants were randomly assigned to a mindfulness or mindlessness group after signing the informed consent form. First, participants in each of the two groups engaged with either mindfulness or mindlessness intervention materials and then completed the LMS. Next, all participants were instructed to complete an IAT and the INS Scale and CCBS. Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed.
Results
Manipulation Check
To check the effectiveness of the mindfulness prime, an independent-samples t test was performed based on the scores of the LMS. The results showed a significant difference between the mindlessness and mindfulness groups, with the mindfulness group showing higher scores compared with the mindlessness group (Mmindless = 101.78, SD = 13.49 vs. Mmindful = 110.29, SD = 10.64; df = 101; t = −3.53, p < .01; Cohen’s d = 0.70). Therefore, the mindfulness manipulation was considered effective.
The Effect of Mindfulness on Connectedness With Nature and Belief in Climate Change
To investigate the influence of mindfulness on connectedness with nature and belief in climate change, an independent-samples t test was performed. The results showed that the INS scores of the mindfulness group were significantly higher than those of the mindlessness group (Mmindless = 4.41, SD = 1.52, vs. Mmindful = 5.43, SD = 1.23; t = −3.73, p < .01; df = 101; Cohen’s d = 0.74). In addition, the explicit belief in climate change was significantly different between the two groups (Mmindless = 7.69, SD = 2.37, vs. Mmindful = 9.57, SD = 2.09; t = −4.26, p < .01; df = 101; Cohen’s d = 0.84). Similarly, the IAT D-score of the mindfulness group was also significantly higher than that of the mindlessness group (Mmindless = −0.14, SD = 0.32, vs. Mmindful = 0.10, SD = 0.24; t = −4.14, p < .01; df = 101; Cohen’s d = 0.85). These results supported our first hypothesis, which postulated that mindfulness could improve people’s climate change belief both implicitly and explicitly.
Mediation Test: Explicit Belief in Climate Change
The PROCESS procedures (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and AMOS 21.0 were used to investigate whether connectedness with nature mediated the effect of mindfulness on explicit belief in climate change. In this analysis, mindfulness served as the independent variable; the INS score served as the mediator variable; the CCBS score served as the dependent variable; and the IAT D-score served as the controlled variable. The results showed that the total and direct effects of mindfulness on explicit climate beliefs were 0.39 (p < .01) and 0.22 (p < .05), respectively. More importantly, a 95% bias-corrected mediation analysis based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples showed that the confidence interval (CI) = [0.069, 0.286] of the indirect effect did not contain 0 (see Figure 1). Thus, our results conformed the mediating role of connectedness with nature on the relationship between mindfulness and explicit belief in climate change.
Mediation test: Explicit belief in climate change.
Mediation Test: Implicit Belief in Climate Change
Again, the PROCESS procedures (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and AMOS 21.0 were used to estimate the 95% bias-corrected CIs of the indirect effect, using 5,000 bootstrapped samples. In this analysis, mindfulness served as the independent variable; the connectedness with nature score served as the mediator variable; the IAT D-score served as the dependent variable; and the CCBS score served as the controlled variable. The results showed that the total and direct effects of mindfulness on implicit climate beliefs were 0.38 (p < .01) and 0.19 (p < .05), respectively. Furthermore, the results indicated that the 95% bias-corrected CI of the indirect effect did not contain 0 with CI = [0.079, 0.295], indicating that the mediation effect of connectedness with nature on the relationship between mindfulness and implicit belief in climate change was significant (see Figure 2).
Mediation test: Implicit belief in climate change.
Discussion
The current research explored the effect of mindfulness on increasing both explicit and implicit climate change beliefs and examined the indirect effect of connectedness with nature on the relationship between mindfulness and belief in climate change. Our first hypothesis, where we postulated that mindfulness could significantly increase belief in climate change both explicitly and implicitly, was supported. The mediation test also supported our second hypothesis in that mindfulness indirectly affected people’s belief in climate change through connectedness with nature.
Mindfulness and Belief in Climate Change
A substantial body of research has demonstrated the positive effects of mindfulness in many domains. For example, it has been reported to be beneficial for relieving mental pressure (Langer, 2000), reducing stigma and prejudice (Djikic et al., 2008; Tang & Geng, 2013), improving well-being (Pirson et al., 2012), and promoting engagement in pro-environmental behaviors (Barbaro & Pickett, 2015; Tang, Geng, Schultz, Zhou, & Xiang, 2017). However, systematic research on mindfulness in the field of climate change beliefs is sparse. Previous studies indicated that individuals’ belief in climate change could be negatively affected by some cognitive barriers, such as present bias and limited cognition about the situation (Gifford, 2011, 2013; Weber, 2017). Notably, mindfulness is an effective way of facilitating cognitive shifting and breaking psychological barriers. Mindfulness is a style of thinking that typically conflicts with a fixed mind-set whereby individuals become more likely to develop new critical thinking patterns (Langer, 2000). This sociocognitive approach to mindfulness usually includes the external, material, and social context of individuals (Baer, 2003; Langer, 1989b). It pursues a learning agenda, can be particularly goal-oriented, and involves the use of mindfulness in enhancing problem-solving and other cognitive exercises. Thus, mindfulness (a cognitive shifting) is helpful breaking one’s cognitive barriers and strengthening one’s perception of and belief in climate change.
Explicit and Implicit Beliefs in Climate Change
This study expanded the beneficial effect of mindfulness to both explicit and implicit beliefs in climate change. Climate change beliefs have, in the past, mostly been measured using self-report questionnaires. In our study, in addition to questionnaires, we adopted the IAT to investigate implicit belief in climate change. Explicit and implicit beliefs are related but distinct constructs. The former represents an effortful, intentional, and controllable cognitive process, whereas the latter reflects an effortless, unintentional, and involuntary cognitive process (Evans, 2008). Ordinary people usually utilize automatically activated associations rather than rational analysis to guide their attitudes and decisions (Weber, 2017), which is a reflection of mindlessness. When people are mindless, instead of actively drawing new distinctions, noticing new things, people rely on distinctions drawn in the past. In a mindless state, individuals are stuck in a single, rigid perspective and are oblivious to alternative ways of knowing (Langer, 1992). In other words, when people are mindless, their beliefs and behaviors are governed by rule and routine (Langer, 1992, 2000). On the contrary, mindfulness is a state of mind in which people are cognitively activated to engaging in the controllable processes that can override automatic processes (Langer, 2000). Therefore, by means of actively drawing novel distinctions and concentrating on controllable processes, mindfulness can also improve implicit climate change beliefs.
The Mediating Role of Connectedness With Nature
In addition to the direct effect of mindfulness on belief in climate change, the current study also verified an indirect effect, in which connectedness with nature plays a mediating role. Prior research indicated that global climate change is a reflection of the opposition between humans and nature (Nisbet et al., 2009), and climate change belief has been found to be strongly determined by individuals’ environmental values (Whitmarsh, 2011). Thus, to tackle climate change and increase belief in climate change, a reconnection of people and nature is required. In addition, as mentioned earlier, NEP is the strongest predictive variable of belief in climate change. Because NEP is also an effective measure of connectedness with nature (Perrin & Benassi, 2009), it is logical to assume that people who are closely connected to nature will be more concerned about the environment; thus, they would be more inclined to use precautionary principles in evaluating the evidence for climate change (Hornsey et al., 2016), leading to a stronger belief in climate change. Furthermore, consistent with prior research (Wang et al., 2016), our research found that mindfulness is an effective way to cultivate connectedness with nature. Specifically, being mindful, drawing distinctions, and noticing new things, could ensure that individuals become more apt at intentionally processing information about environmental impact (Amel, Manning, & Scott, 2009). This would intensify individuals’ specific experiences about the natural world (Wang et al., 2016) and consequently promote their connection to nature. Taken together, our research suggested that by focusing on the shifting of cognitive thinking patterns, mindfulness could enhance individuals’ connectedness with nature. The enhancement of connectedness with nature would contribute to increasing their belief in climate change. Thus, connectedness with nature mediates the relationship between mindfulness and climate change belief.
Implications
To our knowledge, the present study was the first to apply mindfulness to increasing climate change belief and successfully investigated the mediating role of connectedness with nature. In recent years, the application of mindfulness and connectedness with nature in the field of environmental psychology has caused widespread interest. However, there is still room for improvement in at least two aspects. First, the majority of studies related to mindfulness adopted an Eastern, meditative conceptualization of mindfulness (e.g., Unsworth, Palicki, & Lustig, 2016; Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013). Research on Western, social-cognitive mindfulness is relatively scant. Second, little attention, to date, has been paid to the relationship between mindfulness and belief in climate change. Therefore, by investigating the relationships between mindfulness, belief in climate change, and connection to nature, we aimed to address this research gap and provide avenues for future research.
The findings of the current study have important implications. First, mindfulness, as an alternative and effective way of promoting belief in climate change, could be implemented in climate change campaigns, especially in communication about climate change. Policy makers could make efforts to propagate innovative environmental information in multiple ways (e.g., advertising, mass media, and networks), which may continually activate people’s mind-sets to increase their belief in climate change. Second, mindfulness could be critical for improvement in proenvironmental behaviors in the field of environmental education. Previous research has demonstrated the positive impact of mindfulness on connectedness with nature. Mindfulness could cultivate people’s connection with nature, promote the emotional and cognitive tie between humans and the natural world, and increase people’s feeling of being one with nature. Therefore, it is promising to use mindfulness to cultivate connectedness with nature and foster proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors.
Limitations and Future Directions
Some limitations of the current study should be noted. First, due to its experimental nature, the ecological validity of the study was limited. Second, the participants of the study were college students, and the sample size was relatively small. In this regard, the sample representativeness of the study was limited. In addition, the INS Scale was just one item. A one-item scale is a threat (mono-operation bias) to construct validity.
The current findings also point out several potential directions for future research. First, future studies could explore the relationship between mindfulness, climate change beliefs, and climate friendly behaviors. It is generally accepted that there is a gap between people’s attitudes and behaviors (Gifford & Chen, 2017). Hornsey and colleagues (2016) indicated that climate change beliefs have only a small to moderate impact on the climate change mitigation behaviors. Nevertheless, research has also indicated that mindfulness could serve as a means of behavioral regulation (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000a) and could promote proenvironmental behaviors by enhancing awareness of proenvironmental options (Barbaro & Pickett, 2015). Therefore, it will be important to further explore the influence of mindfulness on climate-friendly behaviors. Second, apart from the indirect effect, the mediation tests also confirmed a significant direct effect of mindfulness on climate beliefs, which indicates the existence of other mediating variables (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Furthermore, in this study, even though the mediator and the criterion were assessed concurrently, it is possible that other models also apply. Future studies could investigate other possible variables and models that are associated with mindfulness and climate change beliefs. Last, the current study was conducted in a short time and previous research has implied that a mindfulness state may not be sustained over a longtime (Ericson, Kjønstad, & Barstad, 2014). Hence, a longitudinal study aiming to examine the long-term effect of mindfulness on climate change belief would be valuable. Last, as mentioned above, given the relatively small sample size, a larger study with diverse participants will make a greater contribution to this area.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the Jiangsu University Philosophy Social Science Fund Project “Mentality in the period of social transformation” (No. 2015JDXM003). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.