Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Consciousness and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/concog

Mindful learning can promote connectedness to nature: Implicit

and explicit evidence
Xue Wang a, Liuna Geng a,,1, Kexin Zhou b,,1, Lijuan Ye a, Yinglin Ma c
a
Department of Psychology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
b
Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Nanjing, China
c
Business College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmental problems have attracted increasing attention, yet individuals connected-
Received 15 September 2015 ness to nature remains a significant concern for potential solutions to these problems. In
Revised 23 April 2016 this article, we propose a novel method to promote connectedness to nature: mindful
Accepted 3 June 2016
learning. One hundred and thirty-four students participated in the experiment. First, base-
line measurements using the Connectedness to Nature Scale were obtained. Participants
were then assigned to either a mindful or mindless learning condition. Finally, as a posttest,
Keywords:
participants completed the Implicit Association Test and the Inclusion of Nature in the Self
Mindful learning
Connectedness to nature
Scale. The performance of the mindful-learning group was better for both measures.
Implicit Association Test (IAT) Participants in the mindful-learning condition performed better on the Implicit
Association Test and scored higher on the Inclusion of Nature in the Self Scale. These results
provide empirical evidence that mindful learning may promote connectedness to nature,
both implicitly and explicitly.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Phenomenal descriptions and empirical evidence both highlight a number of growing dilemmas between humans and
nature, such as resource depletion and environmental pollution. Such environmental problems have been increasingly draw-
ing the attention of sociologists, ecologists, and psychologists. In psychology in particular, a great deal of research has shifted
from mainly addressing very specific and local environmental issues, such as reusing material (Ditlev-Simonsen & Wenstp,
2012) and limiting energy use in local areas (Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980), to broader conceptualizations of humans rela-
tionships to nature.
Since the 1970s, researchers have increasingly realized that environmental problems are rooted in a blind spot (Nisbet,
Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009; Vining, 2003), which is a denial of belonging to or existing as a part of nature. More fundamen-
tally, our general perception of gender dualism (such as light/dark, body/mind; Booth, 1999) intensifies cognitive splitting
between humans and nature. This separation is becoming worse as people enter into industrialized and urbanized society.
Modern media and networks impede peoples accessing and appreciating nature, creating an illusionary distance from nat-
ure (Sukhdev et al., 2010). Thus, psychologists have proposed that a critical aspect of solving environmental problems is
establishing harmonious relationships between humans and nature (McKenna, 2003). Considering the great dependence

Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: gengliuna@nju.edu.cn (L. Geng), zhoukexin@aliyun.com (K. Zhou).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.006
1053-8100/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17

of humans on nature and the hinging of their identity mainly on nature in the distant past, a reconnection of modern people
to nature is required.
The perspective of reconnecting to nature has incorporated the concept of connectedness to nature, a notion with a long
philosophical history (e.g., I am part of nature (Callicott, 1999)) that has been built upon in the field of psychology. Previous
studies have amply contributed to conceptualizations of connectedness to nature, placing varying emphasis on three cardi-
nal dimensions of cognition, affect, and behavior. Primarily, many definitions emphatically describe the cognitive aspect of
connectedness to nature. For example, Wilson (1984) initially argued for an evolved need among individuals to affiliate with
nature that originates from our physiological dependence on it. From a more psychological perspective, Schultz (2001) first
provided a specific definition of connectedness to nature: the extent to which an individual includes nature within his or
her cognitive representation of self. Based on his definition, Schultzs measure used one item to operationalize the cognitive
construct of connectedness to nature, modified from previous research on interpersonal relationships (Inclusion of Nature in
the Self Scale, INS; Schultz, 2001). This scale includes a choice of seven pairs of circles, ranging from entirely separate to
nearly entirely overlapping.
However, some researchers hold that the above approaches to delving into environmental problems have overlooked an
emotional role and have focused simply on cognitive beliefs. More recently, Mayer and Frantz (2004) developed the Connect-
edness to Nature Scale (CNS) to assess the extent to which people feel an affective connection and belongingness to nature,
comprising 14 items (e.g., I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me). Further, the emotional dimen-
sion of connectedness to nature has been shown to reliably predict environmental behaviors and subjective wellbeing.
In addition to the INS and CNS, which may be based on one dimension of connectedness, some other recent works are
multidimensional. The concept of environmental identity was proposed by Clayton (2003), and grounded in the belief that
the environmental role comprises a significant part of self-identity. The environmental role includes several dimensions:
affections and feelings toward nature, the importance of and membership in nature, and individuals interaction with nature.
According to Clayton, the Environmental Identity Scale (EID), which includes 24 items, is positively correlated with ecocen-
tric attitudes (Clayton, 2003). Another construct is Nature Relatedness (NR), and it encompasses three dimensions: affective,
cognitive, and experimental (Nisbet et al., 2009).
Numerous additional studies have indicated a positive relationship between connectedness to nature and pro-
environmental behaviors. For example, Perrin and Benassi (2009) showed that connectedness to nature, as an aspect of per-
sonal attitudes, influenced environmental behavior. Moreover, recent environmental psychology research (Hinds & Sparks,
2008; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009) has shown that people who score higher on measures of connect-
edness to nature are more emotionally attached to nature, and thus, are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behav-
ior. In addition to environmental behaviors, connectedness to nature could be useful on a wider scale. Previous work has
shown that connectedness to nature could satisfy our need for social connection and contribute to personal well-being
(Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011; Mayer et al., 2009). In a nutshell, connectedness to nature has been recognized
as a robust determinant of pro-environmental behavior, and consequently, some researchers have suggested strategies to
cultivate or improve connectedness to nature. These practices and strategies initially fall into two categories; one category
encompasses outdoor activities including nature-based tourism, eco-adventure. For instance, encouraging people to go to a
zoo more frequently is one means to encourage interactive contact (Bruni, Fraser, & Schultz, 2008) and has been shown to
increase connectedness to nature.
Although these life experiences aim to make people feel better physically, which has been proven effective, they are inci-
dental and intentional, varying according to time, space, and context (Zylstra, Knight, Esler, & Grange, 2014). Possible incon-
sistencies and instability cannot guarantee its application in education. Moreover, these experiences are difficult to conduct.
On one hand, people living in the city cannot invest enough time to go to a zoo due to their fast-paced lifestyles; on the other
hand, to ensure these opportunities work on a large scale requires adequate and sustained funds and energy, which is oper-
ationally difficult.
The second category centers on the provision of information about nature and how social media and formal education
could contribute to satisfy peoples need to know more (Zylstra et al., 2014). Creating an educational environment that stres-
ses biological principles instead of simply focusing on the infusion of knowledge can also work to promote connectedness to
nature (Lieflander, Frohlich, Bogner, & Schultz, 2013). In addition to these attempts, several meaningful methods applying
problem solving and social cognition have also been developed, such as perspective taking (Sevillano, Aragons, & Schultz,
2007) and anthropomorphism (Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013). In sum, these strategies give more attention to informational and
affective dimensions. However, the aforementioned blind spot, which entails remaining blind to nature and other natural
elements, may be attributed to a fundamental lack in accurate consciousness regarding the relationship between people and
nature (Capra, 1997). Thus, reconnecting to nature requires cultivating a consciousness, indicating the need to find a comple-
mentary method that is directly rooted in cognitive aspects to improve connectedness to nature. In addition to all of these
methods, we asked whether mindful learning can be a complementary method to improve connectedness to nature.
Strategizing about new issues or cognitive judgment is an integral part of what we are fraught with in daily life, and yet
people are inclined to use past methods. In some cases, these old thinking patterns, to some degree, cannot adapt absolutely
and effectively to new problems, and may even impede our ability to think creatively and critically. A substantial body of
literature on the Einstellung effect (Hoffman, Burke, & Maier, 1963; Luchins, 1942) has indicated peoples predisposition
to fall into a rigid and constrained mind-set using traditional problem-solving pattern(s) and even ignoring other simpler
and better solutions.
 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17 3

Mindfulness is a style of thinking that typically conflicts with ones fixed mindset that is counterproductive to aspects of
problem solving (Hoffman et al., 1963; Luchins, 1942) and social cognition (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Lane & Piercy,
2003). Mindfulness has been characterized by Langer and colleagues as a mental state in which individuals divide their
attention into novel distinctions of objects (e.g., in a traditional mindset condition, people are likely to impose stigma on
the disabled; in contrast, under the state of mindfulness condition, people might think that individuals with a physical dis-
ability are suitable for sitting work from multiple perspectives). This approach includes (1) a sensitivity to the surrounding
environment, (2) the easy acceptance of new and unfamiliar things, (3) the capability to think about an issue from different
perspectives, and (4) creative engagement in categorization (Bodner & Langer, 2001; Langer & Piper, 1987).
Comparatively, mindful learning has been promoted and utilized as a positive intervention. For example, Geng, Zhang,
and Zhang (2011) argued that participants assigned to a mindful-learning condition responded faster in a subsequent
mental-rotation task compared to a mindless-learning condition, providing evidence for applications of mindful learning
to education. Moreover, regarding prosocial behavior, mindfulness can reduce prejudice. Langer, Bashner, and Chanowitz
(1985) found that through mindful training, participants regarded disabled children as specially abled, indicating a reduc-
tion in stereotyping. Finally, previous work has demonstrated that mindfulness interventions can reduce implicit and expli-
cit AIDS stigma (Geng & Zhao, 2013) and implicit weight bias (Geng & Tang, 2013).
The association between connectedness to nature and mindfulness has attracted the attention of researchers. Nisbet et al.
(2009) found that connectedness to nature is related to some specific personality traits, such as openness. The correlation
coefficient between connectedness to nature and openness was reported to be 0.38 (p < 0.01). Other evidence has demon-
strated that peoples creativity, problem-solving ability, and propensity to be curious are several significant competences
for cultivating connectedness to nature at the individual level (Zylstra et al., 2014). Openness, being accepting of new or
unfamiliar things, curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving are all significant characteristics of mindfulness (Bodner &
Langer, 2001; Langer & Piper, 1987), and their correlations may be an indirect indication of the relationship between mind-
fulness and connectedness to nature.
Furthermore, according to Zylstra and his colleagues, a greater proportion of the existing definitions about connectedness
to nature concern cognitive aspects rather than other aspects (Zylstra et al., 2014). On this level, it is feasible to improve con-
nectedness to nature by mindful learning because it is a shift in cognitive thinking patterns. Specifically, peoples pervasive
cognitive assumption of dualism and schism always completely counterpoises humans with nature (Booth, 1999; Greenway,
2011). Most often, excessive exploitation and violations of the environment can be attributed to this cognitive opposition
(Capra, 1997). Yet, people are more likely to call the traditional thinking pattern into question and actively figure out a
new critical thinking pattern through mindful learning, which is activated by multi-categorization. Thus, mindful learning
can result in breaking this preexisting thinking pattern and promoting openness and the development of a new pattern
of thinking where nature and humans overlap and are thereby unified in order to improve connectedness to nature
(Langer, 2000; Langer & Piper, 1987).
Overall, based on the previous research, our primary goal was to assess whether mindful learning can increase levels of
connectedness to nature. Therefore, we hypothesized that mindful learning would promote connectedness to nature, both
explicitly and implicitly.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Participants

One hundred and thirty-four Chinese students participated in the experiment and were compensated with course credit.
There were 48 males and 86 females, ranging from 17 to 27 years of age. Their mean age was 19.3 years (SD = 1.56). Partic-
ipants were assigned to a mindlessness (n = 69) or a mindfulness group (n = 65). All participants provided written informed
consent and this experiment was carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines by the Institutional Review Board
of Nanjing University.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS)

Mayer and Frantz (2004) originally developed the Connectedness to Nature Scale, which includes 14 items. It was
designed to solve the shortcomings of previous measures. Previous research showed that this scale has a Cronbachs alpha
of 0.84, and was correlated with NEP (New Ecological Paradigm) (r = 0.52, p < 0.001; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). The CNSs test-
retest consistency and prediction for environmental behavior prove its reliability and validity (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). In our
study, a simple Chinese version of the CNS was used (Geng, Xu, Ye, Zhou, & Zhou, 2015). Participants were required to rate
items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbachs alpha was 0.845.

2.2.2. Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS)

Langer (1989) designed the LMS to assess individual differences in propensities to be mindful. Participants were
instructed to rate 21 items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). It has been reported that the LMS
4 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17

exhibits acceptable reliability (i.e., Cronbachs alphas are 0.830.85) and robust validity through correlations with theoret-
ically relevant individual-difference constructs (i.e., the LMS is correlated with the tendency to entertain multiple perspec-
tives, r = 0.57; Bodner & Langer, 2001). In the present study, similar to Langer and her colleagues (Djikic, Langer, & Stapleton,
2008), the LMS was used as a measure of state mindfulness. Cronbachs alpha for the LMS was 0.842.

2.2.3. Inclusion of Nature in the Self Scale (INS)

Considering the potential possibility that participants would form the memory of baseline test, we chose another different
questionnaire as post-test. Previous research (Perrin & Benassi, 2009; Tam et al., 2013) highlighted the significance of which
aspect of connectedness to nature was measured when using a certain questionnaire. Mindful learning essentially focuses on
individual cognitive thinking, so two questionnaires measuring the cognitive aspect of connectedness to nature were utilized
in our study. INS captures individual cognitive pattern of relationship between the self and nature (Schultz, 2001), and the
recent research reported that CNS actually measured the cognitive aspect of connectedness to nature although it was initially
regarded as pertaining to affective aspect (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). By contrast, affective aspect (such as EATN) or multiple
aspects (such as EID and NR) are taken into account in other questionnaires. In addition to being equivalent conceptually,
INS and CNS are empirically interrelated. These two questionnaires share a high correlation (r = 0.55) and a similar pattern
of correlations with pro-environment behavior (Mayer & Frantz, 2004); Even, Mayer and Frantz (2004) believed that one could
be replaced by another if needed. Consequently, we chose CNS as our baseline test and INS as post-test.
Based on Arons work (e.g., the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), Schultz (2001)
developed the INS as a one-item measure consisting of seven increasingly overlapping circles labeled self and nature.
The degree of overlapping area indicates an individuals level of connectedness to nature. It has been found that results of
this measure correlate to biosphere-related concerns (r = 0.31; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2001) and with self-
reported environmental behavior (r = 0.41; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004).

2.2.4. Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Connectedness to nature is to some extent primitive and unconscious (Dunlap, Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Schultz et al.,
2004). Therefore, advancements in implicit social cognition have provided a complementary measure for assessing connect-
edness to nature. Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) developed the implicit-association test (IAT) to measure
concept-attribute associations through the comparison of reaction times when responding to different pairs. Previous work
has proven the feasibility of the IAT to assess implicit connectedness to nature (Geng et al., 2015; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007;
Schultz et al., 2004). Schultz et al. (2004) first developed a modified IAT to measure the level of connectedness to nature and
reported acceptable reliability and validity. Using this IAT, they later conducted five studies which suggested the malleability
of implicit self-nature associations (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). Recent research has further shown that an implicit connect-
edness to nature is positively correlated with spontaneous pro-environmental behavior (Geng et al., 2015).
In our study, the IAT was presented on a 19-in. Lenovo LCD screen, using Inquisit 3.0. The computer was located approx-
imately 50 cm in front of participants, resulting in a visual angle of about 5. Our IAT procedures were adapted from Schultz
et al. (2004); see Table 1). Participants were directed to finish two categorization tasks: one distinguishing between words
suggesting Me (we, I, me, our, my, myself, etc.) and Not me (it, its, others, others, they, their, etc.); and one distinguishing
between words suggesting Nature (animal, flower, bird, plant, fish, tree, etc.) and words suggesting Built (house, car,
factory, city, street, plane, etc.). Then, participants were required to respond to two kinds of pairings by clicking different keys
according to instructions: one pair was compatible (MeNature/Not meBuilt), and the other pair was incompatible
(MeBuilt/Not meNature). The extent to which compatible pairs were faster and easier to identify is thought to indicate
how implicitly one associates themselves with nature. The main indicator of association strength in an IAT is a 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, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Schultz et al. (2004) pointed out that greater
D-scores indicate a closer implicit relationship between an individual and nature.

2.3. Mindful learning

The mindfulness intervention (Geng et al., 2011) was designed to create a situation in which participants could attend to a
similar situation from a different perspective in order to break their traditional mindset. It included tasks of categorization

Table 1
IAT phases.

Phase no. and task Trials Left key Right key

(1) Target-discrimination 20 Nature Built
(2) Attribute-discrimination 20 Self Not-self
(3) Combined-discrimination_1 20 Nature + self Built + not-self
(4) Combined-discrimination_2 20 Nature + self Built + not-self
(5) Target-discrimination reversed 20 Built Nature
(6) Combined-discrimination_3 20 Built + self Nature + not-self
(7) Combined-discrimination_4 20 Built + self Nature + not-self
 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17 5

(e.g., we required participants in the mindful condition to categorize given items using different standards), free association
(e.g., we required participants to make a story according to the given pictures), and multi-perspective thinking (e.g., we
required participants in the mindful condition to describe ten uses of water). By contrast the intervention material for the
mindless condition comprised true or false (e.g., the capital of China is Beijing), completion (e.g., Who is the husband of
mother?), and multi-perspective thinking tasks (e.g., we required participants in the mindless condition to describe two uses
of water). The entire intervention task for both conditions lasted approximately 15 min.

2.4. Procedures

Participants were informed that they were involved in a free-association task; a final inquiry showed that no one had sur-
mised the actual purpose of experiment. Participants were randomly assigned into the two conditions: mindlessness and
mindfulness groups. First, all were assessed by the self-report CNS scale to measure participants baselines; next, they were
engaged with either mindlessness material or mindfulness material. All participants then completed the LMS, IAT, and INS
scales. Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed. It is worth noting that all procedures were completed in Chinese.

3. Results

Independent-samples t-tests and an analysis of covariance were conducted to compare differences between the mind-
lessness and mindfulness groups. As predicted, the mindlessness and the mindfulness groups differed significantly on the
LMS after learning (t(132) = 2.06, p = 0.042; Mmindless = 4.83, SD = 0.58, versus Mmindful = 5.05, SD = 0.66), and therefore, mindful
learning was considered effective. Regarding the posttest, the D-scores (the main indicator of the IAT) and INS scores were
both significantly different between the mindfulness and mindlessness groups (respectively, t(132) = 6.09, p = 0.000,
ESd = 1.06, Mmindless = 0.23, SD = 0.46, versus Mmindful = 0.66, SD = 0.34; and t(132) = 6.12, p = 0.000, ESd = 1.06, Mmindless = 4.41,
SD = 1.28, versus Mmindful = 5.71, SD = 1.18; see Table 2). When the CNS scores were treated as a controlled variable, the anal-
ysis of covariance showed that mindful learning truly resulted in differences with regard to the D-scores (F = 4.403,
p = 0.038) and the INS scores (F = 4.162, p = 0.043). Furthermore, the correlation between the D-scores and the INS scores
was significant (r = 0.373, p = 0.000).

4. Discussion

The results supported our hypotheses that mindful learning can promote both implicit and explicit connectedness to nat-
ure. Through human evolution, many prototypes have been developed that are used to compare, classify, and label external
stimuli (Langer & Piper, 1987). In our traditional thinking pattern, the prototype of human is stable and typically regarded
as wholly separate and opposed from the prototype of nature. However, mindful learning, to some degree, disrupts the
inherent manner of cognitive thinking and tries to help germinate or cultivate a new consciousness. In detail, individuals
in a mindfulness group may be more likely to accept an interactive, respectful, and equal relationship with nature. Partici-
pants in a mindlessness group may be more likely to endorse or persist in an old pattern of thinking, such that nature exists
to be opposite to humans.
Previous research exploring mindful-learning interventions has mostly focused on its explicit effects. Although some
researchers have tried to measure implicit changes with explicit indicators, this has been met with skepticism. In one study
(Djikic et al., 2008), where mindfulness was experimentally induced, it was suggested to have reduced automatic stereotypes
of the elderly by measuring participants walking speed. However, the use of walking speed as an indicator of implicit stereo-
types is debatable, in part because walking speed reflects behavioral differences rather than differences in attitude. Further-
more, using walking speed as an indicator of implicit stigma of the elderly is not expandable into research of stigma of other
groups. The IAT, however, has recently been shown to be a valid instrument to measure implicit attitudes following mindful
learning interventions. For example, Geng and Zhao (2013) used the IAT to successfully demonstrate implicit effects of mind-
ful learning, similar to the present study. Thus, this implicit measure can be used to complement explicit measures when
comprehensively assessing the effects of a mindfulness intervention.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and t-values for self-reported questionnaires and IAT.

Measure Mindless condition Mindful condition t-value

Mean SD Mean SD
LMS 4.83 0.58 5.05 0.66 2.06*
INS 4.41 1.28 5.71 1.18 6.12**
D-score 0.23 0.46 0.66 0.34 6.09**

Note: t-values refer to the comparison between mindless and mindful conditions.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
6 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17

Substantial research has indicated that mindful learning may reduce stigma or prejudice, which is regarded as a manifes-
tation of mindfulness. For example, Langer and colleagues found that mindful learning can reduce biases against disabled
children (Langer et al., 1985) and older people (Djikic et al., 2008) by encouraging multi-standard categorization (by classi-
fying specific photos using different standards). Geng and colleagues obtained similar results for perceptions of drug abusers
(Geng & Zhao, 2013) and overweight individuals (Geng & Tang, 2013). However, previous research has focused on eliminat-
ing or breaking biased mindsets toward a specific group, and has not explored the promotion of positive or promising general
mindsets (e.g., not only toward one specific group). Our research provides evidence that mindful learning can improve mind-
sets toward non-humans as well. In addition, in comparison with the existing practices used to improve connectedness to
nature, mindful learning provides a supplementary method of shifting cognitive thinking patterns to the root cause.
In short, the finding that mindful learning can promote pro-environmental measures is enlightening and instructive. In
the future, mindful learning can be implemented in schools, for example, to incorporate interactions between humans
and nature in daily life (Bruni et al., 2008), to promote pro-environmental characteristics (Lieflander et al., 2013), and to con-
tribute to the development of implicit connectedness to nature. One recent study has reported an association between a
more valid implicit measure predicting spontaneous pro-environmental behavior (Geng et al., 2015). Mindful learning,
therefore, may promote positive and long-term effects on pro-environmental behavior.
This study was the first to apply mindful learning to the field of environmental psychology and successfully indicated the
usefulness of mindful learning. However, we only conducted one session of mindfulness (creative engagement of categoriza-
tion). Future studies should include other aspects of mindfulness, either individually or simultaneously, to compare their
intervention effects. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that experimental results may vary across cultures. For example, the tra-
ditional idea that humans are an integral part of nature may be more common in Eastern cultures, such as in China. More
research is needed to explore the influence of social backgrounds on individuals connectedness to nature. Taken together,
our research is a pilot study, lending preliminary support to the claim that mindful training can promote connectedness to
nature.

5. Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that mindful learning can promote connectedness to nature, both explicitly and implicitly. It
indicates the promising function of mindful learning in the field of environmental protection. Future studies could examine
the influences of mindful learning at the behavior level and its practical application.

Funding

The study described in this report was supported by the Jiangsu University Philosophy Social Science fund project the
mentality in the period of social transformation (No. 2015JDXM003). The funders had no role in study design, data collec-
tion and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Contributions

X.W., K.X.Z. and L.N.G conceived and designed the experiments, X.W., S.H.Z. performed the experiments, and X.W., L.J.Y.,
and Y.L.M. analyzed the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63(4), 596612.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230244.
Bodner, T., & Langer, E. (2001). Individual differences in mindfulness: The mindfulness/mindlessness scale. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the 13th
annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Booth, A. L. (1999). Does the spirit move you? Environmental spirituality. Environmental Values, 8(1), 89105.
Bruni, C. M., Fraser, J., & Schultz, P. W. (2008). The value of zoo experiences for connecting people with nature. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 139150.
Callicott, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Capra, F. (1997). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. Colonial Waterbirds, 32(1), 102104.
Clayton, S. D. (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. MIT Press.
Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., & Wenstp, S. (2012). Companies ethical commitment: An analysis of the rhetoric in CSR reports. Issues in Social and Environmental
Accounting, 5(1/2), 6581.
Djikic, M., Langer, E. J., & Stapleton, S. F. (2008). Reducing stereotyping through mindfulness: Effects on automatic stereotype-activated behaviors. Journal of
Adult Development, 15(2), 106111.
Dunlap, R., Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56
(3), 425442.
 X. Wang et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016) 17 7

Geng, L. N., & Tang, Z. X. (2013). Reducing weight bias through mindful learning. In 2013 AIX5 annual convention. Washington.
Geng, L. N., Xu, J. K., Ye, L. J., Zhou, W. J., & Zhou, K. X. (2015). Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127247. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127247.
Geng, L. N., Zhang, L., & Zhang, D. H. (2011). Improving spatial abilities through mindfulness: Effects on the mental rotation task. Consciousness and Cognition,
20(3), 801806.
Geng, L. N., & Zhao, Q. (2013). The impact of mindfulness on AIDS stigma: Evidence from drug abuser (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21
(6), 10041012.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 14641480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197216.
Greenway, R. (2011). Can a bigger map save us? A commentary on esbjrn-hargens and michael zimmermans integral ecology: Uniting multiple
perspectives on the natural world. Ecopsychology, 3, 159163.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28
(2), 109120.
Hoffman, L. R., Burke, R. J., & Maier, N. R. (1963). Does training with differential reinforcement on similar problems help in solving a new problem?
Psychological Reports, 13(1), 147154.
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H. A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(2), 166171.
Lane, N., & Piercy, N. F. (2003). The ethics of discrimination: Organizational mindsets and female employment disadvantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4),
313325.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessnessmindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22(1), 137173.
Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 220223.
Langer, E. J., Bashner, R. S., & Chanowitz, B. (1985). Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1),
113120.
Langer, E. J., & Piper, A. I. (1987). The prevention of mindlessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 280287.
Lieflander, A. K., Frohlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental
Education Research, 19(3), 370384.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), i-95.
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(4), 503515.
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(5), 607643.
McKenna, T. (2003). Re-enchantment: The new Australian spirituality. Expository Times, 114(4). 144144.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale linking individuals connection with nature to environmental concern and
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715740.
Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conservation. Policy Studies Review Annual, 4(1), 352.
Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29
(4), 434440.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4),
327339.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 3142.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with Nature1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 37(6), 12191247.
Sevillano, V., Aragons, J. I., & Schultz, P. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy.
Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 685705.
Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., Schrter-Schlaack, C., Nehver, C., Bishop, J., & Brink, P. T. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming
the economics of nature-a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of teeb. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 3(6), 361400.
Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving mr. nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 514521.
Vining, J. (2003). The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 8799.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: Harvard University Press.
Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Grange, L. L. L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a
call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2(12), 119143.