Cognitive Biophilia: A Semantic Concept Mental
Representation Analysis of Ecology in Children
Claudia Jaquelina Nola Catalina Alanis
Gonzalez Universidad de Monterrey
Universidad de Monterrey Av. Morones Prieto 4500
Av. Morones Prieto 4500 San Pedro, NL,
San Pedro, NL, MEXICO 66238
MEXICO 66238 +528183633474
+528183633474 nola.alanis@gmail.com
claudia.gonzalez@udem.edu
ABSTRACT
Two samples of children, one having low exposure to ecological
environments and another one having high exposure to
ecological environments, were required to take a semantic
concept mental representation study by using a natural semantic
net technique. The goal was to explore cognitive biophilia
signification (meaning formation) between groups considering
kind of exposure to natural settings and gender of participants.
Results showed that even when all groups possess similar
ecology knowledge (similar to a lay person knowledge of
ecology), they impose different meaning formation on their
semantic concept organization. It is argued that by considering
an assessment of ecology meaning formation, awareness of
cognitive biophilia and connection to natural ecology can be
improved through educational settings.
CCS Concepts
• S ocial and professional topics ➝ Student assessment
Keywords
M eaning formation instruction, semantic nets, emergent
schemata behavior, schemata priming, educational technology.
1. INTRODUCTION
The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Strategy
sustainable development of human society and the natural
environment recognizes man's relationship with nature as a
fundamental right. Violations to this precept diminish not only
humans´wellbeing, but endangers their possibility for a political,
social and economic future.
Since urban ecosystems seem to be in flagrant violation of this
fundamental human right, ecological restoration is becoming
more important as the global population increases. For instance,
educational efforts to address the ecological degradation and loss
of biodiversity constitute a priority in order promote responsible
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
ICDEL 2019, May 24–27, 2019, Shanghai, China
© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6265-8/19/05…$15.00.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3338147.3338175
179
Ernesto Octavio López
Universidad Autónoma Nuevo
León Dr. Carlos Canseco #110
Col. Mitras Centro MTY, N.L.
MEXICO 64460
+528112124669
elopez42@att.net.mx
ecological thinking.
Academic research exploring ecological thinking has suggested
that environmental attitudes constitute predictors of ecological
behavior. In particular, a study on environmental attitudes [1],
suggests that environmental knowledge and environmental
values explain around 40 percent of ecological behavior
intentions, which in turn explained 75% of data variance of
general ecological behavior.
However, cognitive specification of how peoples’ environmental
knowledge relates to general ecological behavior remains
unclear. Dealing with this concern, a study comparing ecology
knowledge between bachelor biology students and bachelor
psychology students suggests that experts and lay people have
enough conceptual information to understand a connection
between them and nature [2]. However, the main difference is
the meaning they impose over this connection due to schemata
concept organization. This opens the possibility of not being a
matter of knowledge quantity, but a matter of sufficient ecology
knowledge to quality of meaning formation.
This basic understanding of connection with nature might come
from a very early stage of age as suggested in another study
comparing children’s ecology knowledge from urban and rural
contexts [3]. All groups were sensitive to ecological relations.
Differences between groups relate to their perception of this
connection with nature. For instance, some children take the
perspective of playing with an animal to describe ecological
connections. Nisbet et al [4], proposed an evaluation tool to
explain the relation sustained between human beings and nature,
termed Nature Relatedness. Their scale evaluates affective,
cognitive, and experiential aspects of connection between
participants and nature. Their findings, along with those of
Dunlap [5] and Burguess et al. [6], support the theory that
humans have an inclination towards the natural world, and that
the experiences they partake in fortify the connection that they
have with their environment. Schumander and M ontada [7]
conducted a similar scale that rectifies that emotional affection
towards nature is shaped by authentic earthly experiences.
Likewise, Schultz and Tabanico [8] assert that humans tend to
prefer natural spaces to artificial environments.
Kahn [9] claims that there are two basic perceptions concerning
nature: anthropocentric and biocentric reasoning.
Anthropocentric reasoning, which relates to personal physical
and psychological wellbeing, is a learned behavior acquired in
children aged 3-5 [10]. Different elements such as gender, age,
income, and race, may also play a vital role in individual
perceptions of nature in individuals [4, 11]. Pauly [12], Papworth
[13] and Campbell et al [14] conclude that further studies must
be conducted to unearth the differences in perception between in
current and past generations, and thus determine the actions that
must be taken to ensure the protection of our environment.
This feeling of connection with nature is assumed to be innate
and it has been defined as biophilia [15]. Variations on how we
perceive this relation are a major concern of cognitive biophilia.
In this research, it is argued that cognitive specification of mental
representations of biophilia in early stages of age can explain
differences in how people perceive and signify ecology
environments. This possibility seeks to explore a new way to
diagnose biophilia. In turn it is assumed that by creating this kind
of diagnostic tool, specific education regarding nature
ecosystems can be implemented to improve biophilia perception
on children and cognitive young people.
This academic intention is explored by implementing the
following cognitive science study on the mental representation of
nature.
2. METHOD
A cognitive science mental representation study was
implemented to explore meaning formation of natural
ecosystems in children.
2.1 Participants
A total of 88 children whose age ranged between 10 and 12 years
old were included to participate in this study. Four subgroups
were considered for this sample. Two low exposure groups
(control) consisted of 20 boys and 24 girls. These belonged to an
urban ecosystem and experienced contact with nature only
through media. Two additional groups were considered, one of
24 girls and another one of 20 boys who were frequently exposed
to natural environments, even when they belonged to an urban
context.
2.2 Instruments
A computer software called EVCOG [16, 17] was used to apply
a mental representation technique specialized on analysis of
meaning formation by using a cognitive technique called natural
semantic network analysis [18, 19]. This approach required
participants in this study to provide single concept definers to
target concepts of ecological environments: AIR, ANIM ALS,
MOUNTAINS, NATURE, GARDEN, PLANTS, WATER,
FOREST, ENVIRONM ENT, ECOLOGY. These concepts were
provided by a participants’ teacher as central and relevant for
students to be conscious of their ecological environment. As a
result, a set of lists of concept definers was obtained, each list
containing the ten highest pondered definers for the ecology
target concepts. From these pondered lists of concept definers,
the following values are computed:
M value: The sum of the ranks is assigned by all the subjects to
each definer concept. This is a relevant measure to each concept
as a definition of the target concept.
S AM (Semantic Analysis of M value) group: The 10 highest
ranked definers with the highest M values for a target concept.
This is the set of 10 definers that construct most of the meaning
of the target concept in a network.
Some other values like density of the net (G value) and richness
of definers for each target (J value) are computed. This technique
produces definitions (using single concept definers like nouns,
adjectives, etc.) for the represented objects based on their
meaning and not on free associations or pure semantic category
180
membership [18]. M ost relevant to this technique is that it
provides the capacity to obtain semantic concept representations
from teachers and students rather than from an idiosyncratic
semantic net from a researcher or an expert.
Furthermore, a semantic net can be drawn if desired. In this
study, the weight association between two concepts (W) is
computed by the following derivative of the Bayesian formula:
Wij = -ln [p(X=0 & Y=1) p(X=1 & Y=0)] [p(X=1 & Y=1)
p(X=0 & Y=0)]1 (1)
Where X represents one of the concepts of the pair of concepts to
be associated, and Y another concept. In determining association
values among concepts in a natural semantic network, the joint
probability value p(X= 1 & Y= 0) can be obtained by
computing how many times the definer X of a pair of concepts
appeared in a list of definers in which Y did not appear, and the
same for the other probability values. A software implementation
allowed to visualize meaning formation through a GEPHI
network analysis [20]. Here, metrics for concept organization can
be obtained [21].
2.3 Procedure
Participants were seated in front of a computer. The system
provided instructions for the user on how to proceed through the
definition task. Then a definition practice trial was presented to
define a target concept (either the concept apple or dog). Then
the participant proceeded to the study where target concepts were
randomly presented. The maximum time allowed in the
production of definers for each target concept was 60 seconds;
while 30 seconds were allowed for the rating of the definers for
each concept. Subjects took around 15 minutes to finish their
participation in the study.
3. RESULTS
Figure 1 shows only a sample of obtained SAM groups (due to
space limitations) from girls not frequently exposed to ecological
environments (a deeper review on this procedure can be obtained
from reported academic literature [18,19]). From these SAM
groups a GEPHI visualization of semantically structured concept
organization are obtained for the sample groups.
By computing weight connectivity among concepts as suggested
by equation 1, then a symmetric weight connectivity matrix is
obtained to visualize semantic concept organization through a
GEPHI analysis. Figure 2 shows the case for both girl groups
whereas Figure 3 shows the case for both sample of boys.
Figure1. Lists of definers to several concept targets.
Cells filled by gray backgrounds represent concept definers to
several targets. Here NATURE was the most common definer. M
values represent group ponderation of definers whereas IRT
represents the average time participants took to use the concept
as a definer during the definition phase.
Semantic concept organization regarding the not exposed girls
group on figure 2 (right panel) shows that water related concepts
were not integrated into a general schema of ecology. This is not
the case for girls exposed frequently to natural environments.
Another relevant aspect was that low exposure participants in
figure 2 considered animals under a perception of domestic
animals (dogs, cats, etc.) whereas exposed participants used a
more realistic diversity by considering reptiles, mammals, wild
diversity etc. Generally speaking, both groups had as a central
representation the concept of nature. Interestingly, both groups
had a conceptual representation of an ecosystem as a place where
they can play. This is a common perception of children from
different contexts (rural, native rural, urban, etc., [3]).
The issue of animals gets more emphasized by the fact that boys
with low exposure to nature impose signification on this topic by
using a network of concepts that is not integrated to a general
ecology knowledge schema. This is not the case for boys who
have had frequent exposure to natural settings.
Note that all children groups are aware of the concept pollution
in nature. This is relevant since educational efforts to induce
awareness of ecology disturbance can use this representation as a
conceptual frame to develop better ecology values and sensitivity
Figure 2. S emantic concept organization for girls frequently exposed to ecological environments (left panel) in comparison to girls
that have low experience with ecological environments. Notice that the group with no exposure had unconnected group of concepts.
S ee text for description.
181
to improve ecology knowledge and increase intentional behavior
towards their relation with nature. All children have the basic
schemata supporting the lay people’s perception about nature.
That is signification of nature is based on central concepts like
animals, plants, trees and abiotic elements like water, stone, etc.
4. CONCLUSION
This study aimed to cognitively specify ecology knowledge in
long term memory of children in such a way that is possible to
identify concept organization that relates children perception to
meaning formation of natural environments.
This approach to mental representation is different from other
approaches since the goal is not to unpack the way ecology
knowledge is structured, but to visualize meaning formation. For
instance, a study carried over by Schwarz and colleagues [23],
showed a concept mental representation of children regarding
biodiversity richness in surrounding natural settings. Here, the
relevant aspect of layout individuals’ view was that the concept
of oil seemed to impose a division between hierarchical arranged
structured abiotic and biotic ecology concepts. This kind of
hierarchical concept structures are designed to explore category
and associative relations of objects under scrutiny (ecology
attributes) rather than exploring meaning formation (e.g. playing,
games and nature; Figure 2 both panels and Figure 3 left panel).
We believe that valuable information regarding development and
specification of ecology meaning is obtained by the appointed
techniques described in this article [see also 23, 24].
 Figure 3. The left panel shows the semantic concept organization for boys with significant exposure to ecological environments
whereas the right panel shows signification for boys with low experience to such environments (read text for interpretation of these
results).
5. REFERENCES
[1] Kaiser, F.G., Wolfing, S. & Fuhrer, U. (1999).
Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, pp: 1-19.
[2] Sánchez, M . M . P., De la Garza, A. & Lopez, R.E.O
(2011). Natural semantic networks of the environmental
subject in two contrast groups. Revista Mexicana de
Investigación en Psicologí a, Vol 3 (1), pp: 60-71.
[3] Washinawatok, K., Rasmussen, C., Bang, M ., M edin, D.,
Woodring, J., Waxman & Faber, L. (2017). Children’s Play
with a Forest Diorama as a Window into Ecological
Cognition. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(5),
617–632.doi:10.1080/15248372.2017.1392306
[4] Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., M urphy, S. (2008). The Nature
Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals' Connection With
Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Journal of
Environment and Behavior 41,5: 715-740Development,
Vol. 3 (4), 199-209. DOI: 10.15640/jehd.v3n4a18
[5] Dunlap, R. (2008). Trends in public opinion toward
environmental issues. Society & Natural Resources
Journal. 4,3: 1970-1990.
[6] Burgess, D. J., & M ayer-Smith, J. (2011). Listening to
Children: Perceptions of Nature. Journal of Natural History
Education and Experience, 5. Recuperado en marzo 10,
2018, de
http://naturalhistorynetwork.org/journal/articles/listening-
to-children-perceptions-of-nature/
[7] Schumacher, D., M ontada, L. (1999). Emotional Affinity
Toward Nature As a M otivational Basis to Protect Nature.
Precourt Energy Efficiency Center
[8] Schultz, W., Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, Identity, and the
Natural Environment: Exploring Implicit Connections With
Nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37,6: 1219-
1247
182
[9] Kahn, H. (2002). Children's affiliations with nature:
Structure, development, and the problem of environmental
generational amnesia. Cambridge, M A, US: M IT Press.
[10] Hermann, P., Waxman, S., M edin, D. (2010).
Anthropocentrism is not the first step in children’s
reasoning about the natural world. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science of the United States of
America.
[11] Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J., Pretty, J. (2013)
M easuring connection to nature in children aged 8 - 12: A
robust methodology for the RSPB. University of Essex
[12] Pauly, D. (1995) “Anecdotes and the shifting baseline
syndrome of fisheries”. TREE 10: 430
[13] Papworth, S. (2007). Shifting baseline syndrome: An
investigation. Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation
Science.
[14] Campbell, L., Gray, E., Hazen, J., Shackeroff, M . (2009).
Beyond baselines: rethinking priorities for ocean
conservation. Ecology and Society 14(1): 14.
[15] Kellert, R, Wilson, E. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis.
Washington DC: Island Press.
[16] M orales, M .G.E., & Lopez R.E.O. (2016). Cognitive
responsive e-assessment of constructive e-learning. Journal
of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(4), 10-19.
doi: https:10.20368/1971-8829/1187
[17] M orales M .G. E., López R.E.O., Castro C., Villarreal T. &
Gonzales T.C.J. (2017). Cognitive analysis of meaning and
acquired mental representations as an alternative
measurement method technique to innovate e-assessment.
European Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 455-464.
doi:10.12973/eu-jer.6.4.455
[18] Figueroa, J. G., Gonzales, G. E. & Solis, V. M . (1975). An
approach to the problem of meaning: Semantic networks.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(2), 107-115.
[19] M orales M .G.E. & Santos, M .G. (2015). Alternative
Empirical Directions to Evaluate Schemata Organization
 and M eaning. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 2(9), 51-58. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.29.2015
[20] GEPHI (2017). Force Atlas method. Retrieved from
http://gephi.github.io
[21] Bersano M . N. I., Schaefer, S.E. & Bustos, J.J. (2012).
M etrics and models for social networks. In A. Abraham, A.
E. Hassanien (Eds), Computational social networks: Tools,
perspectives and applications (pp. 115-142). London:
Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4048-1
[22] Schwarz, M . L., André, P., & Sevegnani, L. (2012).
Children’s representations of the biological richness of the
183
mata atlântica biome. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 18(1),
155–172. doi:10.1590/s1516-73132012000100010
[23] Urdiales, I.M .E., López, R.E.O., Castro C., Villarreal, M .G.
& Carrillo, C.J. (2018). Biology schemata knowledge
organization and meaning formation due to learning: A
constructive-chronometric approach to concept mapping
usability. Creative Education, 9, 2693-2706.
[24] M orales-M artínez, G.E., López-Ramí rez, E.O. & Velasco-
M oreno, D. (2016). Alternative e-learning assessment by
mutual constrain of responsive and constructive techniques
of knowledge acquisition evaluation. International Journal
for Infonomics (IJI), 9(3), 1195-1200.