Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

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

Connectedness to nature promotes downplaying others’ humanity among

anxiously attached people
Gewei Chen, Jianning Dang *
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty
of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: L. McCunn Global advocates have argued in favor of increasing connectedness to nature, the benefits of which have been
substantially supported for both the environment and humans. However, we extend mainstream opinions by
Keywords: identifying the potential negative impact of connectedness to nature on human relationships under specific
Connectedness to nature conditions. Specifically, we propose that connectedness to nature promotes dehumanization among anxiously
Dehumanization
attached people. We tested this assumption with three studies (N = 1276). Studies 1 and 2 revealed that, for
Anxious attachment
people with high levels of anxious attachment, connectedness to nature positively predicted dehumanization of
Preference for nature
thieves (Study 1) and people who casually litter (Study 2). By manipulating connectedness to nature, Study 3
found that dehumanization elicited by connectedness to nature among people with high attachment anxiety
predicted greater preference for nature over prisoners. These trends were eliminated or even reversed for those
with low levels of anxious attachment. The present research enriches our understanding of people’s social re­
lationships with nature and humans.

1. Introduction
To combat environmental crises, the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) has advocated for countries worldwide to make
peace with nature (UNEP, 2021). Echoing environmental advocates,
ecologists and psychologists have demonstrated that increasing
connectedness to nature (i.e., feelings of affiliation and oneness with
nature; Mayer & Frantz, 2004) is beneficial for environment (Leopold,
1949; Liu et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2009; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet
et al., 2009; Tam et al., 2013). However, this strategy may not always be
beneficial for, and sometimes may even be harmful to, human re­
lationships. For example, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg ad­
vocates mitigating global climate change but opposes the use of
chopsticks in China (Global Times, 2021). She demonstrates strong
concern about nature while ignoring Chinese people’s fundamental
rights. The radical environmentalist organization Earth Liberation Front
(ELF) aims to protect the environment using more extreme tactics.
However, its members treat people who harm the environment violently
and even commit crimes (e.g., sabotage and arson), thereby threatening
these targets’ welfare (Spadaro, 2020). In these examples, the environ­
ment is considered far more valuable than distant others, suggesting
their dehumanization (Brandt & Reyna, 2011; Rottman et al., 2021).
Thus, an intriguing yet underexplored question arises: Will connected­
ness to nature promote dehumanization of distant others?
To the best of our knowledge, no empirical studies have systemati­
cally explored this question. Substantial evidence has suggested that
connectedness to nature or animals negatively predicts prejudice and
discrimination (Amiot & Bastian, 2015; Bastian et al., 2012; Costello &
Hodson, 2010, 2014a, 2014b; Dhont et al., 2016; Ng & Leung, 2022;
Roszak et al., 1995; Starzyk et al., 2021). Despite the conceptual dis­
tinctions between prejudice and dehumanization (e.g., Haslam &
Stratemeyer, 2016), this line of research indicates that connectedness to
nature may diminish social distance from others, which reduces dehu­
manization (Haslam, 2022). However, echoing Greta Thunberg’s opin­
ions and ELF’s violence, empirical cues also indicate that connectedness
to nature may promote dehumanization (e.g., Brandt & Reyna, 2011;
Mourey et al., 2017; Rottman et al., 2021; Shin & Kim, 2020; Waytz
et al., 2010). Thus, connectedness to nature may not be beneficial to
human relationships under specific conditions or among specific kinds
of people. Inspired by the preoccupied characteristics of anxiously
attached people (Brennan et al., 1998; Lavigne et al., 2011), the present
research innovatively proposes and examines that connectedness to

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Beijing, 100875, China.
E-mail addresses: 202121061071@mail.bnu.edu.cn (G. Chen), jndang@bnu.edu.cn (J. Dang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102086
Received 14 December 2022; Received in revised form 18 July 2023; Accepted 19 July 2023
Available online 20 July 2023
0272-4944/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Chen and J. Dang
nature may promote dehumanization of distant others among anxiously
attached people.
1.1. Connectedness to nature and dehumanization
Humans have an intrinsic need to be affiliated with nature because
they have lived for a far longer time in nature than in cities (Kellert &
Wilson, 1993). Drawing on this biophilia hypothesis, Mayer and Frantz
(2004) proposed the concept of connectedness to nature, which refers to
feelings of affiliation and oneness with nature. As a hallmark of psy­
chological closeness with nature, connectedness to nature is associated
with pro-environmental behaviors, such as conserving energy and using
green products (Liu et al., 2019; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al.,
2009; Tam et al., 2013). Furthermore, connectedness to nature appears
beneficial to human health and subjective well-being. For example,
connectedness to nature positively predicts outcomes such as life satis­
faction, positive affect, and quality of life (Cervinka et al., 2012; Mayer
et al., 2009; Mayer & Frantz, 2004).
Dehumanization refers to attributing less humanness to others,
especially with respect to the human mind (Haslam, 2006; Waytz et al.,
2010). “Mind” is an umbrella term for mental capacities and includes
two aspects: agency (i.e., capacity to act and plan) and experience (i.e.,
capacity to feel; Gray et al., 2007; Waytz et al., 2010). Thus, denial of
different aspects of the mind reveals two forms of dehumanization:
dehumanization on agency (i.e., attributing less agency to others) and
dehumanization on experience (i.e., attributing less experience to
others). Given that dehumanization involves seeing others as distant
(Haslam, 2022), people tend to view close others as being fully human
but perceive distant others as being less than human (Kteily et al., 2015;
Leyens et al., 2001). For example, people tend to view immoral in­
dividuals (e.g., thieves and prisoners; Bastian et al., 2013; Deska et al.,
2020; Zhang et al., 2015) and marginalized or stigmatized groups (e.g.,
immigrants and obese people; Esses et al., 2013; Sim et al., 2022) as
having less agency than others. Moreover, dehumanization has been
shown to predict aggression and hostility against dehumanized groups
in both historical conflicts and contemporary society (Bandura et al.,
1975; Bruneau et al., 2020; Costello & Hodson, 2010; Kteily et al., 2015;
Kteily & Landry, 2022; Opotow, 1990; Smith, 2011), thereby exerting
destructive effects on human relationships and increasing the social
distance between people (Haslam, 2006, 2022).
Although connectedness to nature and dehumanization tap people’s
social interactions with different targets (i.e., nature and distant others
or marginalized groups), previous research has provided a path for
linking human-nature relationships to the quality of social relationships
among humans. Notably, most previous research has examined how
connectedness to nature or animals influences prejudice and discrimi­
nation against marginalized groups (e.g., ethnic minorities and immi­
grants; Amiot & Bastian, 2015; Dhont et al., 2016; Ng & Leung, 2022;
Starzyk et al., 2021). However, dehumanization is conceptually
different from prejudice and discrimination. Dehumanization may strip
away not only desirable human qualities (e.g., ambition) but also un­
desirable ones (e.g., irresponsibility; Haslam, 2006; Haslam et al.,
2005). In contrast, prejudice and discrimination generally manifest as
unfavorable evaluations and harmful behaviors toward others (Dovidio
et al., 2010). In other words, someone may be viewed or treated unfa­
vorably yet not be dehumanized (Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016). More­
over, dehumanization and prejudice activate inferior frontal cortex (a
region related to animalistic behaviors) and posterior cingulate cortex (a
region related to liking), respectively (Bruneau et al., 2018). Dehu­
manization predicts intergroup conflicts beyond prejudice (Bruneau
et al., 2020; Kteily et al., 2015). It is necessary to extend previous
research by examining how connectedness to nature is associated with
or influences dehumanization.
Regarding dehumanization, although direct evidence is lacking,
some researchers have suggested that connectedness to nature may, at
least under specific conditions, facilitate downplaying the humanity of
2
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
others. For instance, people who have experienced unsatisfying social
relationships may seek to establish social relationships with nonhuman
agents (e.g., pets) by attributing more humanlike characteristics to them
(Brown et al., 2016; Mourey et al., 2017). After feeling connected to
these agents, they reduce striving to maintain connections with (Mourey
et al., 2017) and ascribe less humanness to other people (Shin & Kim,
2020). More relevant to our research, people who endorse a religious
worldview that emphasizes connectedness to the natural world have
been found to perceive further social distance from other humans
(Kramp, 2015), which in turn may result in greater dehumanization of
others (Haslam, 2022). Likewise, people who ascribe greater moral
worth to nature than to marginalized outgroups attribute more mental
capacity to nature and less to outgroups (Rottman et al., 2021).
A common rationale underlying this avenue of research is that, once
feeling connected with nonhuman agents (e.g., nature), some people
may be preoccupied with those agents and stop seeking new social ex­
periences. Drawing on adult attachment research, this specific response
pattern is characterized by anxious attachment (Brennan et al., 1998;
Lavigne et al., 2011). Therefore, we argue that anxious attachment may
play a vital role in determining how connectedness to nature is associ­
ated with or influences dehumanization.
1.2. Anxious attachment as a moderator
Attachment is an inborn system that motivates people to obtain
safety and security by seeking proximity to attachment figures in times
of need (Bowlby, 1982). Researchers have typically found two di­
mensions when exploring attachment patterns in adults: anxiety and
avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998). Specifically, attachment anxiety re­
flects the extent to which a person is excessively worried regarding the
love and availability they can receive from their partners in times of
need, while attachment avoidance reflects the extent to which people
show distrust and defensively maintain behavioral and emotional in­
dependence from their partners (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). Previous
research has demonstrated that people with high levels of attachment
anxiety (rather than attachment avoidance) yearn to develop more
secure social relationships, but typically fail to do so because their
excessive pursuit of love and fear of rejection may drive away their
partners (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). Therefore, they are more eager to
seek social connections to counteract loneliness. These characteristics
may lead people with high attachment anxiety to be more likely to
dehumanize distant others when they experience connectedness to
nature.
Anxiously attached people may utilize connectedness to nature as a
compensatory strategy to cope with their unsatisfied need for connec­
tion. Their endless desire for intimacy and fear of potential rejection
make anxiously attached people less socially accepted by others
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). As a compensatory strategy to regain a
sense of security and connection, they may turn to nonhumans (e.g.,
objects or gods) for intimacy and thus regard nonhumans as attachment
figures (Granqvist et al., 2010; Keefer et al., 2012; Neave et al., 2016;
Norris et al., 2012). Beyond fully controllable objects or omniscient and
omnipotent gods, nature is also a quality candidate for a substitute
attachment figure (Jordan, 2009). It is important to note that we are not
arguing that a sense of social deficits or anxious attachment is directly
associated with greater connectedness to nature as existing evidence on
this relationship is inconclusive (Moreton et al., 2019; Poon et al., 2015;
Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). Rather, we assume that, for anxiously attached
people, nature could be considered a special social entity with which
they can connect, given that recent research has revealed that nature
satisfies the human need for relatedness (Yang et al., 2022).
However, anxiously attached people tend to stop seeking social
connections once their need for connectedness is temporarily met.
People with high attachment anxiety experience unsatisfying social re­
lationships and constantly seek social connections to ease feelings of
rejection and loneliness. They are more likely to strive for social
G. Chen and J. Dang
relationships out of their desire to reduce social deficits rather than their
genuine interest in others (Lavigne et al., 2011). Therefore, once they
have attained social connections with other humans or nonhuman
agents, they may temporarily experience emotional relief and withdraw
their striving to seek further affiliations (Dang & Liu, 2023; Lavigne
et al., 2011). Accordingly, anxiously attached individuals are prone to
be preoccupied with their attachment figures and thus show less concern
for others (Brennan et al., 1998; Maranges et al., 2022) and greater
social distance from outgroups (Bao et al., 2015; Boag & Carnelley,
2012, 2016; Carnelley & Boag, 2019). Therefore, when experiencing
connectedness to nature, they may be preoccupied with nature and stop
seeking to extend their social networks, resulting in greater social dis­
tance from and dehumanization of others.
In contrast, the trend of connectedness to nature being associated
with or leading to dehumanization may be eliminated or even reversed
among people with low levels of anxious attachment. Those with lower
levels of anxious attachment engage in social interactions in a relatively
non-defensive way and are less likely to be preoccupied with one specific
target (Lavigne et al., 2011; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). Once they feel
connected with a target, they may continue striving for other connec­
tions. Previous research has revealed that connectedness to nature is
positively associated with connectedness to humanity as a whole and
connectedness to distant others (Moreton et al., 2019; Saroglou et al.,
2008). A perception of connectedness to other people is essential in
attributing humanness to them (Haslam, 2022). In this regard, a greater
sense of connectedness to nature may elicit the attribution of greater
humanness to and thus less dehumanization of distant others. Therefore,
we predict that for people with low levels of anxious attachment,
connectedness to nature and dehumanization will demonstrate a less
positive or, perhaps, a negative relationship.
1.3. Overview
Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence discussed in the
previous section, we hypothesized that attachment anxiety would
moderate the relationship between connectedness to nature and dehu­
manization. Specifically, we hypothesized that connectedness to nature
would be positively associated with or promote dehumanization of
distant others (e.g., thieves, litterers, or prisoners) primarily among
people with high levels of attachment anxiety. We conducted three
studies to test this hypothesis. In Study 1, we used a correlational design
to provide preliminary evidence for our hypothesis. In Study 2, to test
the generalizability of our findings, we used a different target of dehu­
manization that was more relevant in a nature-related context. In Study
3, we induced connectedness to nature and examined its effect on
dehumanization. We further extended our hypothesis by examining
whether increased dehumanization would predict a preference for na­
ture over marginalized groups (i.e., prisoners).
All the data and materials are available on the Open Science
Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/9vfu2/?view_only=8945658ff7bb4
bdeaf9a88643804810d). In addition, Study 1 was preregistered (htt
ps://osf.io/7dhe3/?view_only=7bbf5439ceee4d7785424486d4
96a1d6). We provide information about the stimulus materials,
exploratory factor analyses of the dehumanization measure in Study 3,
and supplemental analyses for Studies 1–3 in the Supplementary Ma­
terial. For each study, we reported all measures, conditions, data ex­
clusions, and sample size calculations.
2. Study 1
Study 1 was designed to obtain preliminary evidence of the moder­
ating role of anxious attachment in the association between connect­
edness to nature and dehumanization. Specifically, we assessed
participants’ dehumanization of thieves. We chose this target because
thieves are a distant social group for most people, and their criminal
behavior may reflect a lack of self-control, potentially making them
3
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
more vulnerable to being dehumanized. In this study, we expected a
positive association between connectedness to nature and dehuman­
ization to be found primarily among those with high levels of anxious
attachment.
2.1. Method
Two bilingual researchers translated all the research materials from
English to Chinese and conducted a back-translation to check the
equivalence.
2.1.1. Participants
Relying on the smallest effect size of interest (Lakens, 2014) of f2 =
0.02 and α = 0.05, a total sample size of N = 395 would provide 80%
power to detect the moderating role of anxious attachment in the as­
sociation between connectedness to nature and dehumanization. We
recruited a total of 440 Chinese participants via Aishiyan1 (https://aish
iyan.bnu.edu.cn), paying 5 CNY (0.69 USD) to each participant. We
excluded 38 participants who failed the attention check; thus, the final
sample included 402 participants2 (292 women and 110 men, Mage =
23.05 years, SDage = 5.23).
2.1.2. Procedure and materials
After providing informed consent, participants completed measures
of connectedness to nature and anxious attachment in a random
sequence. Then, participants rated the extent to which they dehumanize
thieves. Moreover, we used a measure developed by Haddock et al.
(1993) to assess prejudice against thieves as a covariate. For exploratory
purposes, we measured variables relevant to connectedness to nature (i.
e., nature relatedness and inclusion of nature in self; Nisbet et al., 2009;
Schultz, 2002) and examined their roles in predicting dehumanization.
We also measured individual differences in the tendency toward
anthropomorphizing (Neave et al., 2015) to examine whether it mod­
erates the association between connectedness to nature and dehuman­
ization. The descriptions of these variables and their respective analyses
are included in the Supplementary Material because they were not the
focal interest of this study.
2.1.2.1. Connectedness to nature. We assessed connectedness to nature
using the 14-item Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer & Frantz,
2004). Each item (e.g., “I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural
world around me”) was rated on a seven-point scale (1 = totally disagree,
7 = totally agree). After reverse-coding the negatively worded items, we
averaged the ratings to create an anxious attachment index (α = 0.79).
Higher scores indicated higher levels of connectedness to nature.
2.1.2.2. Anxious attachment. We assessed anxious attachment using the
18-item anxious attachment subscale of the Experience in Close Re­
lationships scale (Brennan et al., 1998). Each item (e.g., “I worry about
being abandoned”) was rated on a seven-point scale (1 = totally disagree,
7 = totally agree). After reverse-coding the negatively worded items, we
averaged the ratings to create an anxious attachment index (α = 0.92).
Higher scores indicated higher levels of anxious attachment.
2.1.2.3. Dehumanization. We assessed dehumanization using an
adapted 18-item mind attribution scale (Gray et al., 2007). Each item (e.
g., “Compared to average people, to what extent do you think thieves are
1
Aishiyan used in Study 1 and Credamo used in Studies 2 and 3 are online
survey platforms similar to Amazon Mechanical Turk. These platform advertise
surveys by selectively presenting them to eligible participants across the
country.
2
There were nine outliers (i.e., ±3 standard deviations from the mean). The
significance levels of the results were the same with or without the inclusion of
these outliers; therefore, we reported the results without excluding them.
G. Chen and J. Dang
capable of memorizing?“) was rated on a seven-point scale (1 = much
less than average people, 4 = equal to average people, 7 = much more than
average people). We reverse-coded and averaged all ratings and to create
an overall dehumanization index (α = 0.78). Higher scores indicated
higher levels of overall dehumanization.
People may strip away different aspects of humanness for different
groups (Gray et al., 2011; Haque & Waytz, 2012; Sim et al., 2022);
therefore, we further distinguished between two aspects of dehuman­
ization: dehumanization on agency (e.g., the capacity for self-control)
and experience (e.g., the capacity to experience fear). We
reverse-coded and averaged relevant ratings to create dehumanization
on agency (α = .73) and experience (α = 0.61) indices, respectively.
Higher scores indicated higher levels of dehumanization on agency or
experience.
Finally, participants reported their gender and age. After completing
the online survey, participants were debriefed and remunerated.
2.2. Results and discussion
Table 1 shows the correlations between variables.
To test the moderating role of anxious attachment in the association
between connectedness to nature and overall dehumanization, we used
the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017; Model 1). As shown in Table 2, the
results indicated that neither connectedness to nature nor anxious
attachment significantly predicted overall dehumanization; however,
the two-way interaction was significant. To further explore the moder­
ating role of anxious attachment, we used the Johnson-Neyman tech­
nique (Johnson & Neyman, 1936) to identify significant regions in the
association between connectedness to nature and overall dehumaniza­
tion across different levels of anxious attachment. The results showed
that, for those with anxious attachment scores of 3.00 (B = − 0.12, 95%
CI [− 0.23, 0.00], SE = 0.06) or below, connectedness to nature nega­
tively predicted overall dehumanization. For participants with anxious
attachment scores of 4.68 (B = 0.11, 95%CI [0.00, 0.22], SE = 0.06) or
above, connectedness to nature positively predicted overall dehuman­
ization. However, for those with anxious attachment scores ranging
from 3.00 to 4.68, the association between connectedness to nature and
overall dehumanization was non-significant (Fig. 1a).
We then tested a similar model with dehumanization on agency as
the dependent variable. Neither connectedness to nature nor anxious
attachment significantly predicted dehumanization on agency; however,
the two-way interaction was significant (Table 2). Further analyses
revealed that, for participants with anxious attachment scores of 2.93 (B
= − 0.16, 95%CI [− 0.31, 0.00], SE = 0.08) or below, connectedness to
nature negatively predicted dehumanization on agency. For participants
with anxious attachment scores of 4.34 (B = 0.13, 95%CI [0.00, 0.26],
SE = 0.07) or above, connectedness to nature positively predicted
dehumanization on agency. However, for those with anxious attachment
scores ranging from 2.93 to 4.34, the association was non-significant
(Fig. 1b).
We conducted a similar regression on dehumanization on experi­
ence. Neither connectedness to nature nor anxious attachment signifi­
cantly predicted dehumanization on experience; however, the two-way
interaction was significant (Table 2). Further analyses revealed that, for
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between variables in study 1.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Connectedness to nature 5.03 0.73
–
2. Overall dehumanization 4.09 0.69 .01 –
3. Dehumanization on 4.51 0.90 .03 .87*** – we measured nature anthropomorphism (Tam et al., 2013) and avoidant
agency
4. Dehumanization on 3.82 0.68 − .02 .91*** .59***
experience
5. Anxious attachment 3.92 1.09 − .04 − .03 − .04
Note. ***p < .001.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
participants with anxious attachment scores of 2.54 (B = − 0.14, 95%CI
[− 0.28, 0.00], SE = 0.07) or below, connectedness to nature negatively
predicted dehumanization on experience. For participants with anxious
attachment scores of 6.68 (B = 0.24, 95%CI [0.00, 0.49], SE = 0.12) or
above, connectedness to nature positively predicted dehumanization on
experience. However, for those with anxious attachment scores ranging
from 2.54 to 6.68, the association was non-significant (Fig. 1c).
We re-conducted these analyses after controlling for prejudice
against thieves; supplemental analyses yielded similar results (see Sup­
plementary Material), suggesting the robustness of the results.
Study 1 provided preliminary evidence for the moderating role of
anxious attachment in the association between connectedness to nature
and dehumanization. Specifically, connectedness to nature positively
predicted dehumanization only among participants with high levels of
anxious attachment but not among those with moderate levels. In
addition, connectedness to nature negatively predicted dehumanization
among participants with low levels of anxious attachment. Our findings
suggest that, depending on whether attachment anxiety is at a high or
low level, connectedness to nature can predict greater or less dehu­
manization, respectively.
3. Study 2
Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1. To examine the
generalizability of our findings, Study 2 used a new target of dehu­
manization that is more relevant in a nature-related context. Study 1
used a target (i.e., thieves) that is ostensibly irrelevant to nature.
However, when anxiously attached people are preoccupied with nature,
they may be more likely to dehumanize those who harm nature directly
rather than thieves. Therefore, Study 2 introduced people who casually
litter as dehumanization targets. Moreover, we measured dehumaniza­
tion with a different rating scale. Dehumanization can be measured in
two forms: absolute and relative (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Study 1
assessed relative dehumanization, which was operationalized as the
level of mind that participants perceived thieves as having relative to
average people. Study 2 measured absolute dehumanization by
instructing participants to make absolute judgments about the mental
capabilities of litterers. We predicted that connectedness to nature
would positively predict a tendency toward dehumanization for those
with high attachment anxiety.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
Relying on the effect size from Study 1 (f 2 = 0.031) and α = 0.05, a
sample of N = 256 would provide 80% power to detect the moderating
role of anxious attachment. However, for exploratory purposes, we
aimed to examine whether connectedness to nature predicts dehuman­
ization when controlling for nature anthropomorphism and avoidant
attachment. Considering the complexity of the model, we recruited a
total of 600 Chinese participants via Credamo (https://www.credamo.
com), paying 5 CNY (0.69 USD) to each participant. We excluded five
participants who failed the attention check; therefore, the final sample
included 595 participants3 (393 women and 202 men; Mage = 31.34
years, SDage = 11.72).
3.1.2. Procedures and materials
After providing informed consent, participants completed in a fixed
order measures of anxious attachment, connectedness to nature, and
dehumanization of people who casually litter. For exploratory purposes,
–
3
There were 17 outliers (i.e., ±3 standard deviations from the mean). The
− .02
significance levels of the results were the same with or without the inclusion of
these outliers; therefore, we reported the results without excluding them.
4
G. Chen and J. Dang Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086

Table 2
Regression analyses of moderated models in study 1.
Predictor variable Outcome variable: Overall dehumanization Outcome variable: Dehumanization on Outcome variable: Dehumanization on
agency experience

B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p

Connectedness to nature 0.01 [-0.08, 0.05 0.20 .845 0.04 [-0.08, 0.06 0.72 .471 − 0.01 [-0.10, 0.05 − 0.28 .778
0.10] 0.16] 0.08]
Anxious attachment − 0.03 [-0.09, 0.03 − 0.83 .405 − 0.04 [-0.12, 0.04 − 1.00 .316 − 0.02 [-0.08, 0.03 − 0.53 .599
0.04] 0.04] 0.05]
Connectedness to nature × Anxious 0.14 [0.05, 0.04 3.30 .001 0.20 [0.10, 0.05 3.75 <.001 0.09 [0.01, 0.04 2.27 .024
attachment 0.22] 0.31] 0.17]

R2 .03 .04 .01

using the CNS (α = 0.81), as in Study 1.

3.1.2.3. Dehumanization. We assessed dehumanization using an

adapted six-item mind attribution scale (Gray et al., 2007), similar to
that applied in Study 1. However, the target was replaced with people
who casually litter. In contrast to Study 1, the participants rated their
mind attributions to the target directly with no reference. Specifically,
three items measured dehumanization on agency (e.g., “To what extent
do you think that people who casually litter are capable of planning?“)
and three items measured dehumanization on experience (e.g., “To what
extent do you think that people who casually litter are capable of feeling
rage?“). Items were rated on a seven-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 =
totally agree). We reverse-coded and averaged the ratings to create
overall dehumanization (α = 0.81), dehumanization on agency (α =
0.76), and dehumanization on experience (α = 0.86) indices. Higher
scores indicated higher levels of dehumanization.
Finally, participants reported their gender and age. After completing
the online survey, participants were debriefed and remunerated.

3.2. Results and discussion

Table 3 shows the correlations between variables.

Fig. 1. The moderating role of anxious attachment in the association between
connectedness to nature and (a) overall dehumanization, (b) dehumanization
on agency, and (c) dehumanization on experience in study 1.
Note. CNS = connectedness to nature scale. Deh = overall dehumanization;
Deh_A = dehumanization on agency; Deh_E = dehumanization on experience.
We used the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017; Model 1) with
connectedness to nature as the independent variable, overall dehu­
manization as the dependent variable, anxious attachment as the
moderator. As shown in Table 4, the results indicated that both
connectedness to nature and anxious attachment significantly predicted
overall dehumanization. However, the two-way interaction was not
significant. When considering dehumanization on experience as the
dependent variable, the results yielded only a main effect of connect­
edness to nature and not of attachment anxiety or the two-way
interaction.
We also tested a moderation model with dehumanization on agency
as the dependent variable. The results showed that both connectedness
to nature and anxious attachment significantly predicted dehumaniza­
tion on agency. Moreover, the two-way interaction was significant
(Table 4). To further explore the moderating role of anxious attachment,
we used the Johnson-Neyman technique. The results showed that, for

attachment (Fraley et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2022) as covariates. The Table 3
descriptions of these variables and their analyses are included in the Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between variables in study 2.
Supplementary Material.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Connectedness to 5.37 0.72

3.1.2.1. Anxious attachment. We assessed anxious attachment with the
–
nature
anxious attachment subscale of the Experience in Close Relationships- 2. Overall 5.21 0.99 .21*** –
Relationship Structure scale (Fraley et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2022). dehumanization
Participants completed three items (e.g., “I’m afraid that they may 3. Dehumanization 5.85 0.93 .26*** .75*** –
on agency
abandon me”) on a seven-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally
4. Dehumanization 4.57 1.41 .12** .90*** .40*** –
agree). We averaged the ratings to create an anxious attachment index on experience
(α = 0.85). Higher scores indicated higher levels of anxious attachment. 5. Anxious 3.06 1.61 − .23*** − .16*** − .20*** − .09*
attachment
3.1.2.2. Connectedness to nature. We assessed connectedness to nature Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

5
G. Chen and J. Dang Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086

Table 4
Regression analyses of moderated models in study 2.
Predictor variable Outcome variable: Overall dehumanization Outcome variable: Dehumanization on Outcome variable: Dehumanization on
agency experience

B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p

Connectedness to nature 0.24 [0.13, 0.06 4.30 <.001 0.29 [0.19, 0.05 5.56 <.001 0.20 [0.04, 0.08 2.40 .017
0.35] 0.39] 0.36]
Anxious attachment − 0.07 [-0.12, 0.03 − 2.88 .004 − 0.09 [-0.13, 0.02 − 3.73 <.001 − 0.06 [-0.13, 0.04 − 1.60 .110
− 0.02] − 0.04] 0.01]
Connectedness to nature × Anxious 0.03 [-0.03, 0.03 0.95 .341 0.08 [0.03, 0.03 2.89 .004 − 0.02 [-0.11, 0.04 − 0.51 .611
attachment 0.09] 0.14] 0.07]

R2 .06 .10 .02

participants with anxious attachment scores of 1.30 (B = 0.15, 95%CI
[0.00, 0.29], SE = 0.07) or above, connectedness to nature positively
predicted dehumanization on agency. However, for those with anxious
attachment scores below 1.30, the association was non-significant
(Fig. 2).
We re-conducted these analyses after controlling for nature anthro­
pomorphism and avoidant attachment; supplemental analyses yielded
similar results (see Supplementary Material), suggesting the robustness
of the results.
In summary, Study 2 partially replicated the results of Study 1,
revealing the moderating role of anxious attachment in the association
between connectedness to nature and dehumanization on agency. Spe­
cifically, connectedness to nature positively predicted dehumanization
on agency for people with higher levels of anxious attachment, while
this pattern was not observed for those with very low levels of anxious
attachment. However, regarding overall dehumanization or dehuman­
ization on experience, the positive association between connectedness to
nature and dehumanization existed irrespective of the level of anxious
attachment. This could be because people who feel connected to nature
are averse to anti-environment others, such as those who casually litter.
Perceptions of others as disgusting provoke dehumanization (Buckels &
Trapnell, 2013). With the findings of Study 1, we assume that the target
may play an essential role in the association between connectedness to
nature and dehumanization. We return to this point in the General
Discussion section.
4. Study 3
Study 3 extended Studies 1 and 2 in three ways. First, we examined
the effect of connectedness to nature on dehumanization by manipu­
lating connectedness to nature with a bogus-feedback paradigm. Sec­
ond, we used a different target of dehumanization (i.e., prisoners) to
further examine the generalizability of our findings. Third, we examined
whether increased dehumanization would further promote a preference
for nature over prisoners, similar to the discrimination found in inter­
group contexts (e.g., Bruneau et al., 2020; Kersbergen & Robinson,
2019; Kteily et al., 2015). We define a preference for nature as the
tendency to prioritize the welfare of nature over that of distant others.
Dehumanization involves seeing others as entities not worthy of moral
considerations, leading to reduced consideration of their welfare (Waytz
et al., 2010). As such, people who feel connected to nature but dehu­
manize prisoners are expected to value nature over prisoners. In this
study, we operationalized a preference for nature over prisoners as the
difference between the funding amount allocated to programs aimed at
protecting the environment and that allocated to programs aimed at
protecting prisoners’ rights. We predicted that a promoting effect of
connectedness to nature on dehumanization and subsequent preferences
would be found primarily among people with high levels of anxious
attachment.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
The dependent variable in Study 3 was similar to that in Study 1;
therefore, we used the effect size obtained in Study 1 (f 2 = 0.031), and α
= 0.05 and an N = 256 would provide 80% power to detect the
moderating role of anxious attachment on the effect of connectedness to
nature on dehumanization. We recruited a total of 303 Chinese partic­
ipants via Credamo, paying 3 CNY (0.41 USD) to each participant. We
excluded 24 participants who failed the attention check; thus, the final
sample included 279 participants4 (194 women and 85 men, Mage =
27.22 years, SDage = 7.42). Participants were randomly assigned to
either the low (n = 133) or the high (n = 146) connectedness to nature
condition.

4.1.2. Procedures and materials

After providing informed consent, participants completed measure
of anxious attachment and connectedness to nature manipulation.
Subsequently, participants rated the extent to which they dehumanized
prisoners and preferred nature over prisoners. For exploratory purposes,
we measured avoidant attachment (Fraley et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,
2022) as a covariate. A description of the measurement instrument for
avoidant attachment and the relevant analyses that control for avoidant
attachment are included in the Supplementary Material.

4.1.2.1. Anxious attachment. We assessed anxious attachment (α =

0.84) as in Study 2.

4.1.2.2. Connectedness to nature manipulation. We manipulated

4
There were eight outliers (i.e., ±3 standard deviations from the mean). The
Fig. 2. The moderating role of anxious attachment in the association between significance levels of the results were the same with or without the inclusion of
connectedness to nature and dehumanization on agency in study 2. these outliers; therefore, we reported the results without excluding them.

6
G. Chen and J. Dang
connectedness to nature using a method similar to that in Twenge et al.
(2007). Participants completed a 21-item scale that ostensibly assessed
their relationship with nature. The scale consists of six items extracted
from the Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & John, 2007; e.g., “I see
myself as someone who is outgoing and sociable; ” 1 = totally disagree, 7
= totally agree), and 15 items measuring self-transcendence and benev­
olence value (Schwartz, 1992; e.g., mature love; 1 = not at all, 7 = very
important).5 We chose these items because previous studies have
demonstrated their associations with connectedness to nature (Lengieza
& Swim, 2021). Subsequently, participants received bogus feedback that
their connectedness to nature score was either in the 68th percentile
(high connectedness to nature condition) or the 32nd percentile (low
connectedness condition) among 12,000 peers. Then, participants were
provided at least 2 min to think about and write down the reasons why
they had such high (low) connectedness to nature. As a manipulation
check, participants completed three items (e.g., “Right now, I feel that I
am interconnected with and have a reciprocal influence on nature; ” 1 =
totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). We averaged the ratings to create a
connectedness to nature index (α = 0.93). Higher scores indicated
higher levels of connectedness to nature.
4.1.2.3. Dehumanization. We assessed dehumanization using an
adapted six-item mind-attribution scale (Gray et al., 2007). However,
two items (i.e., “Compared to average people, to what extent do you
think prisoners are capable of planning/feeling rage?“) were removed
because of their low factor loadings for relevant factors (see the Sup­
plementary Materials). Among the remaining four items, two measured
dehumanization on agency (e.g., “Compared to average people, to what
extent do you think prisoners are capable of self-control?“) and two
measured dehumanization on experience (e.g., “Compared to average
people, to what extent do you think prisoners are capable of feeling
fear?“). Each item was rated on a seven-point scale (1 = much less than
average people, 4 = equal as average people, 7 = much more than average
people). We reverse-coded and averaged ratings to create overall dehu­
manization (α = 0.58), dehumanization on agency (α = 0.60), and
dehumanization on experience (α = 0.63) indices. Higher scores indi­
cated higher levels of dehumanization.
4.1.2.4. Preference for nature over prisoners. We used a hypothetical
scenario to assess participants’ potential preference for nature over
prisoners. Participants read a scenario in which they were government
officials and needed to allocate funds (1 million) to the budgets of two
programs. The first program aimed to increase protections of prisoners’
basic human rights, while the second focused on improving environ­
mental protections. Given the fixed funding amount, allocating more to
protect the environment resulted in less funds being allocated to protect
prisoners’ rights. After reading the scenario, participants wrote down
the amount of funding they would allocate to each program. The budget
was in units of ten thousand, and participants provided their answers in
a range of 0–100 (the allocated funds must total 100). We created a
preference for nature index by subtracting the amount of money allo­
cated to the first program from that allocated to the second one. Higher
scores indicated a greater preference for nature over prisoners.
Finally, participants reported their gender and age. After completing
the online survey, participants were debriefed and remunerated.
4.2. Results and discussion
Table 5 shows the correlations between variables.
5
We adapted the scale by deleting items that explicitly mentioned nature (e.
g., protecting the environment). We thought that the deletion was necessary to
avoid potential conflicts between participants’ choices and our bogus feedback.
7
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
4.2.1. Manipulation check
We conducted a t-test to compare levels of connectedness to nature
between both conditions. The data violated the homoscedasticity hy­
pothesis; therefore, we used Welch’s test to correct the results. The re­
sults showed that participants in the high connectedness to nature
condition (M = 5.69, SD = 1.02) scored significantly higher than their
counterparts in the low connectedness to nature condition (M = 3.42,
SD = 1.30), t(250.38) = 16.09, p < .001, d = 1.94, 95%CI [1.70, 2.18].
Therefore, the manipulation of connectedness to nature was successful.
4.2.2. Moderating role of anxious attachment
We used the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017; Model 1) with
dummy-coded connectedness to nature conditions (high = 1, low = 0) as
the independent variable, overall dehumanization as the dependent
variable, anxious attachment as the moderator. As Table 6 shows, the
results indicated that neither connectedness to nature condition nor
anxious attachment significantly predicted overall dehumanization.
However, the two-way interaction was significant. Further analyses
using the Johnson-Neyman technique revealed that, for participants
with anxious attachment scores of 6.27 (B = 0.50, 95%CI [0.00, 1.01],
SE = 0.26) or above, connectedness to nature increased overall dehu­
manization. However, for those with anxious attachment scores below
6.27, the effect was non-significant (Fig. 3a).
We then tested a moderation model with dehumanization on agency
as the dependent variable, and the results only indicated a significant
two-way interaction (Table 6). Further analyses revealed that, for those
with anxious attachment scores of 1.40 (B = − 0.37, 95%CI [− 0.74,
0.00], SE = 0.19) or below, connectedness to nature reduced dehu­
manization on agency. However, for those with anxious attachment
scores above 1.40, the effect was non-significant (Fig. 3b).
A regression on dehumanization on experience showed that neither
the main effects nor two-way interaction was significant (Table 6).
Therefore, we only considered dehumanization and dehumanization on
agency in the subsequent analysis.
Most importantly, supplemental analyses that controlled for avoi­
dant attachment yielded similar results (see the Supplementary Mate­
rial), suggesting the robustness of the results.
4.2.3. Effects on a preference for nature over prisoners
As shown in Table 5, indicators of dehumanization were positively
associated with a preference for nature over prisoners. To examine
whether this preference was the downstream consequence of increased
overall dehumanization using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017; Model
7, 5000 resamples), we tested a moderated mediation model with
connectedness to nature conditions as the independent variable, pref­
erence for nature as the dependent variable, overall dehumanization as
the mediator, anxious attachment as the moderator.
The results showed that, the main effect of connectedness to nature
was non-significant (B = − 3.22, 95%CI [− 10.57, 4.13], SE = 3.74, t =
− 0.86, p = .389), while the main effect of overall dehumanization was
significant (B = 6.94, 95%CI [3.32, 10.57], SE = 1.84, t = 3.77, p <
.001). Moreover, the moderated mediation model was effective
(moderated mediation index = 1.10, bootstrap 95%CI [0.12, 2.28], SE
= 0.56). Further analyses using the Johnson-Neyman technique
revealed that, for participants with anxious attachment scores of 5.57
(ab = 2.72, 95%CI [0.00, 6.11], SE = 1.54) or above, connectedness to
nature promoted preference for nature via increased overall dehuman­
ization. However, for those with anxious attachment scores below 5.57,
the indirect effect was non-significant (Fig. 4a).
Next, we used dehumanization on agency as the mediator and con­
ducted a similar moderated mediation effect analysis. The results
showed that, the main effect of connectedness to nature was non-
significant (B = − 2.85, 95%CI [− 10.29, 4.60], SE = 3.78, t = − 0.75,
p = .452), while the main effect of dehumanization was significant (B =
4.64, 95%CI [1.23, 8.05], SE = 1.73, t = 2.68, p = .008). Moreover, the
moderated mediation model was effective (moderated mediation index
G. Chen and J. Dang Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086

Table 5
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation between variables in study 3.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. CN conditions – – –
2. CN manipulation check 4.61 1.62 .70*** –
3. Overall dehumanization 5.06 1.01 .004 .01 –
4. Dehumanization on agency 5.84 1.09 − .03 − .06 .71*** –
5. Dehumanization on experience 4.28 1.47 .03 .06 .85*** .24*** –
6. Preference for nature over prisoners 43.40 31.88 − .05 − .01 .22*** .16** .19** –
7. Anxious attachment 3.16 1.68 − .05 − .03 .004 .07 − .05 .02

Note. CN conditions = connectedness to nature conditions, which were coded: high connectedness to nature condition = 1, low connectedness to nature condition = 0.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 6
Regression analyses of moderated models in study 3.
Predictor variable Outcome variable: Overall Outcome variable: Dehumanization on agency Outcome variable:Dehumanization on
dehumanization experience

B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p B [95% CI] SE t p

CN conditions 0.01 [-0.23, 0.12 0.07 .944 − 0.06 [-0.32, 0.13 − 0.47 .642 0.08 [-0.27, 0.42] 0.18 0.44 .660
0.25] 0.20]
Anxious attachment 0.01 [-0.06, 0.04 0.21 .836 0.05 [-0.02, 0.13] 0.04 1.33 .183 − 0.04 [-0.14, 0.05 − 0.70 .484
0.08] 0.07]
CN conditions × Anxious 0.16 [0.02, 0.30] 0.07 2.20 .029 0.18 [0.02, 0.33] 0.08 2.28 .023 0.14 [-0.07, 0.35] 0.10 1.34 .182
attachment

R2 .02 .02 .01

Note. CN conditions = connectedness to nature conditions, which were coded: high connectedness to nature condition = 1, low connectedness to nature condition = 0.

Fig. 3. The moderating role of anxious attachment in the effects of connect­
edness to nature on (a) overall dehumanization and (b) dehumanization on
agency in study 3.
Note. CN = connectedness to nature.
= 0.82, bootstrap 95%CI [0.06, 1.92], SE = 0.47). Further analyses
revealed that, for participants with anxious attachment scores of 1.35
(ab = − 1.77, 95%CI [− 4.36, 0.00], SE = 1.16) or below, connectedness
to nature reduced preference for nature via decreased dehumanization.
However, for those with anxious attachment scores above 1.35, the
Fig. 4. The moderating role of anxious attachment in the conditional indirect
effects via (a) overall dehumanization and (b) dehumanization on agency in
study 3.
indirect effect was non-significant (Fig. 4b).
In summary, Study 3 provided partial support for the hypothesis,
revealing that connectedness to nature promoted overall dehumaniza­
tion only among people with higher levels of anxious attachment.
Similar to the findings of Study 1, for people with low levels of anxious
attachment, connectedness to nature reduced dehumanization on

8
G. Chen and J. Dang
agency of prisoners. Dehumanization bolstered by connectedness to
nature predicted greater preference for nature. The results suggest that
whether connectedness to nature is beneficial or harmful to human re­
lationships depends on the level of anxious attachment.
5. General Discussion
Human-nature relationships have become a scholarly focus world­
wide, with advocates broadly arguing that close human-nature re­
lationships can substantially benefit the environment and people’s
subjective well-being (e.g., Cervinka et al., 2012; Mayer & Frantz, 2004;
UNEP, 2021). In the present research, we focused on how connectedness
to nature is associated with or influences dehumanization and examined
the moderating role of anxious attachment in this association. Through
three studies, we found that connectedness to nature was associated
with or led to greater dehumanization primarily among people with
high levels of anxious attachment.
Notably, although the results of these studies mostly supported our
hypothesis, Studies 2 and 3 did not yield a significant moderation
pattern when using dehumanization on experience as the dependent
variable. Likewise, the Johnson-Neyman plot for Study 1 also showed a
smaller significant region (i.e., weaker moderating effect) with dehu­
manization on experience as the dependent variable. This may be
because of the specific targets of dehumanization. Previous research has
found that people downplay different aspects of mind for different tar­
gets (Gray et al., 2007, 2011; Sim et al., 2022). Specifically, thieves
(Study 1), people who casually litter (Study 2), and prisoners (Study 3)
may be perceived as lacking self-control and morality, which reflects
denials of agency (Gray et al., 2007). However, these target groups may
still be capable of feeling anger, fear, and joy, which reflects their
normal experience capacity. Therefore, people may engage in dehu­
manization on agency rather than experience of these targets. To vali­
date this potential explanation, future research can use targets generally
perceived as having a lack of experience to further explore the related
effects. For example, physicians usually deny patients’ experience of
feeling pain (Haque & Waytz, 2012). In addition, organizations may
view employees in the workplace as means to their ends, thereby lacking
the capacity to experience emotions (Christoff, 2014).
5.1. Implications
On a theoretical level, the present research extends mainstream
research that emphasizes the benefits of connectedness to nature and
reveals its negative consequences for anxiously attached people. Previ­
ous research has found that connectedness to nature may not only
promote environmental conservation but also benefit psychological
health and intergroup relationships (Cervinka et al., 2012; Mayer et al.,
2009; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Ng & Leung, 2022; Nisbet et al., 2009;
Roszak et al., 1995; Starzyk et al., 2021). In line with this, the results of
Study 1 indicate the potential benefits of connectedness to nature for
enhancing the quality of social relationships with distant others. How­
ever, this research consistently demonstrates that connectedness to na­
ture may promote dehumanization among people with high levels of
anxious attachment. By elucidating the negative aspects of connected­
ness to nature under specific conditions, the present research not only
helps to further the current understanding of the effects of connected­
ness to nature but also inspires future researchers to reconsider how
other human-non-human (e.g., human-animal) relationships may in­
fluence human relationships.
The present research also suggests the gloomy future anxiously
attached people face in their social relationships with humans. Owing to
excessive pursuit of loves, they usually cannot establish stable inter­
personal relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013), and often regard
nonhumans as the last option for gaining connection and security (e.g.,
Granqvist et al., 2010; Keefer et al., 2012). Ironically, feeling connected
to nonhumans does not eventually help anxiously attached people
9
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
return to human relationships, but increasingly prevents them from
engaging with human society. Thus, anxiously attached people may
rarely share close relationships with other humans again if they are
preoccupied with particular nonhuman agents.
On a practical level, the present research paves the way for pro­
moting people’s harmonious relationships with the social world. Our
findings suggest that anxiously attached people who feel socially con­
nected to nature may be preoccupied with it. Thus, they disregard the
welfare and humanity of distant others. Therefore, interventions tar­
geting the quality of interpersonal relationships effectively establish a
secure social climate and reduce people’s undesirable emotional bonds
with nature. Stated differently, a social connection with nonhumans, in
this case, nature, can provide resources to address people’s connected­
ness needs (Wan & Chen, 2021). However, establishing satisfying social
relationships with humans is vital for promoting the development of
positive representations of others (Lavigne et al., 2011).
5.2. Limitations and future directions
Some limitations should be addressed in future studies. First, the
present research mainly adopts the mind attribution perspective of
dehumanization (Waytz et al., 2010), although some researchers have
demonstrated that dehumanization is more than mind attribution
(Fincher et al., 2018; Kteily & Landry, 2022), including differential at­
tributions of humanness or secondary emotions and demeaning psy­
chological needs (Haslam et al., 2005; Leyens et al., 2001; Schroeder &
Epley, 2020). Therefore, future researchers could examine whether our
hypothesis is still supported by measuring other types of dehumaniza­
tion. Further, consistent with previous research (Gray et al., 2011), the
measures of dehumanization used in Studies 1 and 3 did not show high
reliability. Future research should replicate our study with more refined
measures of dehumanization.
Second, the present research selected individuals who transgress
norms as the targets of dehumanization because they are more vulner­
able to being dehumanized (e.g., Bastian et al., 2013). This leaves the
question of whether our findings can be generalized to liked or neutral
people who are distant in space or social similarity (e.g., people living in
distant places with very different cultures). In addition, the results
revealed that for people with low levels of anxious attachment,
connectedness to nature was associated with or lead to less dehuman­
ization of thieves and prisoners, but not of litterers. Connectedness to
nature involves seeing nature as part of one’s self-concept (e.g., Schultz,
2002); therefore, harm to nature may be regarded as harm to the self
and, thus, elicit stronger aversion regardless of the level of anxious
attachment. The targets of dehumanization may determine the point at
which the sign reverses for the relationship between connectedness to
nature and dehumanization, and thus influence the portion of popula­
tion among whom connectedness to nature promotes dehumanization.
Another possible reason might be that we measured the absolute
dehumanization of litterers but the relative dehumanization of thieves
and prisoners. Future research should explore these possibilities.
Lastly, Study 3 induced connectedness to nature by presenting par­
ticipants with bogus feedback about their relationship with nature,
ostensibly on the basis of a test. This paradigm may help make partici­
pants believe that the feedback they received reflect their long-term
relationships and acted as a strong manipulation of connectedness
(Twenge et al., 2001, 2007). However, this manipulation is arguably
interfered with the demand effects. Therefore, future research should
test our findings using other manipulations of connectedness to nature.
5.3. Conclusion
As global advocates continue to argue in support of increasing
connectedness to nature, exploring whether it potentially elicits nega­
tive influences under specific conditions is vital. In the present research,
we uncovered that connectedness to nature plays a specific role in
G. Chen and J. Dang
promoting dehumanization and a subsequent preference for nature over
distant humans for anxiously attached people, although it may enhance
the quality of human relationships for people with low levels of anxious
attachment. As such, feeling connected to nature is not always benefi­
cial, at least for those with high levels of anxious attachment. The im­
plications of connectedness to nature on human relationships are worthy
of further theoretical and practical consideration.
Author contributions
G. Chen and J. Dang contributed to Conceptualization, Writing-
original draft and Writing-review & editing. G. Chen performed Data
curation and Formal analysis under the Supervision of J. Dang.
Declaration of competing interest
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by National
Natural Science Foundation of China (32100869; 32271124), the Proj­
ect of Humanities and Social Science Research of the Ministry of Edu­
cation of China (21YJC190003), the Major Project of the National Social
Science Foundation of China (18ZDA332), and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central University (2019NTSS30). The authors
would like to thank Editage (www.editage.cn) for English language
editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102086.
References
Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations.
Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression
through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of
Research in Personality, 9(4), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(75)
90001-X
Bao, Z., Zhang, W., Lai, X., Sun, W., & Wang, Y. (2015). Parental attachment and Chinese
adolescents’ delinquency: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of
Adolescence, 44(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.06.002
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012). When closing the
human–animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550611425106
Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., & Haslam, N. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral
outrage in retributive justice. PLoS One, 8(4), Article e61842. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0061842
Boag, E. M., & Carnelley, K. B. (2012). Self-reported discrimination and discriminatory
behaviour: The role of attachment security: Discrimination and attachment security.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8309.2011.02065.x
Boag, E. M., & Carnelley, K. B. (2016). Attachment and prejudice: The mediating role of
empathy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(2), 337–356. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjso.12132
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.
tb01456.x
Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2011). The chain of being: A hierarchy of morality.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691611414587
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press.
Brown, C. M., Hengy, S. M., & McConnell, A. R. (2016). Thinking about cats or dogs
provides relief from social rejection. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/
10.1080/20414005.2015.1067958
Bruneau, E., Kteily, N., Jacoby, N., & Saxe, R. (2018). Denying humanity: The distinct
neural correlates of blatant dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 147(7), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000417
10
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
Bruneau, E., Szekeres, H., Kteily, N., Tropp, L. R., & Kende, A. (2020). Beyond dislike:
Blatant dehumanization predicts teacher discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 23(4), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219845462
Buckels, E. E., & Trapnell, P. D. (2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(6), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368430212471738
Carnelley, K. B., & Boag, E. M. (2019). Attachment and prejudice. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 25, 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.003
Cervinka, R., Röderer, K., & Hefler, E. (2012). Are nature lovers happy? On various
indicators of well-being and connectedness with nature. Journal of Health Psychology,
17(3), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311416873
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and
ethical considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–5. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of
animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2014a). Explaining dehumanization among children: The
interspecies model of prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 175–197.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12016
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2014b). Lay beliefs about the causes of and solutions to
dehumanization and prejudice: Do nonexperts recognize the role of human-animal
relations? Lay beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 278–288. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12221
Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2023). Does connectedness need satisfaction diminish or promote
social goal striving? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(6), 891–909.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221084539
Deska, J. C., Almaraz, S. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2020). Dehumanizing prisoners:
Remaining sentence duration predicts the ascription of mind to prisoners. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(11), 1614–1627. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167220911496
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and
generalized ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human–animal relations model
(SD–HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507–522. https://doi.org/
10.1002/per.2069
Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping,
and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio,
M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781446200919.n1.
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the
media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees:
Dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027
Fincher, K. M., Kteily, N. S., & Bruneau, E. G. (2018). Our humanity contains multitudes:
Dehumanization is more than overlooking mental capacities. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 115(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800359115
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The
experiences in close relationships—relationship structures questionnaire: A method
for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment,
23(3), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
Global Times. (2021). Thunberg mocked as ’double-standard environmentalist,’ ’puppet of
Western politicians’ for targeting China on annual emissions. May 9. Global Times https
://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1222988.shtml.
Granqvist, P., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Religion as attachment: Normative
processes and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1),
49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309348618
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science,
315(5812). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475, 619–619.
Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a body:
Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(6), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025883
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial
attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
Haque, O. S., & Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and
functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1745691611429706
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Haslam, N. (2022). Dehumanization and the lack of social connection. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 43, 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.013
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you:
Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89(6), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual
Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-
115045
Haslam, N., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their
application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93. htt
ps://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/tests-certain-linear-hypotheses-thei
r-application/docview/615048518/se-2.
G. Chen and J. Dang
Jordan, M. (2009). Nature and self—an ambivalent attachment? Ecopsychology, 1(1),
26–31. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2008.0003
Keefer, L. A., Landau, M. J., Rothschild, Z. K., & Sullivan, D. (2012). Attachment to
objects as compensation for close others’ perceived unreliability. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 912–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2012.02.007
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
Kersbergen, I., & Robinson, E. (2019). Blatant dehumanization of people with obesity.
Obesity, 27(6), 1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22460
Kramp, J. M. (2015). Call of the wild: The negative tendency in the nature religions of
American youth. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10943-013-9732-z
Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical
and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
Kteily, N. S., & Landry, A. P. (2022). Dehumanization: Trends, insights, and challenges.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(3), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2021.12.003
Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses:
Sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 701–710. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023
Lavigne, G. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Crevier-Braud, L. (2011). The fundamental need to
belong: On the distinction between growth and deficit-reduction orientations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1185–1201. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167211405995
Lengieza, M. L., & Swim, J. K. (2021). The paths to connectedness: A review of the
antecedents of connectedness to nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 763231.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763231
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from round river.
New York: Ballantine Books.
Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M.-P.,
Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential
attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50
Liu, T., Geng, L., Ye, L., & Zhou, K. (2019). “Mother Nature” enhances connectedness to
nature and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61,
37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.003
Maranges, H. M., Chen, S. K., & Conway, P. (2022). Insecure and insensitive: Avoidant
and anxious attachment predict less concern for others in sacrificial moral dilemmas.
Personality and Individual Differences, 185, Article 111274. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2021.111274
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), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
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),
607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). An attachment perspective on loneliness. In
R. J. Coplan, & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude (1st ed., pp. 34–50).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118427378.ch3.
Moreton, S., Arena, A., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2019). Connectedness to nature is more
strongly related to connection to distant, rather than close, others. Ecopsychology, 11
(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0063
Mourey, J. A., Olson, J. G., & Yoon, C. (2017). Products as pals: Engaging with
anthropomorphic products mitigates the effects of social exclusion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 44(2), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx038
Neave, N., Jackson, R., Saxton, T., & Hönekopp, J. (2015). The influence of
anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours. Personality and
Individual Differences, 72, 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.041
Neave, N., Tyson, H., McInnes, L., & Hamilton, C. (2016). The role of attachment style
and anthropomorphism in predicting hoarding behaviours in a non-clinical sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.04.067
Ng, H. K. S., & Leung, A. N. M. (2022). Nature connectedness and nature exposure
interactively influence social dominance orientation and policy support for
marginalized groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environment and Behavior, 54
(2), 412–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211031198
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), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916508318748
Norris, J. I., Lambert, N. M., Nathan DeWall, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Can’t buy me
love? Anxious attachment and materialistic values. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53(5), 666–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.009
11
Journal of Environmental Psychology 90 (2023) 102086
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social
Issues, 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x
Poon, K.-T., Teng, F., Chow, J. T., & Chen, Z. (2015). Desiring to connect to nature: The
effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42,
116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.003
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-
item short version of the Big five inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Roszak, T. E., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth,
healing the mind. Sierra Club Books.
Rottman, J., Crimston, C. R., & Syropoulos, S. (2021). Tree-huggers versus human-lovers:
Anthropomorphism and dehumanization predict valuing nature over outgroups.
Cognitive Science, 45(4), Article e12967. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12967
Saroglou, V., Buxant, C., & Tilquin, J. (2008). Positive emotions as leading to religion
and spirituality. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439760801998737
Schroeder, J., & Epley, N. (2020). Demeaning: Dehumanizing others by minimizing the
importance of their psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
119(4), 765–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000199
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations.
In P. Schmuck, & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp.
61–78). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6. Elsevier.
Shin, H. I., & Kim, J. (2020). My computer is more thoughtful than you: Loneliness,
anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Psychology, 39(2), 445–453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9975-7
Sim, M., Almaraz, S. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2022). Bodies and minds: Heavier weight
targets are de-mentalized as lacking in mental agency. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 48(9), 1367–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/
01461672211039981
Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. St.
Martin: s Press.
Spadaro, P. A. (2020). Climate change, environmental terrorism, eco-terrorism and
emerging threats. Journal of Strategic Security, 13(4), 58–80. https://doi.org/
10.5038/1944-0472.13.4.1863
Starzyk, K. B., Fontaine, A. S. M., Strand, L. K., & Neufeld, K. H. S. (2021). Attitudes
toward reconciliation in Canada: Relationships with connectedness to nature,
animal–human continuity, and moral expansiveness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 53(4), 381–390. https://doi.
org/10.1037/cbs0000248
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), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007).
Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join
them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0022-3514.81.6.1058
UNEP. (2021). Making peace with nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate,
biodiversity and pollution emergencies.
Wan, E. W., & Chen, R. P. (2021). Anthropomorphism and object attachment. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 39, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.009
Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into
anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
19(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359302
Yang, Y., Cai, H., Yang, Z., Zhao, X., Li, M., Han, R., & Chen, S. X. (2022). Why does
nature enhance psychological well-being? A self-determination account. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 83, Article 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2022.101872
Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role
of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013916512451901
Zhang, H., Chan, D. K.-S., Teng, F., & Zhang, D. (2015). Sense of interpersonal security
and preference for harsh actions against others: The role of dehumanization. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2014.09.014
Zhang, Q., Hou, Z.-J., Fraley, R. C., Hu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., & Guo, X. (2022).
Validating the experiences in close relationships–relationship structures scale among
Chinese children and adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(3), 347–358.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1947844