Click one of the links below or scroll down the page to see:
- Children’s Relationship with Animals
- Children’s Folkbiology and Naive Biology
- Children’s Moral Reasoning about the Natural World
- Environmental Generational Amnesia
- Children’s Preference for Natural Play Settings
- Developmental Implications of Children’s Experiences in Nature: Nature Deficit Disorder
- Developmental Implications of Exposure to Environmental Toxicants
- Developing in a Material World
- Nature and the Ritual Transition through Adolescence
- Impact of Life Experiences on Environmental Action
- Interviewing Children about the Environment
- Nature Autobiography/Significant Life Experience Essay
- Interviewing an Elder about Nature Connections
- Natural Development
- Fun with Furby
- The Lorax and The Wumps
- Film: Toxic Baby
- Websites and Films: Importance of Nature for Child Development
- Websites and Films: Commercialization of Childhood
Suggested Readings for Students
References Cited in this Section
Developmental psychologists have largely neglected the study of children’s relationship with animals even though animals are a primary focus in children’s lives in a variety of forms: as live, stuffed, or imaginary companions; as captive or wild specimens; as zoo attractions; as targets of cruelty; as characters in books and on television; and as roles the children themselves assume (Melson, 2001, 2003; Myers, 2007; Myers & Saunders, 2002). Ask your students how many of them aspired at one time to be veterinarians or animal rescuers. In his book, The significance of children and animals: Social development and our connections to other species, Gene Myers (2007) describes ways that an anthropocentric focus in child development hinders our understanding of children’s social, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive development. Gail Melson (2001) addressed this topic in her book, Why the Wild Things Are. Melson concurs with others who advocate a ” biocentric” approach to the study of children’s development (e. g., Kahn, 1999; Kahn & Kellert, 2002). She argues that a biocentric approach informed by the concept of “biophilia” (Kahn, 1997; Kellert, 1997; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984) will enlighten our understanding of children’s love relationships, their comprehension of living systems (see next topic), their play, their fears, and their sense of self. Importantly, interaction with animals, especially pets, is a primary way that children learn about caring and about biological processes, so it follows that children’s concern for animals may serve as the foundation for broader ecological concern (Myers, 2007, 2013; Myers & Saunders, 2002).
“Folkbiology” is a term used to describe how laypersons intuitively perceive, categorize, and think about living things. Inagaki and Hatano (2004) reviewed research on their theory that children classify and explain biological phenomena as unique in terms of “‘vitalistic causality, ” a form of construal in which the primary causal concept is ” life force. ” Researchers have studied when and how children make distinctions between living and nonliving things– and between plants, animals, and humans. They have also addressed the questions of whether the acquisition of folkbiological knowledge is a continuous developmental process or a discontinuous one in which a child’s view of the world is replaced by a more sophisticated adult understanding (Coley, Soloman, & Shafto, 2002), and whether the acquisition of folkbiological knowledge occurs in the same way across cultures (e. g., Waxman, 2005). Research on children’s folkbiology will not only broaden our understanding of cognitive development in general, but may also help us to better understand why and how adults’ nonsustainable behaviors may be influenced by anthropocentric thinking and ignorance about ecology (Medin & Atran, 1999). Children’s naïve understanding of living things and natural systems are shaped by both the cultures in which they live and their experiences in nature (Medin & Atran, 2004). Lacking sufficient experience, children do not develop an accurate or nuanced understanding of the natural world. This is poignantly illustrated in the film Play Again (2010; see below) during a scene in which children easily identify corporate logos but struggle to name common plants such as dandelion. How children think about the natural world may influence their moral reasoning about it (see next topic).
Related to the the topic of children’s cognitive understanding of the natural world is the issue of how they value nature. Peter Kahn (1997, 2002; Kahn & Friedman, 1995) conducted extensive cross-cultural interview research with children, young adults, and their parents, asking them about their environmental values and moral reasoning about environmental degradation. He observed two primary forms of environmental moral reasoning in children: ” anthropocentric” reasoning, in which concern stems from how effects on the environment affect humans (e. g., pesticide contamination is bad because it harms human health), and ” biocentric” reasoning, in which the natural world is valued intrinsically (e. g., wildlife protection is good because all living things have the right to exist). Kahn and others (e.g., Hussar & Horvath, 2011) have found that in general, children tend to be more morally concerned about people than other species, with older children more likely to exhibit biocentric reasoning than younger children. This may be related to older children’s more advanced understanding of natural systems. For example, one study found that the older children were, the more likely they were to recognize that animals need healthy habitat, not just food and water (Myers, Saunders, & Garrett, 2004). When children exhibit biocentric moral reasoning, they tend to emphasize animal welfare with less regard for plant life, possibly because their awareness of plants as “alive” develops later than their awareness of animals (Melson, 2013).
Peter Kahn (2002) argues that apparent lack of environmental concern is not merely a function of complacency about environmental degradation, nor is it explainable simply in terms of the environment being a secondary priority relative to the immediacy of basic material needs; instead, each generation judges environmental conditions relative to their own experience. For example, when Kahn and colleagues interviewed children growing up in the heavily polluted city of Houston, they seemed unaware of the degraded conditions around them, because for these children it was normal. Kahn suggests that as environmental degradation increases, each generational cohort’s standard for comparison also becomes more denuded, resulting in a decreasing sensitivity to the magnitude and scope of the environmental crisis. He calls this phenomenon “environmental generational amnesia.”
Environmental psychologists have studied place preferences in both adults and children. Like adults, children show preferences for natural settings and report that nature offers restoration and relief from stress (e.g., Korpela, 2002; Simmons, 1994; Wells & Evans, 2003). Research on children has also explored preferences for play settings. Several studies have demonstrated children’s preference for natural settings, especially those that provide a sense of refuge (e.g., Kirkby, 1989; Moore, 1986a, 1986b). Refuges in the form of forts and dens in natural settings are beloved play spaces for many children, perhaps because they represent areas under the children’s control (Sobel, 2002). Natural play spaces offer developmental benefits. For example, researchers have found that children are more active in settings containing foliage, uneven ground, and natural materials such as rocks and mulch, and that such settings spark an increase in creativity and imaginative play (Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013). Ask students what were their favorite places to play.
Thy physical environment in which children develop has a significant influence on how they develop (Evans, 2006; Ferguson, Cassels, MacAllister, & Evans, 2013; Myers, 2012). Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic change in where and how children spend their leisure time. Children are becoming increasingly sedentary, spending much of their time indoors, preoccupied with electronic screens. Natural outdoor play spaces are disappearing. Parental fears about stranger abduction have increased to the point that kids’ solitary exploration outside the home is often a forbidden activity. As a result, children’s relationship with nature is becoming more mediated and more virtual, to the extent that some children have little to no actual experience with the animals and settings that they experience through videogames or nature shows.
How does this unprecedented separation from the natural world impact children’s development? This question has been addressed by several scholars (e.g., Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2005; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994) and the general consensus is alarm. A groundbreaking contribution on the topic was child advocate Richard Louv’s (2005) Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. “Nature-deficit disorder” is not a medically-recognized label and Louv is not a psychologist or psychiatrist; still, this book offers a highly accessible discussion of the negative effects associated with children’s increasing disconnect from nature. In his section entitled, “Why the young (and the rest of us) need nature,” Louv describes some psychological and medical research on the health benefits of contact with nature, and then suggests that lack of contact with nature may be a factor in high rates of childhood obesity, overprescription of antidepressants to children, and the prevalence of Attention Deficit Disorder. He laments children’s sensory disconnect from nature, which he attributes to a culture characterized by climate-controlled interior spaces, electronic distractions, and the substitution of virtual knowledge for first-hand experience. He discusses psychologist Howard Gardner’s idea of a “naturalist intelligence” and describes research on how creativity in children’s play is facilitated by natural settings. Since that time, Louv (2011) included adult impacts, asking “What could our lives and our children’s lives be like if our days and nights were as immersed in nature as they are in technology?”
Be sure to ask students what they think about the idea of “nature-deficit disorder.” Introduce the evolutionary psychology concept of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA; Gangestad & Simpson, 2007), which refers not a specific time or place, but rather, a set of conditions to which humans are best adapted. Though the EEA is largely unknown, we do know that the backdrop was wild nature. Therefore, in theory, the natural world is the optimal venue for human development.
Louv provides suggestions and inspiration for parents and educators who would like to mend the disconnect and get children (and their parents) outside. See Children and Nature and the other films/websites below for some examples.
Development is affected by environmental context, and our contemporary context is a contaminated one. The vast majority of human-made chemicals have not been tested for safety. For example, of the more than 84,000 synthetic chemicals registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed in 1976, only about 200 have been tested. Of these, only nine have been subject to regulation for posing an “unreasonable risk” to human health. These include asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and lead. In spite of regulations, these toxicants are still present in our environment, including in drinking water and food.
Toxicants affect development by acting as mutagens (damaging chromosomes, threatening cell vitality), teratogens (interfering with prenatal development), neurotoxins (destroying or damaging neurons, interfering with neural communication), and endocrine disruptors (mimicking or exaggerating hormones, interfering with normal hormone functioning). Infants and children are more vulnerable to toxicants than adults are because their nervous systems and organs are still developing (Giordano & Costa, 2012).
Exposures to environmental toxicants are associated with a variety of developmental problems including significant impairments in learning, cognition, attention, emotion, behavior, and psychological well-being (Grandjean & Landrigan, 2006, 2014). Several toxicants, including lead, mercury, and pesticides are implicated as contributing causes of autism-spectrum disorders (Gorini, Muratori, & Morales, 2014; Leslie & Koger, 2011; Rossignol, Genius, & Frye, 2014). Pesticides are among the chemicals exempt from the TSCA. Although lead is regulated, one place it shows up is in cosmetics, which are also exempt from the TSCA.
See the Biopsychology page of this site for a list of films about environmental toxicants.
A major contributor to the environmental crisis is material consumption in industrial cultures. Materialistic values are moderately predictive of environmental attitudes and behavior (Hurst, Dittmar, Bond, & Kasser, 2013). Studies of twins suggest that individual variability in materialism is due almost entirely to life experiences rather than genetic inheritance (Giddens, Schermer, & Vernon, 2009). In the U.S., materialistic values among teenagers peaked in the 1980s and have remained high since, possibly due to increases in the factors believed to cause some individuals to be more materialistic than others; i.e., unmet emotional needs and materialistic modeling (Twenge & Kasser, 2013). A major source of materialistic modeling is television and other media. A large share of today’s commercial advertising is aimed directly at children–and the form this advertising takes is informed by sophisticated knowledge about children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (Calvert, 2008; Levin & Linn, 2003). Ask students how they think being socially defined as “consumers” affects children’s development. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood aims to reclaim childhood from corporate marketers.
Nature and the Ritual Transition through Adolescence
Rituals associated with the transition from childhood to adulthood are common in ancestral and contemporary indigenous cultures. In his 1982 book Nature and Madness, Professor of Natural Philosophy and Human Ecology, Paul Shepard, presented his thesis that in contemporary urban industrial cultures, humans do not become as mature as they potentially can be. He suggests that human ontogeny (development of the individual) evolved in a context in which life was characterized by connection to nature and everyday experience was inextricable from the larger rhythms and patterns of the natural world. Shepard claims that the contemporary society begins breaking down this grounded sense of self in childhood and fails to nurture a nature-connected trajectory of growth and development in its members. In Shepard’s words,
The individual growth curve, as described by Bruno Bettelheim, Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and others, is a biological heritage of the deep past. It is everyman’s tree of life, now pruned by civic gardeners as the outer branches and twigs become incompatible with the landscaped order. The reader may extend that metaphor as he wishes, but I shall move to an animal image to suggest that the only society more frightful than one run by children, as in Golding’s Lord of the Flies, might be one run by childish adults.
Shepard attributes the ecological crisis to the immaturity of the adults who are causing it. He laments the absence of nature-connected ritualistic transitions through developmental stages that are typical in cultures living sustainably in harmony with their ecological context. Ask students what they think about this and whether they are familiar with any such transition rituals.
Within the context of technologically sophisticated, urban-industrial cultures, some individuals choose to express their proenvironmental attitudes in significantly life-changing ways, opting for alternative lifestyles and/or dedicating their lives to environmental activism. What factors lead lives in this direction? Environmental educators and others have suggested that at least one important influence is significant life experience related to the natural world. For example, Louise Chawla (1998, 1999) interviewed more than 50 environmentalists in Norway and Kentucky about their motivations; the two most frequently mentioned influences (each mentioned by 77% of the sample) were positive experiences in nature during childhood and adolescence, and family members who modeled respect for nature. Wendy Horowitz (1996) adopted a lifespan development perspective when she inteviewed a smaller sample of 29 environmental activists. These individuals reported that their nature-connectedness typically began in childhood, that their environmental concern developed as a result of experiences with nature and modeling by influential others in and outside of their families, and that the development of their environmental ethic was tied to identity and generativity issues. Finger (1994) surveyed more than 1700 Swiss individuals and found that although knowledge about environmental issues did not significantly predict environmental behaviors (other than activism), direct life experience with the natural environment did. Ewert, Place, and Sibthorp (2005) conducted a regression analysis on the environmental attitudes of a sample of more than 500 undergraduates and found that only certain forms of early life outdoor experience predicted ecocentric-anthropocentric beliefs. These studies and others suggest that environmentally oriented adults tend to have personal histories that include recreational time spent in wild places, but having childhood play experiences in natural settings does not necessarily lead to proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors in adulthood (Bixler, Floyd, & Hammitt, 2002).
Gene Myers uses community-based learning activities that pair individual college students with school children from the local community. Students conduct a series of sessions to explore how children conceptualize their ecological environment.
- Children’s sense of place can be explored by the techniques of having a child draw and explain his or her cognitive map of the neighborhood and by taking a neighborhood walk ( Bryant, 1985; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986a) with the child.
- Children’s understanding of ecology can be assessed by using the “Community” and “Eat” exercises described by Leach, Driver, Scott, and Wood-Robinson (1995). The “Community” probe involves having a child select a community of organisms from a set of illustrations and respond to the questions, “What does it need?” and “Where does it get what it needs?” The “Eat” probe involves showing children a drawing of an ecoregion, naming the organisms in the drawing, and describing the food web in that region. Children are then asked to predict the effects of changing population size at different levels in the food web. The purpose of the eat probe is to explore how children reason about the connections between populations.
- Children’s moral perspectives on nature can be assessed by using parts of Kahn’s (1999) moral concepts interview protocol.
- Children’s environmental attitudes can be assessed with measures by Musser and Malkus (1994), Musser and Diamond (1999), and Leeming, Dwyer, & Bracken (1995).
(Contributed by Gene Myers.)
As described above, researchers have found that significant childhood experience with nature is common in the autobiographies of adult environmental advocates; however, having had such experiences does not necessarily lead to adult environmental concern. The objective of this activity is to have students reflect on how their childhood experiences may or may not be related to their adult relationship with the natural environment. Ask students to look back at the role of nature in their childhoods by presenting them with the following prompts as either a written, reflective essay or in small group discussion during class:
- What were your favorite books as a child (consider different ages)?
- Where were your favorite places to play? What kind of play did you like best?
- Did you have any pets? How did you feel about in animals in general (e.g., on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = very negative and 5 = very positive)?
- Did you have wilderness experiences as a child? Did you have non-wilderness camping experiences or other experiences that brought you in close contact with nonhuman nature? How did you feel about those experiences then? How do you feel when you recall them now?
- How did you feel about artificial representations of nature present during your childhood (e.g., stuffed or plastic animals, video games set in natural settings)?
- How important do you think nonhuman nature is for child development?
- How influential do you think contact with nonhuman nature during childhood is on adult attitudes and behavior toward the environment?
- How universal, conditional, or idiosyncratic do you think human relationships with nature are? (See also Jurin & Hutchinson (2005) for a description of a related activity in an environmental history course).
- Optional: Help students digest and think of their personal experiences in cultural and historical context (e.g., by having students read some environmental history or consulting sources such as “Why we think nature is beautiful.”
Based on anecdotes from instructors who have done an activity like this, it is likely that fascination with nonhuman nature will figure prominently in students’ responses to the first two prompts (even if these are initially presented in class without any priming about “nature”). Students frequently mention books that involve survival (e.g., Island of the Blue Dolphins, Hatchet, My Side of the Mountain, The Hunger Games) simple living close to nature (e.g., The Boxcar Children, Little House on the Prairie), and anthropomorphised animal communities (e.g., the Warrior series, the Redwall series). They fondly recollect exploring the woods, building forts, collecting bugs, etc. Students tend to find this a worthwhile and enlightening exercise. (Adapted from contributions from Gene Myers, Joanne Vining, and Britain Scott).
This exercise is a variation of the autobiography described above, and involves interviewing a significant other in the lives of the students (parent, grandparent, etc.) to explore how that individual’s nature-based encounters shaped the person (contributed by Sylvie Shaw). In the interview, students can use some of the above prompts, and may also want to ask the subject about the environmental degradation he or she has witnessed since childhood, and relate these observations to the topic of environmental generational amnesia (see above).
Research suggests that experiences in nature during childhood can play a significant, perhaps irreplaceable, role in promoting cognitive, moral, emotional, social, and physical development, and encourage more environmentally responsible behavior (e.g., Kahn & Kellert, 2002). Have students generate ideas/hypotheses about:
- What is it about nature experiences in particular that has such positive impacts?
- Why are these particular elements missing for “indoor children”?
- Are there ways of getting those benefits without directly experiencing nature?
- If not, are inner-city children out of luck?
- Can students identify aspects of their own experiences that impacted them (both positively and negatively)?
Furby is one of the first ” emoto-tronic” animal-like toys, introduced in 1998, with updated versions released in 2005 and 2012. Furby looks like a cross between a furry mammal and a bird. He speaks “Furbish” and English. He responds to a limited number of voice commands (e. g., ” Hey Furby, show me a dance”). When he is asked to tell a story, he talks about his island of origin which has “many rocks, trees, and water” and is ” beautiful.” Furby spontaneously announces, ” I LOVE you! ” He purrs when his back is petted and giggles when his tummy is tickled. If an instructor has access to a Furby (especially the original model, which was closer to a real animal than the updated versions), it is an interesting exercise to bring it into the classroom, let the college age students interact with it for awhile, and then ask them to reflect upon the following questions:
- Why do children like Furby?
- What do you think of Furby? (Some students will probably think he is “creepy.”)
- At what age do you think children make the distinction between Furby and a living animal?
- Do you think that Furby connects children to nature, or disconnects them? What if Furby looked and acted like a real species instead of a mammal-bird hybrid who talks?
- What other examples of artificial nature can you recall from your own childhood or do you see in children’s lives today?
Alternatively, the instructor could have a child or group of children interact with Furby with the college students watching, and then discuss Furby’s impact (after the kids leave).
Research on robotic life forms suggest that young children tend to interact with robots and stuffed animals just as they would with a real animal (Kahn, Friedman, Pérez-Granados, & Frier, 2006). Older children treat robotic animals less like real animals (Melson, Kahn, Beck, Friedman, & Roberts, et al, 2009), but in one study even 59% of adults in on online discussion described the robotic dog AIBO in ways similar to living pets (e.g., “I consider him to be part of my family” and “I care about him as a pal.”) (Melson, Kahn, Beck, & Friedman, 2009). Instructors could also show this short (2:40) film about robot dogs in Japan.
Developmental psychologists study children’s literature for a variety of reasons, but researchers have paid little attention to the pervasiveness of nonhuman nature in children’s books (Melson, 2001). One exception is Krueger and Krueger (2005) who discuss what significance children’s books about animals, and the illustrations in the books, may have for the children, and for the adults who read the books aloud. Adopting a psychodynamic perspective, these authors suggest that animals in children’s books serve primarily as anthropomorphized projections of the children’s own instinctual drives, rather than as examples of children’s connection to nonhuman nature as it is. A subset of children’s literature about nonhuman nature focuses on conservation themes. Two classic examples are Dr. Seuss’s (1971) The Lorax and Bill Peet’s (1974) The Wump World. These books are similar in that both include familiar but unreal animals (i.e., Wumps resemble moose minus the antlers, and the Swomee Swans and Brown Barbaloots in The Lorax are imaginary varieties of birds and bears). Both books contain strong themes against industrial pollution and overuse of natural resources.
From a historical perspective, these books are noteworthy because they represent the first attempts to reach out to children with environmental messages post-Earth Day 1970. A fun class activity is to read one or both of these books aloud (in the instructor’s best animated library-story-hour style). After reading the book, break students into small groups of 3 or 4 and ask them to discuss any memories they have of the book from childhood, their reactions to hearing the story as adults, and their ideas about whether and how the book might affect the environmental attitudes and behaviors of children at different stages of cognitive development. After students have discussed their own ideas about the use of The Lorax in environmental education for children, the instructor can bring in the perspectives of environmental educators (Pleasants, 2005) and school teachers (Henderson, Kennedy, & Chamberlain, 2004) who have questioned the effectiveness of this book as an environmental education tool. If students have seen the 2012 Lorax film by Universal Pictures, ask them to consider how the themes and storyline of this version reflect, and differ from, Dr. Seuss’s original message. Ask students whether they know of any other children’s books or films with conservation themes.
Film: Toxic Baby
Toxic Baby (2016, 93 min.) uses a unique blend of music, animation, and science to reveal the shocking truth of one of the greatest environmental issues we face today: our children’s exposure to thousands of chemicals in their day to day lives and the mounting concern within the scientific community about the implications of this exposure on their health and development; There’s a related, shorter, Ted Talk on The Toxic Baby (2010; 17:48) by Filmmaker Penelope Jagesser Chaffer & scientist Tyrone Hayes.
- “Join the movement to connect children to nature” with the Children & Nature Network.
- Information on the importance of rewilding childhood is available at The Wild Network.
Due largely to technology, children in industrialized cultures are spending more time indoors, preoccupied with electronic devices. The following documentaries address the implications of this phenomenon for children’s development. All are part of larger campaigns to get children back outside, as described on their websites.
PROJECT WILD THING (2013, 87 min.). This documentary from director David Bond and producer Ashley Jones takes a look at an increasing global problem – the growing lack of connection between children and nature. Through a marketing campaign for nature throughout the UK, Bond has started a movement promoting awareness for the link between children’s well-being and time spent outdoors. The website for the movement also includes a community idea forum and an app to get some ideas about how to get children outside.
NATURE KIDS (2013, 60 min.) In today’s world the average American will spend 90% of their time indoors and the average American child will spend 6 to 10 hours a day in front of a screen! What are the consequences of an indoor childhood and what can be done about it? Find out in this timely, entertaining and inspirational documentary. Featuring best-selling author, Richard Louv (Last Child in the Woods) and TV’s Dr. Scott Sampson (Dinosaur Train). Nature Kids will challenge you to look deep within the natural world and deep within yourself to rediscover the true meaning of childhood.
PLAY AGAIN (2010, 88 min or 52 min..) This award-winning documentary focuses on six teens that have been “unplugged” from all electronics and are submersed in the natural world for the first time. With commentary from numerous experts in subject areas ranging from education to genetics, the film showcases the problems with our newest generation being so disconnected from nature.
MOTHER NATURE’S CHILD (2010, 57 min.) This film explores nature’s powerful role in children’s health and development through the experience of toddlers, children in middle childhood and adolescents. The film marks a moment in time when a living generation can still recall childhoods of free play outdoors; this will not be true for most children growing up today. The effects of “nature deficit disorder” are being noted across the country in epidemics of child obesity, attention disorders, and depression.
Film & Website: CONSUMING KIDS: THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF CHILDHOOD (2008, 67 min.) “With virtually no government oversight or public outcry, the multibillion-dollar youth marketing industry has used the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to transform American children into one of the most powerful and profitable consumer demographics in the world. American kids, targeted from birth with sales pitches for everything from Hollywood merchandise and junk food to iPods, cell phones, and the family car, now influence an estimated $700 billion in annual consumer spending. Consuming Kids traces the evolution and impact of this unprecedented phenomenon. Drawing on the insights of children’s health experts, media critics, and industry insiders, it blows the lid off the youth marketing industry’s stealth tactics and explores the effects of consumerism on the imaginative lives of children.” The related website, CAMPAIGN FOR A COMMERCIAL-FREE CHILDHOOD (CCFC) aims to “reduce children’s screen time and insure children time and space for active and creative play, face time with caring adults, and a connection with nature.”
Film: KIDS + MONEY (2007, 33 min.) “An original short film by award-winning filmmaker and photographer Lauren Greenfield, Kids + Money is a conversation with young people from diverse Los Angeles communities about the role of money in their lives. From rich to poor, Pacific Palisades to East L.A., kids address how they are shaped by a culture of consumerism.”
Film: T-I-O-N Electric Company (pollution, execution, participation) (2012; 0:57). This short film relates to conversations about environmental education.
Louv, R. (2005). ” Why the young (and the rest of us) need nature.” Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder (pp. 39-114). Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Myers, O. E., Jr. (2012). Children in nature. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp.113-127). New York, NY: Oxford
Scott, B. A., Amel, E. L. Koger, S. M., & Manning, C. M. (2016). Healing the split between planet and self: Why we all need to walk on the wild side. In Psychology for sustainability (4th ed, pp. 263-293). New York: Routledge.
Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34, 795-818.
Bryant, B. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, no. 210.
Calvert , S. L. (2008). Children as consumers: Advertising and marketing. The Future of Children, 18, 205-34. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0001
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 11-21.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 15-26.
Coley, J. D., Solomon, G. E. A., & Shafto, P. (2002). The development of folkbiology: A cognitive science perspective on children’s understanding of the biological world. In P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 65-92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Evans, G. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190057
Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’ s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225– 239.
Ferguson , K. T. Cassells , R. C. MacAllister , J. W. Evans , G. W. (2013). The physical environment and child development: An international review. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 437–468. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2013.804190
Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 141-160.
Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Giddens, J. L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). Material values are largely in the
family: A twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism.Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 428-431. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.008
Giordano, G., & Costa, L. G. (2012). Developmental neurotoxicity: Some old and new issues. International Scholarly Research Network Toxicology, 2012, np. doi: 10.5402/2012/814795
Gorini, F., Muratori, F., & Morales, M. A. (2014). The role of heavy metal pollution in neurobehavioral disorders: A focus on Autism. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (online edition). doi: 10.1007/s40489-014-0028-3
Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet, 368, 2167–2178. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69665-7
Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330-338. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3
Hart, R. (1979). Children’s experience of place. New York: Irvington.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1999). A developmental perspective on informal biology. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 321-354). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Henderson, B., Kennedy, M. & Chamberlain, C. (2004). Playing seriously with Dr. Suess: A pedagogical response to The Lorax. In S. Dobrin & K. Kidd (Eds.) Wild things: Children’s culture and ecocriticism (pp. 128-148). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Horowitz, W. (1996). Developmental origins of environmental ethics: The life experiences of activists. Ethics and Behavior, ., 29-54.
Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., & Kasser, T. (2013). The relationship between materialistic
values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257-269. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.003
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, ., 356-362.
Jurin, R. R., & Hutchinson, S. (2005). Worldviews in transition: Using ecological autobiographies to explore students’ worldviews. Environmental Education Research, 11, 485-50.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, 1-61.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2002). Children’s affiliation with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. In P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 93-116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahn, P. H., & Friedman, B. (1995). Environmental views and values of children in an inner-city Black community. Child Development, 66, 1403-1417.
Kahn, P. H., Jr., Friedman, B., Pérez-Granados, D. R., & Freier, N. G. (2006). Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies, 7, 405–436. doi:10.1.1.130.3260
Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Kellert, S. R. (Eds.) (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2002) Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117-152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.) (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washingon, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.
Kirkby, M. (1989). Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly, ., 7-12.
Korpela, K. (2002). Children’s environments. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 363-373). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Krueger, D. W., & Krueger, L. N. (2005). Animals in children’s stories. In S. Akhtar & V. Volkan (Eds.), Cultural zoo: Animals in the human mind and its sublimations (pp. 127-143). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, C., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology (1): Theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 721-732.
Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., & Bracken, B. A. (1995). Children’s environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 22-31.
Leslie, K. E., & Koger, S. M. (2011). A significant factor in autism: Methyl mercury induced
oxidative stress in genetically susceptible individuals. Journal of Physical and Developmental Disabilities, 23, 313-324. doi: 10.1007/s10882-011-9230-8
Levin, D. E., & Linn, S. (2003). The commercialization of childhood: Understanding the problem and finding solutions. In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 213-232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (Eds.) (1999). Folkbiology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960-983.
Melson, G. F. (2001). Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Melson, G. F. (2003). Child development and the human-companion animal bond. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 31-39.
Melson, G. F. (2013). Children’s ideas about the moral standing and social welfare of non-human species. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 40(4), 81-106.
Melson, G. F., Kahn, J. H., Beck, A., & Friedman, B. (2009). Robotic pets in human lives: Implications for the human–animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 545-567. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x
Melson, G. F., Kahn, P. H., Jr., Beck, A. M., Friedman, B., Roberts, T., Garrett, E., & Gill, B. T. (2009). Children’s behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 92–102. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.011
Moore, R. C. (1986a). Childhood’s domain. London: Croom-Helm.
Moore, R. C. (1986b). The power of nature orientations of girls and boys toward biotic and abiotic play settings on a reconstructed schoolyard. Children’s Environments Quarterly, ., 52-69.
Musser, L. M., & Diamond, K. E. (1999). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale for preschool children. Journal of Environmental Education, 30, 23-30.
Musser, L. M., & Malkus, A. J. (1994). The Children’ s Attitudes Toward the Environment scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 22-26.
Myers, Jr. O. E. (2007). The significance of children and animals: Social development and our connections to other species. Second, revised edition. West Layfayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Myers, Jr. O. E. (2013). Children, animals, and social neuroscience: Empathy, conservation education, and activism. In M. Bekoff (Ed.) Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation (pp. 271-285). University of Chicago Press.
Myers, O. E., & Saunders, C. D. (2002). Animals as links toward developing caring relationships with the natural world. In P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 153-178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myers, O. E., Jr., Saunders, C. D., & Garrett, E. (2004). What do children think animals need?
Developmental trends. Environmental Education Research, 10, 545-562. doi:
Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Boston: Beacon Press.
Peet, B. (1974). The wump world. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Pleasants, K. (2005). Does environmental education need a Thneed? Displacing The Lorax as environmental text. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 11, 179-194.
Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Rossignol, D. A., Genuis, S. J., & Frye, R. E. (2014). Environmental toxicants and autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Translational Psychiatry, 4(2), e360. doi:10.1038/tp.2014.4
Scott, B. A., Amel, E. L. Koger, S. M., & Manning, C. M. (2016). Healing the split between planet and self: Why we all need to walk on the wild side. In Psychology for sustainability (4th ed, pp. 263-293). New York: Routledge.
Simmons, D. A. (1994). Urban children’s preferences for nature: Lessons for environmental education. Children’s Environments, 11, 194-203.
Sobel, D. (2002). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Seuss, Dr. (1971). The lorax. New York: Random House Books for Young Readers.
Twenge, J. M., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976-2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 883-897. doi:10.1177/0146167213484586
Waxman, S. (2005). Why is the concept ” living thing” so elusive? Concepts, languages, and the development of folkbiology. In W. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. Woolf (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 49-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35(3) , 311-330.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.