Children’s Environmental and Moral Conceptions of Protecting an Endangered Animal Jolina H. Ruckert A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Peter H. Kahn, Jr., Chair Betty M. Repacholi Thaisa Way Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Psychology © Copyright 2014 Jolina H. Ruckert University of Washington Abstract Children’s Environmental and Moral Conceptions of Protecting an Endangered Animal Jolina H. Ruckert Chair of Supervisory Committee: Professor Peter H. Kahn, Jr. Department of Psychology Emerging research suggests that children extend moral regard to the natural world (e.g., forests and waterways). When they do, their moral reasoning is predominately focused on human concerns, wherein the natural world has value insofar as it has value to humans. Biocentrism is the moral view that the natural world has value independent of its value to humans. Previous research has found only about 4% of children employed biocentric reasoning and that there was little evidence that it appeared in children younger than 10-12 years old. The research thus far has largely focused on scenarios where humans cause harm to non-sentient natural entities and ecosystems. The current study is the first to focus on children’s moral reasoning in the context of humans harming an animal species. Fifty-two children equally divided across two age groups (7- and 10-years-old, gender balanced) were interviewed regarding their understanding of, and beliefs/values about protecting an endangered animal (the gray wolf); their moral obligatory judgments towards humans harming the animal; and their conceptions of animal rights. Results showed that children as young as seven-years-old extended moral obligations to not harming the wolf. Children as young as seven-years-old endorsed biocentric reasoning, particularly in the form of intrinsic value concerns. Furthermore, there was a developmental shift in biocentric reasoning. Ten-year-olds were more likely to express justice- oriented biocentric reasoning (and did so to a greater degree) than the seven-year-old participants. Still, a substantial number of seven-year-olds endorsed biocentric justice-oriented reasoning. Implications for understanding the construction of moral concerns for the environment are discussed, and applications of these findings and future directions for research are offered. Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Animals in Childhood ............................................................................................................................. 3 A Canonical Endangered Animal – The Washington State Gray Wolf ............................................. 7 Moral Obligations to the Natural World ............................................................................................ 10 Prevalence of Children’s Biocentric Reasoning ................................................................................. 12 Emergence of Justice-Oriented Biocentrism ...................................................................................... 15 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Participants ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Procedure ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Measures ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Coding and Reliability .......................................................................................................................... 24 Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 Overview of Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 27 Environmental Understanding ............................................................................................................ 27 Environmental Moral Judgments and Reasoning ............................................................................. 31 Knowledge and Biocentrism ................................................................................................................ 45 Methodological Checks ......................................................................................................................... 46 Qualitative Presentation of Biocentric Justification Data ................................................................. 47 Parent’s Report of Child’s Environmental Knowledge and Experience ......................................... 55 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 59 Moral Obligations to an Endangered Animal .................................................................................... 60 Prevalence of Children’s Biocentric Reasoning ................................................................................. 62 Emergence of Justice-Oriented Biocentrism ...................................................................................... 68 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 77 Future Directions .................................................................................................................................. 88 Broader Implications ............................................................................................................................ 94 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 96 References .................................................................................................................................................. 99 i Appendix A: Participant Demographic and Background Questionnaire .......................................... 118 Appendix B: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................................ 124 Appendix C: Interview Coding Sheet.................................................................................................... 127 Appendix D: Coding Manual ................................................................................................................. 130 ii List of Figures 1. Developmental Differences in Endorsement of Protection Strategies………………...... 31 2. Developmental Differences in the Use of Biocentric Reasoning Categories…………... 39 3. Differences in the Use of Biocentric Reasoning Categories as a Function of Age…….. 40 4. Developmental Differences in Mean Scores for Biocentric Reasoning Categories……. 42 5. Differences in Mean Scores for Biocentric Reasoning Categories Within 7- and 10-years old…………………………………………………………………………………...….. 44 iii List of Tables 1. Summary of Participant Demographic Information………………………………………... 18 2. Justification Categories……………………………………………………………………... 25 3. Percentages of Pro-Environmental Justification by Categories…………………………….. 33 4. Percentages of Biocentric Reasoning Category Usage by 7- and 10- year-olds……………. 37 5. Parent’s Report of Child’s Engagement in a List of Nature Activities……………………... 58 iv Acknowledgements I am humbled by the collective generosity and insights of the young people who participated in this study, without which this project would never have come to be. I will always be indebted to them. Dr. Peter Kahn, who recognized the need for level and sensibilities in conservation work, inspired this project. I came to the University of Washington to work with Peter. He is a leader in research on the human relationship with nature and the development of environmental moral concerns. It is a privilege to learn from and work with Peter. My time in his lab has allowed me to develop the challenging skill set for conducting structural-developmental research on moral conceptions. Over the years we have worked together on many successful projects on human- robot interactions and human-nature interactions. Peter has taught me how to think deeply and carefully about theory and research. I am deeply grateful to have Peter’s support. I am honored to have three faculty members on my committee whose work and insights I value: Dr. Betty Repacholi, my secondary advisor, who from the onset of my graduate studies, has been supportive while offering constructive criticism on my research questions and methodology; Dr. Thaisa Way, a mentor for nearly five years, who pushes me to think