Methods, Theory and References

A psychosocial understanding of emotional development recognizes that emotions and subsequently behavior are individualized and internalized and form the basis of one’s identity (Erikson, 1980). Although the project is designed to examine the sociocultural attributes that influence children’s emotional development in nature within two very different Alaskan communities, it would not be accurate to assume that children within the same social, cultural or geographical contexts will emotionally respond to nature in the same way. The internal attributes of a child as well as outer influences all contribute to the way in which a child emotionally responds. What can be expected, and what this study intends to do, is examine how an individual’s emotional response to environmental stimuli will change through sociocultural experiences and over time.

Environmental identity is an aspect of one’s sense of self, which considers how one identifies with the natural world, “based on history” and “emotional attachment;” it influences the ways in which one “perceive[s] and act[s] towards the world” (Clayton, 2003, pp. 45-46). Environmental identity is particularly important in that it considers how one’s sense of self will direct one’s actions and behaviors towards the natural environment (Clayton & Optow, 2003). While environmental advocacy is the resulting behavior of one who has a strong environmental identity, theory is lacking about how children’s environmental identities emerge.

This project is informed by and informs a theory of Environmental Identity Development (EID) (Green, Kalvaitis, & Worster, 2016; Green, 2018). It stemmed from an interest in linking understanding of child development to environmental education. The theory extends the first four stages of Erikson’s (1980) framework. Children progress through a series of psychosocial dilemmas (stages) in the development of their environmental identity. Progression through each stage is determined by a child’s success in overcoming outer (environmental) and inner (emotional) conflicts attributed to healthy development. In the first stage, Trust in Nature vs. Mistrust in Nature, feelings of trust and security are considered foundational to a child’s environmental identity development. Mistrust in nature would emerge from fearful and anxious encounters with nature that are not adequately negotiated. In the second progression, Spatial Autonomy vs. Environmental Shame, a strong sense of trust in nature propels a child to venture out, independently or with others, to explore and claim their own places. The development of a sense of place allows a child to gain a sense of autonomy with their environment (Green, 2011; 2015). Contrary to spatial autonomy are feelings of environmental shame, which causes a child to withdraw and feel uncomfortable during nature experiences. In the third progression, Environmental Competency vs.Environmental Disdain, children gain confidence in their interactions with nature by acquiring skills and ecological understandings of place (Green, 2013). Feelings of guilt, or a lack of confidence and ecological understanding lead children to demonstrate environmental disdain, or a disregard for nature. In the fourth progression, Environmental Action vs. Environmental Harm, through successful progression in the previous stages, children develop moral values and the know-how to engage in Environmental Action. Failure to progress through one or more stages would result in intentional or unintentional environmental harm. The progression of Environmental Identity Development is fluid meaning that the various progressions are frequently revisited, refined, and/or reestablished with new encounters and experiences in, with, and for nature throughout one’s life. Sociocultural, geographical and educational contexts influence the way in which a child’s environmental identity is formed. The proposed project will strengthen understanding of the emotional and behavioral attributes of children’s environmental identity development and how sociocultural, geographical and educational contexts influence children’s nature relationship.