Seeing Nature Through a Spiritual Lens: An Experimental Test of the Effects of a Novel Photo-taking Task on Environmental Concern and Well-being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that people who report a greater spiritual connection with nature (“ecospirituality”) express a more highly moralized concern for its preservation. Other results also suggest a possible link between ecospirituality and subjective well-being. In order to test the causal nature of these relations, we created a novel intervention designed to temporarily boost ecospirituality and, in a high-powered preregistered study (N = 779), tested the effects of this intervention (compared to two control conditions) on measures assessing concern for the environment and well-being. Results on the effects of the ecospirituality intervention were inconclusive: Participants in all three conditions showed similar pre-intervention/post-intervention changes on the dependent measures, and also showed similar pre/post changes in self-reported ecospirituality (which served as a manipulation check). Exploratory correlational results showed that, across conditions, pre/post increases in self-reported ecospirituality predicted increases in both environmental concern and well-being. The correlational results replicate and extend prior findings—suggesting that ecospirituality may offer benefits to nature and to oneself—but additional research is required to establish causal evidence for this contention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it