{"Affiliation":[{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Arts, Faculty of","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."},{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Psychology, Department of","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"label":"Aggregated Source Repository","value":"DSpace","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:dataProvider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who contributes data indirectly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Campus":[{"label":"Campus","value":"UBCV","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeCampus"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the name of the campus from which the graduate completed their degree."}],"Creator":[{"label":"Creator","value":"Billet, Matthew Ira","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:creator"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"DateAvailable":[{"label":"Date Available","value":"2021-08-31T18:09:37Z","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"DateIssued":[{"label":"Date Issued","value":"2021","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"oc:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"Degree":[{"label":"Degree (Theses)","value":"Master of Arts - MA","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","classmap":"vivo:ThesisDegree","property":"vivo:relatedDegree"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The thesis degree; Extended Property specified by UBC, as per https:\/\/wiki.duraspace.org\/display\/VIVO\/Ontology+Editor%27s+Guide"}],"DegreeGrantor":[{"label":"Degree Grantor","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeGrantor"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the institution where thesis was granted."}],"Description":[{"label":"Description","value":"We are in the midst of a global ecological crisis. There is a strong argument that the current cultural view of nature as an instrumental resource is failing us, and we must learn from other cultural and religious conceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecospirituality is the notion that nature\u2013or humanity\u2019s relationship with nature\u2013has spiritual significance. In 6 samples recruited from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (Total N = 7213), we investigated three basic questions concerning ecospirituality: (1) what is ecospirituality, (2) who is ecospiritual, and (3) does it matter for the protection of nature? We designed and validated a 12-item measure of ecospirituality and employed self-report measures and moral trade-off scenarios to address these questions. Ecospirituality was negatively correlated with viewing nature as an instrumental and utilizable resource. Items on the Ecospirituality Scale were widely endorsed, and the scale was largely uncorrelated with political orientation and other demographic variables. Ecospirituality predicted how people made decisions in environmentally relevant domains, tending to treat nature as a sacred value. This tendency was expressed in multiple ways: placing a greater importance on deontological principles to inform environmental decisions, explicitly refusing to engage in trade-offs between nature and economic gain, and unconditionally voting for the Green Party. Ecospirituality is a novel topic in psychology and may be important in explaining why some people are willing to make the sacrifices required to live a more sustainable lifestyle.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:description"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An account of the resource.; Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the resource."}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"label":"Digital Resource Original Record","value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/79542?expand=metadata","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:aggregatedCHO"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The identifier of the source object, e.g. the Mona Lisa itself. This could be a full linked open date URI or an internal identifier"}],"FullText":[{"label":"Full Text","value":"  ECOSPIRITUALITY: CONTENT, CORRELATES AND MORAL CONCERN FOR NATURE by Matthew Ira Billet B.Sc., Queen\u2019s University, 2019  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  August 2021  \u00a9 Matthew Ira Billet, 2021      ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Ecospirituality: Content, Correlates and Moral Concern for Nature  submitted by Matthew Ira Billet in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts  in Psychology   Examining Committee: Ara Norenzayan, Psychology, UBC  Supervisor Mark Schaller, Psychology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Jiaying Zhao, Psychology & Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC Supervisory Committee Member    iii Abstract We are in the midst of a global ecological crisis. There is a strong argument that the current cultural view of nature as an instrumental resource is failing us, and we must learn from other cultural and religious conceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecospirituality is the notion that nature\u2013or humanity\u2019s relationship with nature\u2013has spiritual significance. In 6 samples recruited from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (Total N = 7213), we investigated three basic questions concerning ecospirituality: (1) what is ecospirituality, (2) who is ecospiritual, and (3) does it matter for the protection of nature? We designed and validated a 12-item measure of ecospirituality and employed self-report measures and moral trade-off scenarios to address these questions. Ecospirituality was negatively correlated with viewing nature as an instrumental and utilizable resource. Items on the Ecospirituality Scale were widely endorsed, and the scale was largely uncorrelated with political orientation and other demographic variables. Ecospirituality predicted how people made decisions in environmentally relevant domains, tending to treat nature as a sacred value. This tendency was expressed in multiple ways: placing a greater importance on deontological principles to inform environmental decisions, explicitly refusing to engage in trade-offs between nature and economic gain, and unconditionally voting for the Green Party. Ecospirituality is a novel topic in psychology and may be important in explaining why some people are willing to make the sacrifices required to live a more sustainable lifestyle.       iv Lay Summary Ecospirituality is the notion that nature\u2013or humanity\u2019s relationship with nature\u2013has spiritual significance. Although spiritual and religious beliefs motivate great acts of environmental preservation across the world, ecospirituality remains an unexplored topic in psychology. We developed and validated a 12-item measure of ecospirituality and used this measure to explore three questions: what is ecospirituality, who is ecospiritual, and does ecospirituality matter to environmental preservation. Results from six samples drawn from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada suggest that ecospiritual beliefs are widely endorsed, largely uncorrelated with political orientation, and uniquely predict moral concern for nature. Efforts to motivate people to preserve nature may benefit from considering the role that people\u2019s spiritual beliefs play in how they view and relate to their natural environment.      v Preface This is the original, unpublished work of the author, Matthew I. Billet. I was responsible for identifying and designing the research program, in consultation with Ara Norenzayan. I conducted all research, including creating and administering online questionnaires and analyzing the data. I was primarily responsible for writing the manuscript, with manuscript edits contributed by Ara Norenzayan, Cindel J.M. White, Brent A. Stewart, and Tessa E.S. Charlesworth. This research was approved by UBC\u2019s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (certificate #H16-02712).      vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................................................iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................... x Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Spiritual Orientation Towards Nature ....................................................................................................................... 1 Moral Concern for Nature ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 The Sacred Frame ..................................................................................................................................................................6 The Instrumental Frame ....................................................................................................................................................8 The Current Research............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Overview of Studies ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Study 1: Developing and Validating the Ecospirituality Scale ................................................................ 12 Method ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Participants and Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Ecospirituality Scale Item Reduction and Factor Structure ........................................................................... 18 Test-Retest Reliability and Psychometric Properties in Canadian University Students .................. 19 What is Ecospirituality: Convergence with Other Environmental Attitudes ......................................... 21 Who is Ecospiritual: Distribution, Demographics, and Religiosity ............................................................. 22 Does Ecospirituality Matter: Environmental Citizenship and Moral Concern for Nature ............... 23 Study 2: Ecospirituality & Economic\/Nature Trade-offs .......................................................................... 26    vii Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Participants and Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 27 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 What is Ecospirituality: Discrimination from Utilitarian Reasoning Style about Nature & Convergence with Environmental Strivings .......................................................................................................... 31 Who is Ecospiritual: Distribution, Religiosity, and Political Orientation................................................. 32 Does Ecospirituality Matter: Environmental Citizenship & Moral Trade-offs ...................................... 33 Temporally & Spatially Discounting Harm to Nature ....................................................................................... 34 Study 3: Ecospirituality in Nature Clubs and Green Party Voters ......................................................... 37 Method ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Participants and Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 What is Ecospirituality: Convergence with Environmental Preservation and Spiritual Environmentalism; Discrimination from Environmental Utilization ........................................................ 40 Who is Ecospiritual: Nature Club Membership & Religious Attendance ................................................. 43 Does Ecospirituality Matter: Unconditionally Voting for the Green Party & Policy Preference ... 44 Replication of Trade-off Scenarios in Canadian Sample .................................................................................. 46 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Implications for Promoting Environmentalism ............................................................................................................ 49 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Discounting Measure ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 Ecospirituality Scale .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Future Directions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 References ................................................................................................................................................................... 56        viii List of Tables Table 1. Demographic Composition of Each Sample. .................................................................................. 14 Table 2. All 38 Ecospirituality Items Assessed in Study 1 (Sample 1: USA Census-Matched). ................. 17 Table 3. Three-Factor EFA Loadings Study 1. ............................................................................................. 21 Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Study 1 Sample 1 (US census-matched; N=493). ...................................... 22 Table 5. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 1 Sample 1 (US census-matched; N=493). ......................... 25 Table 6. Bivariate Correlations Study 2 (US; N=937). ................................................................................. 32 Table 7. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 2 (US; N=937). .................................................................... 36 Table 8. Bivariate Correlations Study 3 (Canada & United Kingdom; N=1263). ........................................ 42 Table 9. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 3 (Canada & United Kingdom; N=1263). ........................... 46        ix List of Figures Figure 1. Sample Moral Trade-off Item (Personal Incentive to Endorse Industrial Project). ...................... 29 Figure 2. Predicting Markers of Treating Nature Sacred with Controls Study 2 (US; N=937). .................. 34 Figure 3. Interaction Between Ecospirituality & Political Orientation to Predict Environmental Attitudes (Canada & UK; N=1261)............................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4. Ecospirituality Scores for Members of Nature Clubs and Non-Nature Clubs (Canada; N=702). 44       x Acknowledgements I thank my supervisors, Ara Norenzayan and Mark Schaller, who provided the intellectual and financial support that allowed me to complete this project. I also thank Cindel J.M. White, who shared her many insights (and her code) throughout this project. While conducting this research, I was also supported by a UBC Faculty of Arts Graduate Award and SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship Master's Award. A special thanks to my biggest fan, Bubbie Flo, and of course, my mom and dad, whose support is beyond comprehension.         1 Introduction The current ecological crisis has been marked by massive natural resource extraction, widespread environmental contamination, and global biodiversity loss. There is a growing view that cultural beliefs about the human-nature relationship are failing us, and it has become increasingly clear that sustainability requires a shift in the cultural mindset. One powerful source of meaning comes from how various religious and spiritual traditions frame the human-nature relationship. A theme across cultures linked to great acts of environmental protection is that humanity and nature are spiritually connected. Although researchers often discuss the importance of the spiritual orientation towards the natural environment, very little research has been done to examine this orientation, which we call ecospirituality. Thus, we have two aims in the current research: (1) to promote the study of ecospirituality as a psychological construct with theoretical and practical significance, and (2) to investigate the relationship between ecospirituality and moral concern for the environment. The Spiritual Orientation Towards Nature Ecospirituality describes beliefs and behaviours that represent nature as having spiritual significance or represent the relationship between humans (or oneself) and the natural world as an essentially spiritual one. In other words, ecospirituality is viewing nature through the lens of spirituality. Spirituality is typically associated with two sentiments: a sense of connection to something greater than oneself (i.e., transcendence) and a sense of purpose and meaning in one\u2019s life. Although these sentiments are often embedded in religious structures, spirituality is a distinct construct from religiosity, which is more concerned with identity, belief, and ritual with    2 respect to a religious tradition (Fuller, 2001; Saucier & Skrzypi\u0144ska, 2006; Willard & Norenzayan, 2017). Likewise, ecospirituality is not identified with any particular cultural, moral, philosophical, or religious tradition, but rather describes beliefs and behaviours across a number of traditions (and non-traditions). To include the broad set of culturally diverse \u201cecospiritual\u201d phenomena, the definition of ecospirituality must be relatively vague and imprecise; catching many fish at once requires a large net. However, vague and imprecise definitions pose challenges to the development of good psychological measurement tools (Clark & Watson, 2019). Rather than generating items directly from the definition of ecospirituality, we have instead opted to \u201ccrowdsource\u201d the operationalization of ecospirituality to individuals, groups, and philosophies that are prototypically ecospiritual (e.g., Booth, 1999; Crockford, 2017; Emerson, 2015; Hubert, 1994; Taylor, 2009). To do this, we have grouped the beliefs that are commonly found in ecospirituality\u2013and might be sensibly used to create a measure of it\u2013into four themes, and we leave as an open empirical question how well these themes fit as a single measure. The themes that typify ecospirituality are: (1) anthropomorphism of nature, (2) powerful experiences in nature, (3) nature as a spiritual resource, and (4) connectedness to nature. We will introduce and briefly illustrate each theme in turn. Anthropomorphizing\u2013or extending human qualities (chiefly mental qualities) to\u2013nature is a recurrent feature of ecospirituality. Anthropomorphism of the natural environment characterizes perhaps the earliest kind of religion in animism (Guthrie, 1993). It continues to be a common theme of people\u2019s relationships with nature, whether in a religious or nonreligious context. In some instances, natural objects are taken to literally be imbued with mental    3 capabilities and agency, a recurrent theme in a diversity of indigenous communities (Pierotti, 2010), such as the Ng\u00f6be of Panama who characterize plants as social agents to a greater degree than the American university student might (Ojalehto et al., 2017). Literal anthropomorphism of nature is also observed outside of the traditional religious context, as in the New Age spiritualists who attribute intention and agency to the massive rock and crystal formations in Sedona, Arizona (Crockford, 2017). In other instances, these human features are implicitly or metaphorically used to convey supernatural qualities about the natural world, as in, \u201cthe stars are like the trees in the forest, alive and breathing. And they're watching me.\u201d (Murakami, 2006). To disentangle the literal and metaphorical mode of anthropomorphism in individuals\u2019 spiritual beliefs about nature is beyond the scope of the current research; for our purposes, they will be treated as one theme. A second common theme in ecospirituality is the emotional and aesthetic impressions that result from powerful experiences in nature. Direct experience is an important aspect of the spiritual orientation in general (e.g., Willard & Norenzayan, 2017); experiences of the sublime (as in Burke, 1958) and of awe facilitate feelings of spiritual unity and enlightenment (Hendricks, 2018; Keltner & Haidt, 2003). In ecospirituality, the appropriate location for these experiences is within nature. Take, for example, the vision quests that are practiced in a number of contemporary indigenous communities, in which fasting is used to facilitate the occurrence of emotionally intense and spiritually significant experiences (Arbesmann, 1951; Blumensohn, 1933; Brown, 2012). This theme is also expressed in the work of the American transcendentalists, who retreated to nature for spiritual renewal (Emerson, 2015; Thoreau, 1981), and by outdoor recreationalists who report experiencing a spiritual connection to nature through    4 activities like surfing and mountaineering (e.g., Heintzman, 2009; Taylor, 2007). In such cases, spiritual appraisals of nature are catalyzed by powerful emotional and aesthetic experiences in the outdoors, which, in themselves, may also be considered spiritual. The third common theme is viewing nature as a spiritual resource. A spiritual resource helps one connect with the sacred and satisfy one\u2019s spiritual needs (Ferguson & Tamburello, 2015). Spiritual resources may be attached to a group\u2019s religious or cultural identity (Durkheim, 1995) and\/or facilitate individuals\u2019 relationship to the divine (James, 1985). Nature has been cast in both roles across cultures. The identities of many indigenous peoples across the world are intimately connected to the land and with specific sacred sites\u2013like burial sites\u2013connecting them with their histories and their mythologies (Hubert, 1994). A more individualistic notion, expressed by the likes of John Muir (2010), holds nature as the provider of spiritual nourishment, \u201cno holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man\u201d (p.262). Recent research in the United States suggests that natural amenities do indeed compete with local religious institutions for participants, controlling for other forms of recreation and entertainment available in the region (Ferguson & Tamburello, 2015). The spiritual orientation is thus often accompanied by appraisals of nature\u2019s spiritual value, which is to say, natural sites connect one with the transcendent and give the life of the individual or the community meaning and context. The fourth common theme in ecospirituality is that humans share an intimate connection with the natural world. This is perhaps the most well-studied aspect of ecospirituality in the extant psychological literature, with multiple lines of work devising measures of the construct and demonstrating the relationship between connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour (Klain et al., 2017; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001; St. John    5 & MacDonald, 2007). Expressed in psychological terms, connectedness to nature can be understood as \u201cthe extent to which an individual includes nature within his\/her cognitive representation of self\u201d (Schultz, 2002, p.67). This theme manifests in the personal, as a sense of one\u2019s own connection with nature, as well as the philosophical, as exemplified by Gaianism\u2019s belief that Earth is a superorganism of which humans constitute only one part (Lovelock, 2000). The extent to which these themes constitute a single psychological construct is an open question, but it is often the case that, in anecdotal examples, these themes co-occur and mutually reinforce each other. Take, for example, Julia Hill, who protested deforestation by living atop a 180-foot California redwood for two years. She states being motivated by a spiritual connection to the redwood forest and recounts many intense experiences atop the tree which heightened her sense of nature\u2019s apparent consciousness and relatedness, \u201cI was making a spiritual connection...I found myself crying a lot and hugging Luna [the tree] and telling her I was sorry\u201d (as quoted in Taylor, 2009, p.94). In quite a different cultural context, Australian indigenous peoples believe that living spirits dwell within their sacred sites and the active care for these spirits through the maintenance of the sites ensures the well-being of life in the region (Hubert, 1994). Likewise, the perception that deities (and ancestors in some cases) reside in the sacred groves of India motivates the treatment of these groves as spiritual resources, and appropriate places for ritual sacrifice, ceremony, vow-taking, and prayer (Malhotra et al., 2001). These examples also hint at how the spiritual orientation towards nature may elevate natural sites to places of moral concern and protection, even when those sites may otherwise be utilized for resources and economic gain.    6 Moral Concern for Nature The Sacred Frame When something possesses transcendental significance, it is considered to be sacred (Atran, 2016; Baron & Spranca, 1997; Tetlock et al., 2000). Sacred values have certain properties that separate them from things that are simply highly valued. For one, they cannot be exchanged for, or even equated with, things that are not sacred, such as money. Second, people are willing to endure immense costs, like torture and death, to preserve what they hold sacred. With the use of moral trade-off paradigms, in which participants consider the material benefits of transgressing against a sacred value, researchers have identified several indicators of sacred values, including intense negative moral emotions and cognitive biases like quantity insensitivity, moral universalism, and the denial of benefits through wishful thinking (Baron & Spranca, 1997; Graham & Haidt, 2012; Tetlock et al., 2000). Sacred values thus exist beyond any rational consideration of costs and benefits, leading some scholars to posit a psychology of the \u201cdevoted actor\u201d distinct from the traditional psychology of the \u201crational actor\u201d (Atran, 2016). Unlike utility-maximizing rational actors, devoted actors act in defense of sacred values in ways that cannot be explained by the relative balance of material risks and rewards that are associated with a given decision (Atran, 2016).  Our previous examples help illustrate the relationship between ecospirituality and holding nature sacred. Land may possess spiritual value for a community or individual through its relation to the holy and the divine (e.g., deities and ancestors in Indian sacred groves) or through people\u2019s lived connection with it (e.g., the American National Parks system). Land that possesses these qualities becomes sanctified and separated from land that does not (Cohen, 1976). This    7 process of sanctification alters the kind of moral concern allotted to the land (though it may not always lead to the actual protection of the land\u2013see Sachdeva, 2017). Whereas non-sacred land is governed by the moral of harm\u2013cutting down 10 trees is worth saving 100 lives\u2013land that is sacred is instead governed by the moral of purity\u2013profane use of this land desecrates it. In this way, the spiritual orientation towards nature is a pathway to moral concern for nature that may be better characterized by the devoted actor model than the rational actor model. Identity fusion is another pathway to devoted actor psychology (Atran, 2016; Swann et al., 2012). People are sensitive to transgressions against the values that define who they are and what groups they identify with. Studies in places of political and religious conflict demonstrate that people who have identities fused with their groups express a greater willingness to make costly sacrifices\u2013sometimes in terms of their own lives or the safety of their families\u2013in the service of what they hold sacred (Atran, 2021; Sheikh et al., 2013, 2016). Strongly identifying as an \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d may facilitate a willingness to endure costs and forego benefits in the service of preserving nature through a similar mechanism. This may also help explain the empirical relationship between identifying as an environmentalist and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours (Brick et al., 2017; Kashima et al., 2014; Whitmarsh & O\u2019Neill, 2010). Theoretically, ecospirituality and identifying strongly with other environmentalists may act as two complementary pathways to treating nature as a sacred value. Conceptually speaking, the two constructs are quite different. Ecospirituality is centered on people\u2019s relationship with nature, while environmentalist identity is centered on people\u2019s relationship with their group (i.e., environmentalists). Furthermore, the identity of \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d contains additional culturally specific notions about what it means to be an environmentalist that are not necessarily associated    8 with ecospirituality (Kashima et al., 2014). These notions may include political beliefs and behaviours that define the prototypical environmentalist. Ecospirituality does not define an in-group identity in the same way that being an \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d does. For this reason, it is possible that ecospiritual beliefs may be endorsed more freely by people who hold other potentially conflicting group identities (religious, political). It is also possible that environmentalist identity is associated to a greater extent with the pro-environmental behaviours that are generally associated with environmentalism, namely those involving political activism.  The Instrumental Frame The sacred framing of nature is not the predominant view in the West. Rather, scholars have argued that the West has historically framed nature \u201cmerely as a means or medium for the achievement of individual or collective ends, and not as a value in itself\u201d (Cohen, 1976, p.54; Heidegger, 1954; Milfont et al., 2013; Preston & Baimel, 2021; White, 1967). In other words, nature is categorized amongst other instruments\u2013material, food, fuel\u2013and is valued to the extent it helps achieve desired ends\u2013construction, consumption, energy production. As a consequence, destroying a pristine forest to produce lumber of greater value (for the shelters it can build and the biofuel it can provide) may be justified on the basis of an economic utility calculation. The instrumental frame does not exclude the possibility that nature provides spiritual value, only it argues that spiritual value can ultimately be quantified in dollar terms (Costanza et al., 1997). The instrumental frame is widespread in the West, and is used by governments, corporations, scientists (e.g., Bradbury et al., 2021), and even conservation foundations (e.g., Baker & Macdonald, 2004). Why is this the case? Cultural conceptions of the human-nature relationship are inextricably linked to a culture\u2019s religious heritage (Kristensen, 1960; White,    9 1967). Religious ideas inherited from Western Christianity, namely, that humanity has dominion over nature and that nature does not possess spirit nor consciousness, seemed to have had a profound influence on how we relate to the natural world (White, 1967). When nature is an equal to humanity and possesses a thinking, feeling mind, people are more likely to extend their moral concern to it (Gray et al., 2012; Milfont et al., 2013, 2017; Tam, 2019). The absence (reversal?) of these beliefs makes the objectification of nature more accessible and therefore lifts the moral burden of exploiting nature. Growing evidence shows that a culture\u2019s religious history can continue to exert influence over the moral psychology of its people even centuries after formal laws and norms have changed (Henrich, 2020; Norenzayan, 2013; Valencia Caicedo, 2019), suggesting that the instrumental frame is likely to persist despite the gradual decline of the explicit religious beliefs that scaffolded its development. The pervasiveness and persistence of the instrumental frame of nature in Western culture poses a challenge for realizing a sustainable future. This is because choosing to preserve nature often involves (or is perceived to involve) heavy social and personal economic costs, like lower opportunity for employment and higher consumer prices for goods like gasoline. When nature is viewed instrumentally, the immediate sacrifices required to protect it may be judged as not worth the delayed benefits. Although there are examples of environmental protection motivated by instrumental concerns for nature (e.g., sport hunters and the American national parks and forest reserves; Dunlap, 1988), the instrumental frame fails when the purposes for which nature is to serve can be more easily satisfied by alternative solutions. The sacred frame differs from the instrumental frame because something of spiritual, cultural, or moral value is valued in and of itself\u2013it cannot be replaced by alternatives. For this reason, ecospirituality\u2013the belief that nature    10 possesses spiritual significance\u2013may be an under-appreciated determinant in decision-making that involves economic sacrifices to preserve nature.  The Current Research Little is known about ecospirituality in the psychological literature. The fundamental questions about what ecospirituality is, who is ecospiritual, and in what ways ecospirituality matters for the preservation of nature all remain open to empirical inquiry. The present research has three aims. First, we investigate the relationship between ecospirituality and other relevant constructs. Second, we investigate the distribution and demographic correlates of ecospirituality. Third, we investigate if ecospirituality uniquely predicts pro-environmental attitudes and the propensity to treat nature as a sacred value. The gap in the psychological literature on ecospirituality is perhaps due, in part, to the lack of a viable measurement tool. Some scales have been proposed to measure ecospirituality (Delaney, 2005; Kaufman & Mock, 2014; Rican & Janosova, 2010; Suganthi, 2019), while others capture specific aspects that we consider a subpart of ecospirituality (e.g., Tam, 2019; Waytz et al., 2010). There is still a need for an ecospirituality scale that captures the complexity of the construct, is face valid, and not conflated with potential outcome variables. For these reasons, we construct a multifactor measure for ecospiritual beliefs in Study 1 using a top-down method and continue to validate the measure across all samples.  Overview of Studies In Study 1, using an online American census-matched sample and a Canadian university student sample, we develop a measure for ecospiritual beliefs\u2013the \u201cEcospirituality Scale\u201d\u2013and examine its convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity in predicting environmental    11 citizenship and moral concern for nature. In the Canadian university sample, which was collected at two time points, we also assess the test-retest reliability of the Ecospirituality Scale.  In Study 2, drawing on 2 online American samples, we examine the explanatory potential of ecospirituality in response to trade-offs between economic gain and environmental protection. Using these moral trade-off scenarios, we assess willingness to sacrifice societal and personal gains to protect nature, moral emotion, and cognitive biases associated with treating nature as a sacred value. Additionally, in line with key features of sacred values known from previous work (Atran, 2016; Atran & Ginges, 2012; B\u00f6hm & Pfister, 2005; Tetlock et al., 2000), we investigate how response patterns to the trade-off scenarios vary as a function of temporal and spatial distance. Specifically, we examine if ecospirituality uniquely predicts the refusal to \u201cput a price on nature\u201d (i.e., refusing to engage in a taboo trade-off), and if this relationship displays insensitivity to variation in time and space. In Study 3, we recruit an online Canadian sample of nature club members and a general club member comparison group, as well as an online United Kingdom sample of Green Party affiliated voters. In the Canadian club member sample, we replicate trade-off findings from Study 2 and investigate if ecospirituality also predicts belonging to a nature club. In both the Canadian and UK samples, we investigate if ecospirituality predicts an unconditional (rather than strategic\/instrumental) voting style in favor of the Green Party and examine the discriminant validity of the Ecospirituality Scale with respect to attitudes about utilizing nature (i.e., the instrumental frame).1  1 Pre-registered methodological and analytical plans for Studies 2 and 3 were uploaded in time-stamped files to the Open Science Framework (https:\/\/osf.io\/sv439\/?view_only=2d6bc0849c354301ae0b1b02300c26ce &    12 Study 1: Developing and Validating the Ecospirituality Scale Method Participants and Measures For Study 1, we collected a census-matched sample of N = 493 American Turk Prime survey workers using the Cloud Research Prime Panels service, as well as a religiously diverse Canadian university student sample of N = 4520. The Canadian university sample was collected using the university human research subject pool pre-testing surveys, which were administered at the beginning of the fall and winter semesters of the 2020-2021 academic year. Students could complete the prescreening survey at any point in the semester. Demographics details for all samples can be found in Table 1. Participants in Sample 1 (USA Census-Matched) completed the following measures: Ecospirituality Items. We developed 38 self-report items (Table 2) based on the four common themes of ecospiritual beliefs derived from a survey of sources on ecospirituality (e.g., Booth, 1999; Crockford, 2017; Emerson, 2015; Hubert, 1994; Taylor, 2009). Nine items assessed anthropomorphism of nature. Ten items assessed powerful experiences in nature. Eleven items assessed the belief that nature is a spiritual resource. Eight items assessed a sense of connectedness with nature. Respondents reported their agreement with these statements on a seven-point scale. Environmentalist Identity. Participants completed the four-item scale from Brick et al., (2017), which included the following items: \u201cI see myself as pro-environmentalist\u201d; \u201cI am  https:\/\/osf.io\/zr62f\/?view_only=5571b0d8366d4ad6bc22c1312ac37c82). Due to human error, these files were not formally uploaded as registered documents. In the interest of presenting our results succinctly, and in the way most representative of the data, we do not strictly adhere to the analytical details of our pre-registrations.    13 pleased to be pro-environmentalist\u201d; \u201cI feel strong ties with pro-environmentalist people\u201d; and \u201cI identify with pro-environmentalist people\u201d. Respondents reported their agreement with these statements on a five-point scale, and the items were combined into a composite (\u03b1 = 0.95). New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). Participants completed Dunlap et al.\u2019s (2000) 15-item scale assessing attitudes about environmental issues such as human domination over nature (e.g., \u201cHumans were meant to rule over nature\u201d) and the state of the ecological crisis (e.g., \u201cIf things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe\u201d). Respondents reported their agreement with these statements on a five-point scale, and the items were combined into a composite (\u03b1 = 0.83).      14 Table 1. Demographic Composition of Each Sample.  Study 1 Study 2 Study 3  Sample 1 (USA Census-matched)  Sample 2 (Canadian University) Sample 1  (USA)  Sample 2 (USA)  Sample 1 (Canadian Club Members)  Sample 2 (UK Green Party Affiliated)  Total N 493 4520 468 469 702 561 Sex: Female 267 (54%) 3281 (73%) 234 (50%) 247 (53%) 418 (60%) 372 (66%) Age: Mean (SD) 45-54  [18-24, 85+]* 20.3 (3.28) 37.6 (13.0) 39.3 (13.6) 45.2 (16.5) 34.8 (12.7) Household Income: Median $40k - $69k $100k - $150k $40k - $69k $40k - $69k $70k - $99k $40k - $69k Ethnicity: White 303 (62%) 1100 (24%) Asian: 2683 (59%) 323 (69%) 317 (68%) 543 (77%) 510 (91%) Religion       Christian 289 (59%) 951 (21%) 270 (58%) 266 (57%) 307 (44%) 89 (16%) Non-Religious 139 (28%) 2186 (48%) 157 (34%) 159 (34%) 315 (45%) 421 (75%) Other 64 (13%) 289 (6%) Buddhist: 184 (4%) Hindu: 168 (4%) Muslim: 156 (3%) Sikh: 161 (4%) 41 (9%) 44 (9%) 79 (11%) 51 (9%) Political Orientation       Liberal 189 (38%) 2580 (57%) 234 (50%) 225 (48%) 350 (50%) 456 (81%) Centrist 158 (32%) 938 (21%) 102 (22%) 106 (23%) 190 (27%) 90 (16%) Conservative 145 (29%) 383 (9%) 132 (28%) 137 (29%) 160 (23%) 15 (3%) Education: Post-Secondary Degree 217 (44%) - - - - - * Age was measured in bins rather than free response in Study 1 (Sample 1), so we present the median [min, max] age in years.  Reasoning Style about the Environment. Participants completed the eight-item scale from Sacchi et al., (2014) assessing the degree to which participants believed that decisions about environmental issues should be made based on deontological values (i.e., principles and duty) or utilitarian values (i.e., consequences and net-value). Respondents rated how important    15 each of these values were on a five-point scale. We made a composite of the four items that assessed a deontological orientation (\u03b1 = 0.78) and a composite of the four items that assessed a utilitarian orientation (\u03b1 = 0.71). Consumerism. Participants completed the 17-item scale from Richins & Dawson (1992) assessing the perceived importance of acquisition and possession of material goods and luxury products (e.g., \u201cSome of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions\u201d). Respondents reported their agreement with these statements on a seven-point scale, and the items were combined into a composite (\u03b1 = 0.89). Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS). Participants completed Schultz\u2019s (2001) single item graphical measure of connectedness to nature. Participants selected from a set of seven pairs of circles\u2013one representing the self and the other representing the natural environment\u2013the pair that best captured how closely related humans are to the natural world. The greater the overlap between the two circles, the more closely the participant identified humanity with the natural environment. This item was scored on a seven-point scale from no overlap to complete overlap. Due to a strong negative skew, the scores were log corrected (skeworiginal = -1.13; skewlog corrected = -0.45). Environmental Citizenship. We used Stern et al.\u2019s (1999) eight-item scale to assess support for the environmental movement and engagement in pro-environmental civic behaviour, such as signing petitions to protect the environment, writing letters to Congress, or avoiding buying products from companies that harm the environment. Participants indicated Yes\/No for the first seven items inquiring about their participation in various civic activities, and then rated    16 how much they support the environmental movement on a four-point scale which was rescaled to 0, 0.33, 0.67, and 1. Items were summed to form a composite (\u03b1 = 0.82). Moral Expansiveness for Nature. As a measure of moral concern for the environment, we modified the Moral Expansiveness Scale (Crimston et al., 2016) to include, amongst other targets, five nature targets (old-growth forest, desert, mountains, ocean, Yosemite National Park). Participants viewed a graphical prompt describing four concentric circles of moral concern that extend out from the self and were asked to place various targets from a list into these moral circles. Circles nearer to the self indicated greater moral concern. The nature targets were scored on a scale of one (no moral concern) to four (highest level of moral concern), and then combined into a composite (\u03b1 = 0.94). The six non-nature targets were combined into a general moral concern composite (\u03b1 = 0.73). Religious Beliefs. Participants completed items assessing belief in god (\u201cHow important is God in your life?\u201d), their level of religiosity (\u201cHow religious are you?\u201d), and their level of spirituality (\u201cHow spiritual are you?\u201d). All three items were scored on a seven-point scale from \u201cNot at all\u201d to \u201cVery\u201d. Participants also indicated their religious affiliation from a list of religions, for which a religious affiliation dummy variable was generated (0 = no religious affiliation, 1 = religious affiliation). The belief in god item, religiosity item, and religious affiliation dummy scores\u2013but not the spirituality item\u2013were standardized and combined into a religiosity composite (\u03b1 = 0.87).  Other Variables. Participants also provided demographic information, including age, gender, household income, level of education, and ethnicity. They also reported their political orientation on a seven-point scale from \u201cVery liberal\u201d to \u201cVery conservative\u201d.    17 Due to time constraints, participants in Sample 2 (Canadian University) completed only the reduced 12-item Ecospirituality Scale, the four-item environmentalist identity measure, and basic demographic items. Table 2. All 38 Ecospirituality Items Assessed in Study 1 (Sample 1: USA Census-Matched). Anthropomorphism of Nature Powerful Experiences in Nature Nature as a Spiritual Resource Connectedness to Nature Nature, in general, possesses human qualities When I am in nature, I have spiritual experiences Nature is alive with consciousness I have had the experience of feeling at one with naturea Mountains are imbued with consciousness When I am in nature, I feel a sense of awe There is sacredness in nature I feel I am part of a larger whole that is nature Oceans have intention When I am in nature, I feel harmony Everything in nature has a soul Humans are embedded in the web of life The sky has personalities Sometimes I am overcome with the beauty of nature Nature is a spiritual resource When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of livingb Jungles experience moods I experience the holy when I am in the natural world Everything in the natural world is spiritually interconnected I often feel kinship with animals and plantsb Deserts have their own languages I feel intense wonder towards nature There is a spiritual connection between human beings and the natural environment I feel that all inhabitants of Earth--human and non-human--share a common \"life force\"b Forests can have thoughts I have been healed by nature Nature deserves worship I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am no more important than the grass on the ground or the birds in the trees Ecosystems can feel pain I have a deep emotional connection to nature Nature is innocent and uncorrupt Earth is a single living organism Nature can be vengeful There is nothing like the feeling of being in nature Nature, for me, is like god for religious people   Being in nature gives me the true experience of ecstasy Untouched wilderness represents the divine    All nature is infused with mystery  a Items from St. John & MacDonald (2007) b Items from Mayer & Frantz (2004)    18 Results Ecospirituality Scale Item Reduction and Factor Structure In the USA census-matched sample (N = 493), we conducted parallel factor analysis with the maximum likelihood method of estimation to reduce the initial pool of 38 ecospirituality items. Parallel analysis suggested five factors or three components. We tested the three- and five-factor solutions using an oblimin rotation and maximum likelihood method. Both solutions offered adequate fit, and we decided to continue with the three-factor solution to maintain greater parsimony (collapsing the powerful experiences and connectedness to nature items into one factor, rather than dividing the powerful experiences items into two factors). The three factors generally corresponded to the conceptual distinctions we used to generate the items and can be summarized as follows: 1) Anthropomorphism of Nature, 2) Powerful Experiences in Nature, and 3) Viewing Nature as a Spiritual Resource. The four highest loading items for each of the three factors were selected to constitute the final Ecospirituality Scale2.  No items from the original connectedness to nature item set were included in the final scale. These items were largely accounted for by the experiences in nature items: they belonged to the same factor in the three-factor solution and generally had lower factor loadings than the experience items. Notably, the connectedness to nature items did not factor with the spiritual connection items as one might have expected (e.g., \u201cThere is a spiritual connection between human beings and the natural environment\u201d). This empirically highlights the conceptual  2One item in the powerful experiences factor was found to have high residual correlations (greater than .1) with items in the anthropomorphism factor, and was thus replaced with the next highest factor loaded item that did not have high residual correlations.     19 distinction between the sorts of connectedness beliefs previously assessed in the psychological literature and a distinctly spiritual flavour of connectedness. Therefore, we also drop the original connectedness to nature items to increase the capacity for the scale to discriminate spiritual environmental sentiments from environmental sentiments more generally.  An exploratory factor analysis in the same sample on the selected 12 items using a maximum likelihood method of extraction and an oblimin rotation revealed three eigenvalues greater than 1 (6.40, 2.01, 1.13) corresponding to three factors that cumulatively accounted for 70.4% of variance in the scores. Table 3 presents the 12 items and their factor loadings, as well as the proportion of variance accounted for by each factor. The factors were moderately correlated; anthropomorphism correlated r = 0.38 with viewing nature as a spiritual resource and r = 0.59 with powerful experiences in nature, while powerful experiences correlated r = 0.60 with viewing nature as a spiritual resource. Test-Retest Reliability and Psychometric Properties in Canadian University Students In a large sample of Canadian university students, the 12-item Ecospirituality Scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach\u2019s \u03b1 = 0.88). The test-retest reliability was assessed in the subset of students who completed the pre-testing survey in both semesters of the school year (n = 979). The test-retest correlation was r = 0.79, 95% CI [0.75, 0.82]. This was comparable to the well-established environmentalist identity measure that was also administered in this sample (r = 0.76, [0.73, 0.80]).    20 Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 43573) indicated the three-factor solution had good fit, \u03c72(51) = 1066.95, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.068 (90% CI = [0.064, 0.071]), SRMR = 0.044. Factor loadings are presented in Table 3. The three factors were all positively correlated: anthropomorphism correlated with powerful experiences (r = 0.30) and nature as a spiritual resource (r = 0.53), while powerful experiences and nature as a spiritual resource correlated (r = 0.52).4    3 For participants who completed the survey at both time points, only responses at time one were included to avoid double counting. 4 One item (\u201cThere is sacredness in nature\u201d) was removed from the spiritual resource subscale of the Ecospirituality Scale for all analyses henceforth due to its similarity to dependent variables of interest. This did not change results in any meaningful way; the total scale with and without the item shared a perfect correlation of r = 1.00, and the spiritual resource subscale with and without the item shared a correlation of r = .98.    21 Table 3. Three-Factor EFA Loadings Study 1.  USA Census-Matched N=493 Canadian University Students n=4357  Anth. Exp. Spir. Anth. Exp. Spir. 1. Jungles experience moods .95   .86   2. Deserts have their own languages    .93   .82   3. The sky has personalities .92   .80   4. Forests can have thoughts  .86   .77   5. I feel intense wonder towards nature  .84   .72  6. When I am in nature, I feel a sense of awe  .89   .86  7. Sometimes I am overcome with the beauty of nature  .74   .75  8. There is nothing like the feeling of being in nature  .66   .67  9. There is a spiritual connection between human beings and the natural environment   .90   .77 *10. There is sacredness in nature   .71   .58 11. Everything in the natural world is spiritually interconnected   .78   .87 12. Nature is a spiritual resource     .77   .88 Variance explained by factor 28% 21% 21% 22% 20% 21% Note: Factor loadings below .32 are suppressed.  *Item 10 was removed from all subsequent analyses due to possible confounding with dependent variables of interest.  What is Ecospirituality: Convergence with Other Environmental Attitudes Table 4 presents the bivariate correlations in the US census-matched sample. Ecospirituality was positively correlated with environmentalist identity (r = 0.59), a relationship that was weaker in the Canadian University sample (r = 0.36; n=4262). Ecospirituality was also positively correlated with the NEP and INS only moderately (r = 0.26 and 0.31, respectively), suggesting that the scale is not completely accounted for by pro-environmental attitudes nor connectedness to nature.    22 Ecospirituality was uncorrelated with consumerism, which may be conceptualized as an anti-environmental attitude. Ecospirituality did not discriminate between the two moral reasoning styles for environmental decisions. Instead, we found that ecospirituality moderately positively predicted the endorsement of the importance of both deontological and utilitarian principles for environmental decisions. This may be an artefact of the high collinearity between the two reasoning styles observed in this sample (r = 0.56). Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Study 1 Sample 1 (US census-matched; N=493).   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) Ecospirituality             (2) Environmentalist Identity 0.59***           (3) Deontology 0.39*** 0.40***         (4) Utilitarianism 0.35*** 0.26*** 0.56***       (5) New Ecological Paradigm 0.26*** 0.33*** 0.21*** -0.01     (6) Consumerism 0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.04 -0.29***   (7) Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale 0.31*** 0.34*** 0.18*** 0.16*** 0.26*** -0.10* *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001  Who is Ecospiritual: Distribution, Demographics, and Religiosity Next, we examined the prevalence of ecospiritual beliefs and their association with demographic characteristics. Our results suggest that ecospiritual beliefs were fairly common in the American sample (which was sampled to be somewhat representative of the American population at large). Average agreement with the scale was found to be above the scale\u2019s midpoint of 4.0 (M = 4.90, SD = 1.20), and each of the three subscales were negatively skewed. Powerful experiences was the most well-endorsed factor (M = 5.51, SD = 1.15), followed by    23 nature as a spiritual resource (M = 5.13, SD = 1.43) and anthropomorphism (M = 4.13, SD = 1.77). Similar trends were found in the Canadian University sample, with a total scale mean of 4.77 (SD = 1.03). In both samples, ecospirituality was significantly negatively correlated with conservative political orientation (r = -0.15 and -0.13 for US and Canadian samples, respectively). The magnitudes of these correlations are small compared to those found between environmentalist identity and political conservatism (r = -0.25 and -0.35 for US and Canadian samples, respectively), as well as the correlation between the NEP and political conservatism (r = -0.35). Ecospirituality also shared a small correlation with female gender in the Canadian University sample (r = 0.18), which was not found in the American sample. Overall, ecospirituality was not robustly significantly correlated with most demographic variables across samples, such as household income, age, and level of education. Only the American sample responded to measures of religiosity and spirituality. People who held ecospiritual beliefs tended to report being more spiritual (r = 0.36) but not more religious, despite the strong correlation between religiosity and spirituality (r = 0.62). Furthermore, when controlling for the mutual effects of religiosity and spirituality on ecospirituality, we found that spirituality was a significant positive predictor (\u03b2 = 0.50), while religiosity was a significant negative predictor (\u03b2 = -0.23). These findings suggest that ecospirituality may appeal to the \u201cspiritual-but-not-religious\u201d population.  Does Ecospirituality Matter: Environmental Citizenship and Moral Concern for Nature In the American sample, we investigated ecospirituality\u2019s predictive validity by assessing two conceptually distinct dependent variables. The first, environmental citizenship, is a measure    24 of civic involvement and activism for the environment. The second, moral expansiveness for nature, captures how close to one\u2019s innermost moral circle one places nature. Ecospirituality was regressed onto each dependent variable, controlling for environmentalist identity, political orientation, religiosity, age, gender, household income, and educational attainment (see Table 5). The average moral expansiveness ratings for the six non-nature targets were also used as a control variable when predicting moral expansiveness for nature. Ecospirituality remained a unique predictor of moral expansiveness for nature (\u03b2 = 0.26), while its relationship with environmental citizenship was accounted for by environmentalist identity. Follow-up analyses assessing the relative contribution of each subscale of the Ecospirituality Scale suggested that anthropomorphism and powerful experiences were driving the effect of ecospirituality on citizenship and expansiveness for nature. This study provided evidence for the three-factor structure and test-retest reliability of the Ecospirituality Scale. In American survey workers and Canadian university students, ecospirituality scores were above the scale\u2019s midpoint, suggesting these beliefs are fairly common (bracketing the possibility of response bias). Ecospirituality positively correlated with both a deontological and utilitarian reasoning style about the environment, which may be attributed to the high collinearity between the two reasoning styles in this sample. Ecospirituality was highly correlated with identifying as an environmentalist; still, both were unique predictors of having moral concern for nature. Unlike moral concern for nature, the relationship between ecospirituality and environmental citizenship was fully accounted for by other variables. Study 2 follows up on these results and extends our investigation to focus more directly on the relationship between ecospirituality and treating nature as a sacred value.    25 Table 5. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 1 Sample 1 (US census-matched; N=493).   Environmental Citizenship Moral Expansiveness for Nature Predictors \u03b2 95% CI \u03b2 95% CI Ecospirituality 0.04 -0.05,0.13 0.26 0.15,0.37 Environmentalist Identity 0.49 0.39,0.58 0.18 0.06,0.29 General Moral Expansiveness   0.16 0.07,0.25 Conservatism -0.07 -0.15,0.00 -0.10 -0.19,-0.01 Religiosity -0.03 -0.10,0.05 -0.13 -0.22,-0.04 Age -0.06 -0.13,0.01 0.10 0.01,0.19 Female Gender -0.07 -0.14,0.01 0.02 -0.07,0.10 Household Income 0.13 0.05,0.21 0.04 -0.06,0.13 Education 0.09 0.01,0.18 -0.08 -0.17,0.02 Observations 483 418  R2 0.386 0.356        26 Study 2: Ecospirituality & Economic\/Nature Trade-offs In Study 1, we investigated the psychometric properties of the Ecospirituality Scale, its demographic correlates, and its predictive validity. Study 1, however, did not investigate the relationship between ecospirituality and treating nature as a sacred value. In a larger sample of Americans, Study 2 includes moral trade-off scenarios that weigh the economic benefits of industrial expansion against the protection of an ecosystem. Moral trade-off scenarios allow us to capture the moral reasoning style of \u201cdevoted actors\u201d (Atran, 2016), chiefly by their unwillingness to equate the protection of nature with any amount of material gain and their willingness to endure costs to protect nature. Ecospirituality and environmentalist identity represent complementary pathways to treating nature as sacred and should uniquely predict this reasoning style when faced with a moral trade-off scenario. Study 2 also investigates if ecospirituality predicts treating nature as sacred, even when the trade-off scenarios involve costs to nature that are faraway or in the future. The environmental psychological literature demonstrates that motivation to protect nature is susceptible to temporal and spatial discounting, which is especially problematic because much of the destruction caused by our current lifestyles will mainly affect people faraway and in the future (B\u00f6hm & Pfister, 2005; Jacquet et al., 2013; Markowitz & Shariff, 2012; Mazutis & Eckardt, 2017; McDonald et al., 2015; Rickard et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017; Sparkman et al., 2021; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). However, the sacred values literature suggests that sacred values are immune to temporal and spatial discounting (Atran, 2016; Sheikh et al., 2013). If this is the case, sacred values (and ecospirituality) may represent an antidote to the environmental apathy caused by discounting biases.    27 Methods Participants and Measures We collected two samples (Sample 1: N = 468; Sample 2: N = 469) of American survey workers using the Amazon Mechanical Turk service. Both samples completed identical surveys, with a slight variation in the trade-off scenarios presented to them. Sample 1 responded to trade-offs that varied in temporal distance to the self and Sample 2 responded to trade-offs that varied in spatial distance to the self. Where possible, these samples will be combined for analysis. All participants completed the Ecospirituality Scale (\u03b1 = 0.89), environmentalist identity items (\u03b1 = 0.95), the reasoning style about the environment items (deontology: \u03b1 = 0.67; utilitarianism: \u03b1 = 0.71), and the environmental citizenship items (\u03b1 = 0.79) used in Study 1. Christian participants were also asked to indicate their denomination5. To further probe the relationship between ecospirituality and environmentalist identity, participants also completed the four-item Environmental Strivings scale (Emmons, 1986; Kashima et al., 2014), which captures the extent to which participants consider caring for the environment to constitute their life\u2019s purpose, (e.g., \u201cOne of the objectives that I try to accomplish or attain in my life is to sustain or improve the natural environment and the condition of the planet Earth for future generations\u201d). Kashima et al. (2014) argue for the importance of  5 One of the multiple choice responses to the Christian denomination item was \u201cI am not Christian\u201d. A large proportion of participants across Studies 2 and 3 (n = 359 out of a total 932) selected this response, effectively indicating they were Christian but not Christian. A proportion this large makes it unlikely that these participants merely suffered from selective inattention (i.e., lazily selecting \u201cChristian\u201d as their religion, then realizing their mistake when asked to report their denomination). A cursory inspection of the responses from this group indicate they tend to be liberal-leaning men and women who do not believe in God, do not find religious belief important to their life, nor feel particularly spiritual. Future research that assesses religious affiliation as a focal or auxiliary variable may consider including additional continuous measures of belief in God and self-report religiosity\u2013as we have here\u2013to avoid confounding religiosity with religious identity.    28 measuring environmental strivings as a more personal aspect of identity, which is less constrained by socio-cultural context that defines what an \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d is. Participant agreement was scored on a seven-point scale, and the items were composited into a single score (\u03b1 = 0.89). Saying Nature is Sacred. To assess the belief that nature is sacred, participants responded to the following prompt: \u201cAs human beings, we sometimes hold certain values or things as sacred. When someone holds a value or a thing as not able to be questioned or doubted\u2013such as, American citizens\u2019 unassailable human rights\u2013that thing is considered to be sacred.\u201d Participants were then asked to pick from a list the things they considered sacred. The list included the following items: family, human rights, freedom, religious belief, sacraments or religious objects, the national flag, human life, your place of worship, and nature. We dummy coded a variable that indicates if participants selected \u201cnature\u201d from this list (0 = nature is not sacred, 1 = nature is sacred). Moral Trade-off Scenarios. We developed four vignettes that described scenarios in which an industrial project would jeopardize an ecosystem. The industrial project (waste disposal plant, four-lane highway, oil pipeline, and airport) varied to improve generalizability and to avoid priming prior concepts about any one environmental issue that may have been particularly culturally salient at the time of the study. In these vignettes, participants carefully viewed a table of economic benefits and environmental costs associated with the industrial project. Participants were first simply asked if the project is morally justified or not (0 = not morally justified, 1 = morally justified).     29 Participants were then asked to engage in a series of questions that implicated them in a potential \u201ctaboo trade-off\u201d (Tetlock, 2003). A taboo trade-off is when a sacred value (i.e., protecting nature) is weighed against a material value (i.e., economic gain). Participants were implicated in a potential taboo trade-off by being asked to put a price on nature in terms of how much revenue must be made and how large of an income tax reduction must result in order for them to endorse the project (ratings made as a percentage increase in current revenue and percentage decrease in income tax on an interactive slider from 0%-100%\u2013see Figure 1). Greater percentage values indicated that greater societal\/personal economic benefits must be produced to endorse the project. Participants were also given the option to refuse to engage in the trade-off (\u201cNo amount is acceptable - On principle, I would never even consider this trade-off\u201d). Refusal to engage in at least one of the two trade-offs (personal and social incentives) were dummy coded into two separate variables: refusal to trade-off in (1) scenarios close-to-the-self and (2) scenarios distant-to-the-self. Figure 1. Sample Moral Trade-off Item (Personal Incentive to Endorse Industrial Project). Since the federal government is investing in this project, benefits will be shared across the country. The plan is to use the revenue to reduce income taxes for all citizens.  How large of a reduction of your current income tax would you need in order to endorse this project?  0% - income tax statement will not change 100% - income tax statement will be reduced by 100% (you will pay no income taxes)  \"No amount is acceptable\" - On principle, I would never even consider this trade-off      30 Participants were also asked how much they would be willing to sacrifice in order to cancel the industrial project. Using an interactive slider (from 0% to 100%), participants indicated how much societal benefit (i.e., jobs produced by the industrial project) and personal benefit (i.e., personal income, in terms of increasing income tax to compensate the cancellation of the project) they would be willing to sacrifice in order to cancel the industrial project6. Previous research has identified certain cognitive biases that are a telltale indicator of sacred values (Baron & Spranca, 1997). These were also assessed after each vignette was presented. Wishful thinking (\u201cIn the real world, nothing can be gained by allowing this\u201d), quantity insensitivity (\u201cEven if this plan did one-tenth the damage, it would still be equally immoral and wrong\u201d), and moral universalism (\u201cThis would be wrong even in a country where everyone thought it was not wrong\u201d) were each assessed on seven-point scales and shared high agreement across items (\u03b1 = 0.83 & 0.85 for close and distant trade-offs, respectively). These items were averaged into two \u201cCognitive Bias\u201d composites, one for close trade-offs and one for distant trade-offs. Participants\u2019 moral emotions (disgust, anger, outrage, and contempt) in response to each scenario were assessed on a five-point scale and were combined into \u201cMoral Emotions\u201d composites (\u03b1 = 0.93 & 0.92 for close and distant trade-offs, respectively). Participants were randomly presented with two of the four trade-off scenarios. In Sample 1, the scenarios varied by temporal distance, with one industrial project being set for construction \u201cimmediately\u201d and the other set for construction \u201cat some time very far away in the future\u201d. In  6 Participants also had the option to not respond to the items assessing willingness to sacrifice (n = 215); however, it is not as obvious\u2013compared to refusing to \u201cput a price on nature\u201d\u2013what it means to choose this option. As such, we removed this choice in Sample 2, and then reframed it more clearly in the Canadian sample of Study 3, stating that if the participant did not actually wish for the project to be cancelled, they could select not to answer these items (n = 205 participants in Study 3 selected this option at least once).    31 Sample 2, the projects varied by spatial distance, with one \u201cset for construction in a location very close to where you live - perhaps somewhere you could easily visit by car\u201d and the other \u201cset for construction in a location very far away from where you live - perhaps a foreign country halfway across the globe\u201d. The presentation of each scenario was randomized so that some participants viewed the close-to-self trade-off first and others viewed the distant-to-self trade-off first. Results What is Ecospirituality: Discrimination from Utilitarian Reasoning Style about Nature & Convergence with Environmental Strivings Table 6 presents bivariate correlations between key variables in Study 2. We replicated the strong positive correlation between ecospirituality and identifying as an environmentalist in the current sample (r = 0.51). To further probe this relationship, we included a measure of environmental strivings, which captures a less culturally defined aspect of identity: one\u2019s personal goals and purpose. Strivings correlated strongly with identifying as an environmentalist (r = 0.73) and with ecospirituality (r = 0.58).  Study 1 reported a positive relationship between ecospirituality and believing that environmental decisions should be made with respect to deontological principles and utilitarian principles. This result was not replicated. Instead, it was found that ecospirituality positively correlated with the deontological reasoning style to a similar degree as in Study 1 (r = 0.36), but there was no relationship between ecospirituality (nor any of its subscales) and the utilitarian reasoning style. The difference in findings may be due to the high collinearity between the reasoning styles observed in Study 1 (r = 0.56) that was not observed in Study 2 (r = 0.13).     32 Table 6. Bivariate Correlations Study 2 (US; N=937).   (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Ecospirituality         (2) Environmentalist Identity 0.51***       (3) Deontology 0.36*** 0.39***     (4) Utilitarianism 0.00 0.00 0.13***   (5) Environmental Strivings 0.58*** 0.73*** 0.46*** -0.06* *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001  Who is Ecospiritual: Distribution, Religiosity, and Political Orientation Ecospiritual beliefs were, again, found to be fairly well-endorsed by the American sample (M = 4.74, SD = 1.12). Two of three subscales displayed similar distributions as they did with the online census-matched sample in Study 1, with the exception of the anthropomorphism of nature subscale, which displayed a distinct modal response at the minimum value. In aggregate, however, all subscales were well-endorsed: powerful experiences in nature (M = 5.72, SD = 1.10), nature as a spiritual resource (M = 5.29, SD = 1.40) and anthropomorphism of nature (M = 3.20, SD = 1.90).  Replicating the findings in Study 1, ecospirituality was largely uncorrelated with demographic variables. This was also true for political conservatism, which was not found to be correlated with ecospirituality but found to be moderately negatively correlated with identifying as an environmentalist (r = -0.26) and environmental strivings (r = -0.24). In this sample, ecospirituality was found to be positively correlated with spirituality (r = 0.41) and religiosity (r = 0.22). Again, a follow up analysis regressing spirituality and religiosity on ecospirituality    33 suggested that people who are spiritual (\u03b2 = 0.58) but not religious (\u03b2 = -0.23) tend to hold ecospirituality beliefs. Does Ecospirituality Matter: Environmental Citizenship & Moral Trade-offs To replicate the findings from Study 1, we included the same measure of environmental citizenship in this study (see Table 7). Findings were largely consistent with Study 1: environmentalist identity moderately uniquely predicted engagement in environmental citizenship (\u03b2 = 0.43), while ecospirituality did not (in this larger sample, however, a marginal effect of \u03b2 = 0.08 was detected).7  The results from the moral trade-off scenarios suggested that ecospirituality and environmentalist identity were both unique predictors of treating nature as a sacred value controlling for each other and additional demographic variables (Figure 2). Across the board, both measures significantly predicted treating nature as sacred (with one exception, ecospirituality did not significantly uniquely predict believing the industrial project featured in the trade-off scenario was not morally justifiable8). Independent of the moral trade-off scenarios, ecospirituality and environmentalist identity also uniquely predicted saying nature was sacred (Odds Ratios = 1.62 and 1.40, respectively). Follow up analyses assessing the relative contribution of each subscale of the Ecospirituality Scale suggested that having powerful experiences in nature most consistently drove the effect of ecospirituality on the various markers of treating nature as a sacred value.  7 We did not include environmental strivings as an additional predictor in this model because of its high collinearity with environmentalist identity (r = 0.73; VIF = 2.53). We did run a separate model where identity was exchanged for strivings. In that model, ecospirituality also remained a significant predictor of citizenship (\u03b2 = 0.10). 8 It\u2019s possible the \u201cmoral justification\u201d item simply lacked enough variance to draw accurate inferences from these analyses; an overwhelming majority of participants reported the project to not be morally justifiable.    34  Figure 2. Predicting Markers of Treating Nature Sacred with Controls Study 2 (US; N=937).   Note: All analyses include the following covariates: ecospirituality, environmentalist identity, political conservatism, religiosity, age, gender, and household income.   *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001  Temporally & Spatially Discounting Harm to Nature We expected participants would demonstrate cost discounting by requiring fewer incentives to endorse environmental harm when it occurred in the future and in a faraway place. Participants who agreed to engage in the economic\/nature trade-off (just over half of each sample) were asked to \u201cput a price on nature\u201d by rating how much societal and personal gains they would require in order to personally endorse the industrial project. The difference between incentive required for close versus distant trade-offs indicates the degree to which each participant discounted distant costs to the environment, with greater scores indicating greater discounting. In Sample 1, which assessed temporal discounting, participants who engaged in trade-offs (n = 250) did require less personal incentives to endorse industrial projects occurring in the future (MDifference = 3.53, 95% CI = [0.77, 6.29]) but they did not exhibit discounting of    35 societal incentives (MDifference = 2.84, [-0.08, 5.76]). In Sample 2, which assessed spatial discounting, participants who engaged in trade-offs (n = 230) did not exhibit discounting of personal (MDifference = -0.69, [-3.82, 2.43]) nor societal incentives (MDifference = -2.61, [-5.84, 0.61]). These findings suggest that people who do not hold nature sacred, responding to our stimuli, do not consistently exhibit temporal or spatial discounting when considering the costs to nature that an industrial project may have. Reasons for the observed pattern are further discussed in the discussion section. We also assessed if ecospirituality and environmentalist identity predicted refusing to put a price on nature faraway in time or space\u2013that is, refusing to engage in moral trade-offs at a distance to the self. Participants who refused to engage in trade-offs close to themselves also tended to refuse to engage in trade-offs at a distance to themselves (Odds Ratios = 15.72 and 35.15, for temporal and spatial distance, respectively). To account for this, we included as a covariate the responses from the close trade-offs when predicting trade-off behaviour at a distance to the self (see Table 7). Results showed that ecospirituality (Odds Ratio = 1.37), but not environmentalist identity, remained a significant predictor of refusing to engage in the distant moral trade-off. Study 2 attempted to replicate some analyses conducted in Study 1, and to further examine the predictors of treating nature as a sacred value, using moral trade-off scenarios. Contrary to Study 1, ecospirituality was not associated with the utilitarian reasoning style about nature. In line with Study 1, we found that environmentalist identity is a greater predictor of environmental citizenship and political orientation than ecospirituality. The results from the moral trade-off scenarios suggested that both ecospirituality and environmentalist identity were    36 consistently unique and significant predictors of treating nature as a sacred value. Study 2 demonstrated that ecospirituality robustly predicts pro-environmental attitudes and \u201cdevoted actor\u201d decision-making, while being relatively free from political ideology. These findings suggest that ecospirituality may represent a distinct pathway to environmental concern untapped by constructs like environmentalist identity. Table 7. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 2 (US; N=937).   Environmental Citizenship Refusing to Put a Price on Nature at a Distance to Self  Predictors \u03b2 95% CI Odds Ratio 95% CI Ecospirituality 0.08 0.01,0.14 1.37 1.14,1.65 Environmentalist Identity 0.43 0.36,0.50 1.00 0.87,1.15 Refusing Trade-offs Close to Self   17.09 11.91,24.85 Conservatism -0.17 -0.23,-0.10 0.81 0.72,0.91 Religiosity 0.01 -0.05,0.07 0.74 0.59,0.91 Age -0.06 -0.12,-0.00 1.03 1.02,1.05 Female Gender -0.02 -0.07,0.04 1.01 0.70,1.46 Household Income 0.02 -0.04,0.07 0.97 0.87,1.10 Observations 918 919  R2 0.299 0.460        37 Study 3: Ecospirituality in Nature Clubs and Green Party Voters Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence that ecospirituality predicts moral concern for nature, perhaps via its influence on people\u2019s reasoning style about nature (preference for deontology versus utilitarianism) and is largely apolitical. However, the prior studies do not directly assess the instrumental frame of nature, nor include ecologically valid dependent variables. To address these two limitations, Study 3 employs a more direct measure of the instrumental frame of nature and examines the degree to which ecospirituality predicts how people spend their free time (i.e., the recreational clubs they belong to), as well as how they decide to vote for environmental policy.  Distinctions in theory on political voting style mirror, to some degree, the distinctions made in the sacred values literature. In the sacred values literature, the \u201crational actor\u201d is distinguished from the \u201cdevoted actor\u201d by their reliance on a cost-benefit analysis to inform their decision-making about a certain topic (Atran, 2016; Tetlock, 2003). In the voting literature, the \u201cstrategic voter\u201d is distinguished from the \u201cunconditional voter\u201d in a similar way: The strategic voter aims to maximize the influence of their vote, while the unconditional voter will vote for their party of choice no matter what (Aldrich et al., 2018). The strategic voter may decide to vote for their second-favoured party because their first-favoured party has no chance of winning, while the unconditional voter will always vote for their first-favoured party despite the likelihood of \u201cwasting\u201d their vote (i.e., having no influence over the results of the election). The Green Party often has the strongest pro-environmental platform in Canadian and the United Kingdom but, in many elections, it is clear to voters that the party will not secure enough votes to win in their district\/riding. Pro-environmental voters may favour the Green Party but must consider the    38 possibility that voting for them would be a wasted vote that could have been otherwise used to promote the victory of the party with the next best environmental platform. This study therefore has four aims: (1) more directly examine the relationship between ecospirituality and the instrumental frame of nature, (2) examine the potential for ecospirituality to predict real life decisions like club membership and voting style, (3) further probe the relationship between political orientation and ecospirituality via policy preference, and (4) replicate findings from the moral trade-offs in Study 2. Method Participants and Measures In this study, we recruited two samples. Sample 1 (N = 702) consisted of Canadians who belonged to nature clubs (n = 280) and for comparison, members of other non-nature-oriented clubs (n = 422). Part of this sample was recruited directly from nature and outdoors clubs in British Columbia (n = 64), and participants were told their participation would raise $5 for a well-regarded provincial nature conservation foundation (to which we donated a total of $675). Due to the inefficiency of this recruitment method, we then began recruiting Canadian \u201cclub members\u201d on Cloud Research\u2019s Prime Panels service (n = 638). Participants were directly reimbursed for their participation. The nature clubs that participants belonged to were mostly outdoors clubs (n = 257) and political\/environmentalism clubs (n = 122). Participants were also from nature education clubs (n = 78), nature spirituality clubs (n = 35), and nature philanthropy clubs (n = 30). Most belonged to only one or two nature clubs (n = 232). Sample 2 (N = 561) consisted of United Kingdom Prolific survey workers who were politically affiliated with the Green Party.     39 Both samples completed the Ecospirituality Scale (\u03b1 = 0.90), environmentalist identity items (\u03b1 = 0.94), and indicated if they believed nature was sacred.  Both samples also completed the Brief Environmental Attitudes Inventory (EAI-24; Milfont & Duckitt, 2010), a validated short version of the comprehensive Environmental Attitudes Inventory. The scale assesses 12 distinct attitudes about the environment that have been previously studied in psychological research. These attitudes factor onto two higher order factors: Utilization and Preservation. The authors of the scale indicate that the two factors represent the instrumental frame and spiritual orientation towards nature, respectively. However, no items in the preservation factor directly assess spiritual beliefs about nature. The preservation attitudes include \u201cenjoyment of nature\u201d, \u201csupport for interventionist conservation policies\u201d, \u201cenvironmental movement activism\u201d, \u201cenvironmental fragility\u201d, \u201cpersonal conservation behaviour\u201d, \u201cecocentric concern\u201d, and \u201csupport for population growth policies\u201d. The utilization attitudes include \u201canthropocentric concern\u201d, \u201cconfidence in science and technology\u201d, \u201caltering nature\u201d, \u201chuman dominance over nature\u201d, and \u201chuman utilization of nature\u201d. Agreement was rated on a seven-point scale, and items were combined into two composites representing preservation (\u03b1 = 0.85) and utilization attitudes (\u03b1 = 0.77).  Both samples were also asked questions about their voting preference and style. First, participants indicated which parties they would consider voting for in the next general\/federal election. If participants indicated they would consider voting Green, they were then asked under what conditions they would vote Green. In Sample 1 (Canada), participants could indicate they would vote Green \u201cNo matter what\u201d (unconditional voting style) or \u201cOnly if they were likely to win\u201d (strategic voting style). In Sample 2 (UK), participants chose from a set of three responses,    40 (1) \u201cI would vote for the Green Party NO MATTER WHAT\u201d, (2) \u201cI would NOT vote for the Green Party if they had no chance at winning OR if it was a close race between two other parties\u201d, and (3) \u201cThere are specific conditions under which I would vote for the Green Party that are not listed here\u201d. Responses (2) and (3) were coded as representing strategic voting styles in this sample. Both samples responded to additional questions about religion. Religious attendance was assessed on a five-point scale from \u201cLess than once a year\u201d to \u201cMore than once a week\u201d. Participants\u2019 identity as \u201cspiritual but not religious\u201d was assessed using a binary item. Participants also rated \u201cHow central to [their] views on environmentalism [were their] spiritual views\u201d on a five-point scale from \u201cSpirituality is not central at all to my views on the environment\u201d to \u201cSpirituality is central to my views on the environment\u201d. Additionally, Sample 1 (Canada) also responded to the economic\/nature trade-off scenarios that varied by spatial distance used in Study 2 Sample 2. Due to time constraints, participants only responded to the willingness to sacrifice to protect nature items and the incentives required to endorse the industrial project items.  Results What is Ecospirituality: Convergence with Environmental Preservation and Spiritual Environmentalism; Discrimination from Environmental Utilization To more directly assess the instrumental frame of nature, we employed the utilization factor from the EAI-24. Results show that ecospirituality is moderately negatively associated with attitudes about utilizing nature (r = -0.29). We also measured participants' responses on the preservation factor of the EAI-24, which serves as an index of common pro-environmental    41 attitudes used in psychological research . Ecospirituality moderately positively correlated with items in this factor (r = 0.34). See Table 8 for bivariate correlations from this Study. We were also interested in examining the interaction between ecospirituality and political conservatism in predicting pro-environmental attitudes. Since ecospirituality is largely dissociated from political orientation (r = -0.06 in this study), it may prove to be a useful pathway to environmental concern for conservatives, who, on average, tended to endorse utilization attitudes (r = 0.34) but not preservation attitudes (r = -0.43). We found that ecospirituality interacted with political orientation in predicting both preservation (\u03b2 = 0.10, [0.06, 0.15]) and utilization attitudes (\u03b2 = -0.07, [-0.11, -0.02]). These interactions show that the relationship between ecospirituality and the two sets of environmental attitudes was stronger for conservatives than liberals (see Figure 3). In other words, ecospirituality helps bridge the gap in how conservatives and liberals see the natural environment. Figure 3. Interaction Between Ecospirituality & Political Orientation to Predict Environmental Attitudes (Canada & UK; N=1261).   Note: Political orientation was measured and analyzed as a continuous variable from very liberal to very conservative. Liberals and conservatives are visualized as -1 SD and +1 SD on this measure, respectively. Analyses control for which sample participants were drawn from.       42 As a more direct\u2013albeit more crude\u2013measure of the relationship between spirituality and environmental concern, we asked participants from both samples in Study 3 how central spirituality was to their views on environmentalism using a five-point scale. There was a fair amount of variation on this item (M = 2.52, SD = 1.26), with many participants indicating that spirituality was either not at all related or only minimally related to their views on environmentalism (n = 610; 48%), and fewer indicating it was very or absolutely central (n = 302; 24%). A regression model indicated that ecospirituality incrementally predicted having one\u2019s spiritual views central to one\u2019s views on environmentalism (\u03b2 = 0.22) over and above self-reported spirituality (\u03b2 = 0.53), environmentalist identity (\u03b2 = 0.06), as well as preservation (\u03b2 = -0.07) and utilization attitudes (\u03b2 = 0.03). These findings suggest that there is a distinct profile of spiritual environmentalism that is not adequately captured by other widely used environmental attitude constructs nor general spirituality. Table 8. Bivariate Correlations Study 3 (Canada & United Kingdom; N=1263).   (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Ecospirituality         (2) Environmentalist Identity 0.40***       (3) Preservation (EAI-24) 0.34*** 0.70***     (4) Utilization (EAI-24) -0.29*** -0.48*** -0.64***   (5) Spiritual Environmentalism 0.49*** 0.20*** 0.10*** -0.08* *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001     43 Who is Ecospiritual: Nature Club Membership & Religious Attendance Replicating previous effects, ecospirituality was not substantially correlated with demographic variables, with the exception of female gender (r = 0.17). To further probe the relationship with religiosity, we included two new variables: (1) a measure of religious attendance, and (2) a binary item that assessed whether participants identified specifically as \u201cspiritual but not religious\u201d. Although religious attendance correlated with the religiosity composite (self-reported religiosity, importance of God, and religious affiliation) at r = 0.64, it was a weaker predictor of the environmental attitudes assessed in the study, including ecospirituality (r = .09 versus the correlation of r = 0.21 found between ecospirituality and the religiosity composite). Replicating effects observed in Studies 1 and 2, the spiritual-but-not-religious binary item positively correlated with ecospirituality (r = 0.37) to a greater degree than with environmentalist identity (r = 0.14).  Of interest in the Canadian sample was the relationship between ecospirituality and affiliating with nature clubs. To test this, we compared ecospirituality scores from Canadian nature club members with Canadians who belonged to clubs not focused on nature or the outdoors (see Figure 4). Results revealed that nature club members scored higher on the Ecospirituality Scale than non-nature club members (MDifference = 0.28, [0.11, 0.45]). Follow up analyses showed nature club members scored higher on two of the three ecospirituality subscales: powerful experiences in nature (MDifference = 0.21, [0.06, 0.36]) and viewing nature as a spiritual resource (MDifference = 0.40, [0.18, 0.62]). These effects held controlling for political orientation, age, gender, and income; the addition of these covariates made the effect for the anthropomorphism subscale become significant (b = 0.33, [0.06, 0.61]). Nature club members    44 also tended to identify as environmentalists to a greater degree than non-nature club members (MDifference = 0.72, [0.49, 0.94]). Figure 4. Ecospirituality Scores for Members of Nature Clubs and Non-Nature Clubs (Canada; N=702).  *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001  Does Ecospirituality Matter: Unconditionally Voting for the Green Party & Policy Preference In both samples of the current study, we assessed the voting style of participants who indicated they would consider voting for the Green Party in the next general\/federal election (n = 860). Results indicated that political orientation did not predict voting style, instead, ecospirituality (Odds Ratio = 1.27) and environmentalist identity (Odds Ratio = 1.21) both uniquely predicted being an unconditional voter for the Green Party (see Table 9). A different pattern of results emerged when examining the predictors of considering voting for the Green    45 Party in the first place: political conservatism (Odds Ratio = 0.74) and environmentalist identity (Odds Ratio = 1.74) were both unique predictors, while ecospirituality was not. These findings suggest that ecospirituality predicts how people reason about environmental decisions, which are sometimes in the context of politics, but does not predict political preference, per se.  To further probe ecospirituality\u2019s relationship (or lack thereof) with political ideology, we assessed environmental policy preferences in both samples. The policy preference measures (population growth and environmental intervention policies) were subscales of the EAI-24 preservation factor, which was moderately positively correlated with ecospirituality. Despite the relationship with the higher-order preservation factor, we found that ecospirituality was not associated with preference for either environmental policy. In fact, there was a small suppression effect observed when introducing environmentalist identity as a covariate, such that the relationship between ecospirituality and environmental policy preferences became marginally negative (see Table 9).      46 Table 9. Predicting Concern for Nature Study 3 (Canada & United Kingdom; N=1263).   Unconditional Voting Style Support for Environmental Interventionist Policy Support for Population Growth Control Policy Predictors Odds Ratio 95% CI \u03b2 95% CI \u03b2 95% CI Ecospirituality 1.27 1.09,1.48 -0.09 -0.15,-0.03 -0.07 -0.13,-0.01 Environmentalist Identity 1.21 1.06,1.39 0.34 0.29,0.40 0.30 0.24,0.36 Conservatism 1.10 0.98,1.25 -0.12 -0.17,-0.06 -0.05 -0.11,0.00 Religiosity 0.90 0.76,1.08 -0.05 -0.10,0.01 -0.14 -0.19,-0.08 Age 1.02 1.01,1.03 0.07 0.01,0.12 0.16 0.11,0.21 Female Gender 0.98 0.72,1.32 0.04 -0.01,0.09 -0.02 -0.08,0.03 Household Income 1.02 0.92,1.13 0.07 0.02,0.12 -0.03 -0.09,0.02 Observations 860 1230  1230  R2 0.055 0.156  0.135  Replication of Trade-off Scenarios in Canadian Sample The moral trade-offs that varied by spatial distance were employed in Sample 1 (Canada; N = 702) and produced results largely in agreement with those found in Study 2. Replicating the findings from Study 2, both ecospirituality (Odds Ratio = 1.24) and environmentalist identity (Odds Ratio = 1.22) were found to be unique predictors of refusing to engage in nearby moral trade-off scenarios with controls. When asked if the industrial project featured in the moral trade-off was morally justifiable, ecospirituality (Odds Ratio = 0.75) but not environmentalist identity was found to be a unique predictor. When asked how much societal and personal good participants would be willing to sacrifice to cancel the industrial project, it was found that environmentalist identity (\u03b2 = 0.19) but not ecospirituality was found to be a unique predictor. Again, ecospirituality and environmentalist identity were both unique predictors of saying nature was sacred (Odds Ratios = 2.15 and 1.76, respectively). In agreement with Study 2, follow up    47 analyses suggested that having powerful experiences in nature most consistently drove the effect of ecospirituality on markers of treating nature as a sacred value. We also investigated the presence of spatial discounting of harm to nature in the present sample of Canadians. Again, there was no evidence of spatial discounting. Participants required roughly the same amount of societal benefits (MDifference = 0.53, [-2.78, 3.85]) and personal benefits (MDifference = -1.10, [-4.06, 1.85]) to endorse environmentally harmful industrial projects that were occurring nearby or in a distant location. Consistent with Study 2, there was a strong relationship between refusing to engage in trade-offs nearby and at a distance (Odds Ratio = 20.83). Accounting for this consistency bias, we ran a model predicting refusing to engage in faraway trade-offs. Whereas Study 2 showed ecospirituality, and not environmentalist identity, was a unique predictor, we found the opposite in this sample: environmentalist identity, but not ecospirituality, uniquely predicted refusing to engage in faraway moral trade-offs (Odds Ratio = 1.25). Although this study did not perfectly replicate the patterns observed in Study 2, similar inferences are able to be made from the results: Both ecospirituality and environmentalist identity\u2013although conceptually distinct\u2013predict treating nature as a sacred value.      48 Discussion Taken together, these findings demonstrate that our measure of ecospirituality captures a distinctly spiritual dimension of environmental concern. Although other attitudes have been found to predict moral concern for nature, ecospirituality possesses some attractive qualities: it is widely endorsed and minimally associated with political orientation. Our findings suggest that ecospirituality best predicts how people reason about the natural environment, treating it as a sacred value instead of an instrumental good. This reasoning style is especially pertinent to the current ecological crisis, which often requires individuals to make sacrifices in the here-and-now to secure the long-term protection of nature.  These studies establish ecospirituality as an important construct in environmental psychology and provide a multi-factor, face valid measure of ecospirituality suitable for research. Psychological research has tended to focus on the relationship between formal religion and environmental concern (see Taylor et al., 2016 for a review on the \u201cgreening-of-religion hypothesis\u201d). This research addresses important questions like, what aspects of religious belief are associated with environmental attitudes. However, spirituality and religiosity are distinct constructs; people still report being spiritual independent of their affiliation with a traditional religious structure. The present research demonstrates that ecospiritual beliefs are not necessarily attached to religious identity, on the contrary, they tend to be endorsed by the spiritual-but-not-religious (Fuller, 2001; Saucier & Skrzypi\u0144ska, 2006; Willard & Norenzayan, 2017). We hope that the present research will promote the study of the role spirituality plays in environmental concern and decision-making.     49 Implications for Promoting Environmentalism Concern about the sustainability of current business and lifestyle practices has motivated great efforts to curb environmentally harmful behaviours. These efforts are often based on the premise of the rational actor who seeks to maximize benefits and minimize costs to herself. Protecting nature has benefits; ecosystem services sustain us and ensure the continued survival of future generations. Protecting nature also has its costs; people must make sacrifices in their level of consumption and give up some of the luxuries\u2013extensive recreational air travel, for example\u2013associated with it. Rational actors must calculate, for each decision, if the benefits of sustainability outweigh the costs. This is made more complicated by the fact that many benefits of destroying nature are realized much sooner than the costs, which tend to decrease in motivational value the further away from the self they occur (Markowitz & Shariff, 2012; Trope & Liberman, 2010). To combat this, efforts aimed at motivating sustainable behaviour attempt to sway the scale of costs and benefits to favour protecting nature. There are many ways to do this, which have found varying levels of success. One solution is to increase the benefits associated with protecting nature (e.g., tax credits for electric vehicles). Another solution is to impose costs on harming nature (e.g., energy overage charges). These kinds of interventions are valuable and should continue to be developed and implemented; however, the present research suggests alternative solutions may also be effective. Consistent with the sacred values literature, our findings suggest that some people, under some conditions, are willing to protect nature regardless of the material costs and benefits (at least in a hypothetical context). It may prove    50 useful, with more applied research, to implement interventions that promote viewing nature as sacred. Our findings suggest that ecospirituality and environmentalist identity represent two distinct and complementary pathways to treating nature as a sacred value. But these two pathways differ in important ways relevant to their use in media and educational intervention. Promoting ecospirituality does not require manipulating one\u2019s identity. While manipulating identity is possible and effective in motivating commitment to a set of values (religions, armies, corporations, and fraternities all invest in building a strong group identity), there are ethical considerations that complicate the matter. These ethical considerations do not plague the promotion of ecospirituality. Furthermore, the identity \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d may conflict with other group identities held by individuals, lowering the efficacy of a potential intervention\u2013and increasing the probability of backfire effects\u2013in specific populations. One such population is (American) political conservatives.  Conservatives tend to be less pro-environmental than liberals (Cruz, 2017). At the same time, individuals with a conservative political orientation tend not to identify with the label \u201cenvironmentalist\u201d and may actively distrust environmentalists (Huber, 2008). Appealing to people\u2019s environmentalist identity risks alienating the political cohort that the appeal intends to target. Ecospirituality does not suffer from the same hazards since conservatives seem to be as ecospiritual as liberals. One might imagine a 3x2 experiment investigating the relative efficacy of an ecospiritual versus environmentalist identity versus a control intervention on environmental concern for liberals versus conservatives. Such an experiment would help illuminate the practical    51 differences between ecospirituality and environmentalist identity and would inform the responsible and effective employment of these constructs in the sustainability initiative. Limitations Discounting Measure Research has demonstrated that people tend to discount benefits and costs that are distant to the self, and that discounting thwarts motivation to protect nature (B\u00f6hm & Pfister, 2005; Jacquet et al., 2013; Markowitz & Shariff, 2012; Mazutis & Eckardt, 2017; McDonald et al., 2015; Rickard et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017; Sparkman et al., 2021; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). Yet in our studies we did not consistently find evidence for temporal or spatial discounting harm to nature\u2013why? The likely answer is that our manipulation and\/or measure of discounting was limited in some critical way. We employed a within-subjects design that manipulated the distance to the self that potential harm to nature would occur and assessed using a slider how much personal and societal benefit would have to be gained in order to endorse this harm to nature. This design was replicated in three different well-powered samples (Study 2: Samples 1 & 2, and Study 3: Sample 1), providing a clear indication of its efficacy and effect size (or lack thereof). In all but one mean difference test (Study 2: Sample 1 - personal incentive) there was no difference in the incentive required to endorse harm to nature occurring close versus distant to the self. This suggests to us two possibilities: (1) the manipulation was not powerful enough to elicit a sense of closeness versus distance to the self, and\/or (2) the measures were not appropriate or not sensitive enough to capture the discounting effect. We will briefly unpack these possibilities in turn.    52 The manipulation may have failed for two reasons. First, administering the manipulation within-subjects may have motivated a consistency bias in participants. Participants may have been compelled to respond to both trade-off scenarios similarly for social desirability reasons, leading to less variance within participant responses. Follow up analyses suggest this is not the case. Since trade-off scenarios were administered randomly such that some participants responded to close scenarios first while others responded to distant scenarios first, we were able to compare responses to close versus distant trade-offs between-subjects. Within each sample, and even across all three samples combined to achieve greater power, no discounting effects were detected using between-subjects analyses, ruling out the consistency bias explanation. A second reason why the manipulation might have failed may be because the costs associated with the scenario were framed in terms of harm to nature, rather than harm to humans. B\u00f6hm & Pfister (2005) found that perceptions of risks associated with coastal erosion or oceanic oil pollution only decreased with temporal distance (1 - 10 years) when the risks concerned harm to humans, not harm to nature. It may also have been the case that the measures employed were flawed, such that a discounting effect\u2013if produced by the manipulation\u2013could not have been detected. Our measure of discounting assessed how great an incentive, in percentage values, was required to personally endorse potential harm to nature. The measure may have been flawed in two ways: (1) it assessed an ethical evaluation rather than a consequentialist evaluation, and (2) it did not measure responses on a concrete rating scale. Personal endorsement is essentially an ethical evaluation\u2013what must I receive in order to speak in favour of something I do not believe in? This is especially the case because most participants morally objected to the industrial projects    53 featured in the trade-off scenarios (more than 70% stated that the industrial project was not morally justifiable). In line with the literature on sacred values, B\u00f6hm & Pfister (2005) found that ethical evaluations of environmental harm did not vary across temporal distance. Employing a consequentialist evaluation of the industrial project, like an assessment of environmental risk associated with the project, may have been better suited to capture a discounting effect. It may also have been the case that using percentage values rather than concrete dollar values also affected the results. Percentage values are more abstract than dollar values, requiring participants to convert values from the former to the latter. This cognitive load may have increased the likelihood of selecting imprecise values, decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the measure. Ecospirituality Scale  The measure for ecospirituality designed and employed in the present research is necessarily limited. The scale items were derived via an informal top-down method, where we freely generated items based on readings of nature spirituality from a variety of sources. This methodology makes the scale items susceptible to a number of flaws. For instance, we may not have consulted a representative set of sources, potentially introducing a conceptual bias into the set of items (e.g., a eurocentric bias). Furthermore, even if the items are conceptually accurate, they may be articulated in ways that do not mimic how ecospiritual people think or speak about their beliefs. Future research may address these limitations in two ways. First, by introducing a bottom-up scale construction method, where free responses from ecospiritual people or a representative set of ecospiritual texts are content analyzed. And second, by employing the Ecospirituality Scale across countries that vary by religious and cultural background. Together,    54 these methods would better ensure that ecospirituality is being accurately and comprehensively captured by our measurement tools. Future Directions There are many opportunities for future research on ecospirituality from a psychological perspective. Earlier discussion noted the value of future research that investigates the potential for ecospirituality to promote pro-environmental attitudes in conservatives, as well as the need to investigate ecospirituality across cultures and using qualitative methods. In addition to these directions, future research should also investigate the potential negative effects of ecospirituality. Research on sacred values suggests that many of the properties of sacred values may backfire and produce harmful consequences in certain contexts (Baron & Spranca, 1997; Sacchi et al., 2014; Sachdeva, 2017; Tetlock et al., 2000).  For example, Sachdeva (2017) found that sacred beliefs about the Ganges river predicted a lower perception of pollution in the river because of participants' belief that the Ganges is self-purifying. Future research may investigate if these findings are particular to the cultural and religious conceptions of the Ganges river, or if they are diagnostic of the broader psychology of purity. Sacred values may also backfire in political decision-making contexts because people may not even consider solutions that compromise on the sacred. In order to promote sustainable practices, pro-environmentalists must be willing to negotiate and find compromises with others who do not share their values (see popular press article by Roberts, 2018 for examples). Future research that clarifies the conditions under which sacred, spiritual, and purity beliefs about nature help and hinder environmental preservation is likely to be of applied value.    55 Conclusion Ecospirituality describes beliefs or behaviours that represent nature (or humanity\u2019s relationship with nature) as possessing spiritual significance. This concept is widespread across cultures and its expression is typified by a set of common themes including anthropomorphizing nature, having powerful experiences in nature, and viewing nature as a spiritual resource. The current research demonstrates that ecospirituality represents a conceptually and empirically unique pathway to moral concern for nature. Our findings suggest that ecospirituality predicts reasoning about environmental decisions as if nature was a sacred value, which is expressed in how people evaluate industrial projects that pose risks to nature and in their political voting style. Ecospirituality is distinct from other previously researched constructs that also predict concern for nature because it captures a spiritual dimension of environmental concern absent from other constructs and is only minimally correlated with political orientation. Ecospirituality is a novel topic in psychology and is important in explaining why some people are willing to make the sacrifices often required to live a more sustainable lifestyle.            56 References Aldrich, J., Blais, A., & Stevenson, L. B. (2018). Many Faces of Strategic Voting: Tactical Behavior in Electoral Systems Around the World. University of Michigan Press. Arbesmann, R. (1951). Fasting and Prophecy in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Traditio, 7, 1\u201371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0362152900015117 Atran, S. (2016). The Devoted Actor: Unconditional Commitment and Intractable Conflict across Cultures. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S192\u2013S203. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/685495 Atran, S. (2021). Psychology of Transnational Terrorism and Extreme Political Conflict. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 471\u2013501. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev-psych-010419-050800 Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict. Science, 336(6083), 855\u2013857. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.1216902 Baker, T. B., & Macdonald, L. (2004). Investing in Nature The Economic Benefits of Conserving Natural Areas in Northeast Florida. www.defenders.org. https:\/\/defenders.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/investing_in_nature.pdf.  Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1\u201316. Blumensohn, J. (1933). The Fast Among North American Indians. American Anthropologist, 35(3), 451\u2013469. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1525\/aa.1933.35.3.02a00050 B\u00f6hm, G., & Pfister, H. (2005). Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), 461\u2013479. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13669870500064143    57 Booth, A. L. (1999). Does the Spirit Move You? Environmental Spirituality. Environmental Values, 8(1), 89\u2013105. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3197\/096327199129341734 Bradbury, R. B., Butchart, S. H. M., Fisher, B., Hughes, F. M. R., Ingwall-King, L., MacDonald, M. A., Merriman, J. C., Peh, K. S.-H., Pellier, A.-S., Thomas, D. H. L., Trevelyan, R., & Balmford, A. (2021). The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature. Nature Sustainability. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41893-021-00692-9 Brick, C., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). \u201cGreen to be seen\u201d and \u201cbrown to keep down\u201d: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226\u2013238. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2017.04.004 Brown, J. E. (2012). The sacred pipe: Black Elk\u2019s account of the seven rites of the Oglala Sioux (Vol. 36). University of Oklahoma Press. Burke, E. (1958). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Columbia University Press. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412\u20131427. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/pas0000626 Cohen, E. (1976). Environmental Orientations: A Multidimensional Approach to Social Ecology. Current Anthropology, 17(1), 49\u201370. Costanza, R., d\u2019Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O\u2019neill, R. V., & Paruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world\u2019s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253\u2013260. Crimston, D., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., & Bastian, B. (2016). Moral expansiveness:    58 Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636\u2013653. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/pspp0000086 Crockford, S. (2017). After the American dream: The political economy of spirituality in Northern Arizona, USA. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Cruz, S. M. (2017). The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 81\u201391. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2017.06.010 Delaney, C. (2005). The Spirituality Scale: Development and Psychometric Testing of a Holistic Instrument to Assess the Human Spiritual Dimension. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 23(2), 145\u2013167. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0898010105276180 Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425\u2013442. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/0022-4537.00176 Dunlap, T. R. (1988). Sport Hunting and Conservation 1880-1920. Environmental History Review, 12(1), 51\u201360. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/3984377 Durkheim, E. (1995). Elementary forms of the religious life: Newly translated by Karen E. Fields. Simon and Schuster. Emerson, R. W. (2015). Nature (1836). Harvard University Press. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058. Ferguson, T. W., & Tamburello, J. A. (2015). The Natural Environment as a Spiritual Resource:    59 A Theory of Regional Variation in Religious Adherence. Sociology of Religion, 76(3), 295\u2013314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/socrel\/srv029 Fuller, R. C. (2001). Spiritual, but not religious: Understanding unchurched America. Oxford University Press. Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. (pp. 11\u201331). American Psychological Association. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/13091-001 Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101\u2013124. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1047840X.2012.651387 Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. Oxford University Press. Heidegger, M. (1954). The question concerning technology. Technology and Values: Essential Readings, 99, 113. Heintzman, P. (2009). Nature-Based Recreation and Spirituality: A Complex Relationship. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 72\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01490400903430897 Hendricks, P. S. (2018). Awe: A putative mechanism underlying the effects of classic psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. International Review of Psychiatry, 30(4), 331\u2013342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09540261.2018.1474185 Henrich, J. (2020). The weirdest people in the world: How the west became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Huber, P. W. (2008). Hard green: Saving the environment from the environmentalists: A conservative manifesto. Basic Books.    60 Hubert, J. (1994). Sacred beliefs and beliefs of sacredness. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, 18. Jacquet, J., Hagel, K., Hauert, C., Marotzke, J., R\u00f6hl, T., & Milinski, M. (2013). Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nature Climate Change, 3(12), 1025\u20131028. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/nclimate2024 James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience (Vol. 15). Harvard University Press. Kashima, Y., Paladino, A., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64\u201375. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2013.12.014 Kaufman, A. H., & Mock, J. (2014). Cultivating Greater Well-being: The Benefits Thai Organic Farmers Experience from Adopting Buddhist Eco-spirituality. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(6), 871\u2013893. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10806-014-9500-4 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297\u2013314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02699930302297 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183962. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0183962 Kristensen, W. B. (1960). The Meaning of Religion. Springer Netherlands. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-94-017-6580-0 Lovelock, J. (2000). Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford University Press. Malhotra, K. C., Gokhale, Y., Chatterjee, S., & Srivastava, S. (2001). Cultural and ecological dimensions of sacred groves in India. INSA, New Delhi. Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature    61 Climate Change, 2(4), 243\u2013247. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/nclimate1378 Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals\u2019 feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503\u2013515. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 Mazutis, D., & Eckardt, A. (2017). Sleepwalking into Catastrophe: Cognitive Biases and Corporate Climate Change Inertia. California Management Review, 59(3), 74\u2013108. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0008125617707974 McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the \u2018psychological distance\u2019 of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 109\u2013118. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 Milfont, T. L., Bain, P. G., Kashima, Y., Corral-Verdugo, V., Pasquali, C., Johansson, L.-O., Guan, Y., Gouveia, V. V., Gar\u00f0arsd\u00f3ttir, R. B., Doron, G., Bilewicz, M., Utsugi, A., Aragones, J. I., Steg, L., Soland, M., Park, J., Otto, S., Demarque, C., Wagner, C., \u2026 Einarsd\u00f3ttir, G. (2017). On the Relation Between Social Dominance Orientation and Environmentalism: A 25-Nation Study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 802\u2013814. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1948550617722832 Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80\u201394. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2009.09.001 Milfont, T. L., Richter, I., Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Fischer, R. (2013). Environmental Consequences of the Desire to Dominate and Be Superior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1127\u20131138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0146167213490805    62 Muir, J. (2010). The Yosemite. Modern Library. Murakami, H. (2006). Kafka on the Shore. Vintage. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals\u2019 Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715\u2013740. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0013916508318748 Norenzayan, A. (2013). Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton University Press. Ojalehto, B. L., Medin, D. L., & Garc\u00eda, S. G. (2017). Conceptualizing agency: Folkpsychological and folkcommunicative perspectives on plants. Cognition, 162, 103\u2013123. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.cognition.2017.01.023 Pierotti, R. (2010). Indigenous knowledge, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Routledge. Preston, J. L., & Baimel, A. (2021). Towards a psychology of religion and the environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 145\u2013149. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.copsyc.2020.09.013 Rican, P., & Janosova, P. (2010). Spirituality as a Basic Aspect of Personality: A Cross-Cultural Verification of Piedmont\u2019s Model. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20(1), 2\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10508610903418053 Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/209304 Rickard, L. N., Yang, Z. J., & Schuldt, J. P. (2016). Here and now, there and then: How \u201cdeparture dates\u201d influence climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change,    63 38, 97\u2013107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.003 Roberts, D. (2018). Reckoning with climate change will demand ugly tradeoffs from environmentalists\u2014And everyone else\u2014Vox. Vox, 18. Sacchi, S., Riva, P., Brambilla, M., & Grasso, M. (2014). Moral reasoning and climate change mitigation: The deontological reaction toward the market-based approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 252\u2013261. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2014.03.001 Sachdeva, S. (2017). The Influence of Sacred Beliefs in Environmental Risk Perception and Attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 49(5), 583\u2013600. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0013916516649413 Saucier, G., & Skrzypi\u0144ska, K. (2006). Spiritual But Not Religious? Evidence for Two Independent Dispositions. Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1257\u20131292. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1467-6494.2006.00409.x Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327\u2013339. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61\u201378). Springer. Sheikh, H., Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2013). Sacred values in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Resistance to social influence, temporal discounting, and exit strategies: Sacred values in intergroup conflict. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1299(1), 11\u201324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/nyas.12275 Sheikh, H., G\u00f3mez, \u00c1., & Atran, S. (2016). Empirical Evidence for the Devoted Actor Model. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S204\u2013S209. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/686221    64 Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 93\u201399. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsci.2017.04.011 Sparkman, G., Lee, N. R., & Macdonald, B. N. J. (2021). Discounting environmental Policy:The effects of psychological distance over time and space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101529. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2020.101529 Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656\u2013667. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 St John, D., & MacDonald, D. A. (2007). Development and initial validation of a measure of ecopsychological self. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 39(1). Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 18. Suganthi, L. (2019). Ecospirituality: A Scale to Measure an Individual\u2019s Reverential Respect for the Environment. Ecopsychology, 11(2), 110\u2013122. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/eco.2018.0065 Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., G\u00f3mez, \u00c1., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441\u2013456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0028589 Tam, K.-P. (2019). Anthropomorphism of Nature, Environmental Guilt, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Sustainability, 11(19), 5430. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/su11195430 Taylor, B. (2007). Surfing into Spirituality and a New, Aquatic Nature Religion. Journal of the    65 American Academy of Religion, 75(4), 923\u2013951. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jaarel\/lfm067 Taylor, B. (2009). Dark green religion. University of California Press. Taylor, B., Van Wieren, G., & Zaleha, B. D. (2016). Lynn White Jr. and the greening-of-religion hypothesis: Lynn White Jr. and the Greening-of-Religion. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 1000\u20131009. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/cobi.12735 Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320\u2013324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1364-6613(03)00135-9 Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853\u2013870. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.78.5.853 Thoreau, H. D. (1981). Walden and other writings. Bantam Classics. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440\u2013463. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0018963 Valencia Caicedo, F. (2019). The mission: Human capital transmission, economic persistence, and culture in South America. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(1), 507\u2013556. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219\u2013232. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691610369336 White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203\u20131207. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.155.3767.1203 Whitmarsh, L., & O\u2019Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental    66 self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305\u2013314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvp.2010.01.003 Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2017). \u201cSpiritual but not religious\u201d: Cognition, schizotypy, and conversion in alternative beliefs. Cognition, 165, 137\u2013146. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.cognition.2017.05.018  ","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","classmap":"oc:AnnotationContainer"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","explain":"Simple Knowledge Organisation System; Notes are used to provide information relating to SKOS concepts. There is no restriction on the nature of this information, e.g., it could be plain text, hypertext, or an image; it could be a definition, information about the scope of a concept, editorial information, or any other type of information."}],"Genre":[{"label":"Genre","value":"Thesis\/Dissertation","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"edm:hasType"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; This property relates a resource with the concepts it belongs to in a suitable type system such as MIME or any thesaurus that captures categories of objects in a given field. It does NOT capture aboutness"}],"GraduationDate":[{"label":"Graduation Date","value":"2021-11","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","classmap":"vivo:DateTimeValue","property":"vivo:dateIssued"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; Date Optional Time Value, DateTime+Timezone Preferred "}],"IsShownAt":[{"label":"DOI","value":"10.14288\/1.0401809","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"edm:isShownAt"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; An unambiguous URL reference to the digital object on the provider\u2019s website in its full information context."}],"Language":[{"label":"Language","value":"eng","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:language"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A language of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as RFC 4646 [RFC4646]."}],"Program":[{"label":"Program (Theses)","value":"Psychology","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeDiscipline"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the program for which the degree was granted."}],"Provider":[{"label":"Provider","value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:provider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who delivers data directly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Publisher":[{"label":"Publisher","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:publisher"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making the resource available.; Examples of a Publisher include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Rights":[{"label":"Rights","value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","attrs":{"lang":"*","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:rights"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Information about rights held in and over the resource.; Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights."}],"RightsURI":[{"label":"Rights URI","value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","attrs":{"lang":"*","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:rightsURI"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the Creative Commons license url."}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"label":"Scholarly Level","value":"Graduate","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:scholarLevel"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the scholarly level of the author(s)\/creator(s)."}],"Supervisor":[{"label":"Supervisor","value":"Norenzayan, Ara, 1970-","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","classmap":"vivo:AdvisingRelationship","property":"dcterms:contributor"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Title":[{"label":"Title ","value":"Ecospirituality : content, correlates and moral concern for nature","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:title"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The name given to the resource."}],"Type":[{"label":"Type","value":"Text","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:type"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The nature or genre of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]. To describe the file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource, use the Format element."}],"URI":[{"label":"URI","value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/79542","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:identifierURI"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the handle for item record."}],"SortDate":[{"label":"Sort Date","value":"2021-12-31 AD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","classmap":"oc:InternalResource","property":"dcterms:date"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]."}]}