Children express biocentric perspectives despite little exposure to animals in natural areasThe purpose of this study was to determine the type of reasoning (e.g. anthropocentric, biocentric, ecocentric) employed by urban children between the ages of 8 and 10 when confronted with ecological dilemmas in the classroom. The secondary purpose of the study was to investigate how the extent and nature of prior experiences with wildlife contributed to the type of reasoning employed by this population.
A pilot tested 7-item questionnaire was used to measure the nature of the child’s prior experience with animals, their preferences regarding those experiences, and their opinion regarding a series of simplified ecological dilemmas. Children (n = 91) were recruited via a convenience sampling method and responded to the seven items in a classroom setting. Questions were read aloud by the researcher, and the children were given a restricted amount of time to respond by selecting from a list of response options. Responses were coded as either anthropocentric, i.e., human centered; biocentric; i.e., inclusive of all living entities, not just humans; or ecocentric, i.e., cognizant of all living entities and the relationships between them.
Results indicated that children expressed biocentric attitudes despite having minimal contact with animals in natural or wild settings. However, when compared to a similar prior study it appeared that the type of question asked and the type of animal discussed in the dilemma may have influenced the reasoning strategies used. For example, a child was more likely to employ biocentric reasoning to protect a seal (harmless, cute) than a shark (scary), suggesting that empathy may have impacted reasoning. Questionnaire response options and the instrument’s psychometric properties were excluded from the methods section.
Recommendations for increased youth exposure to natural outdoor environments, more frequent discussions of authenticity in simulated environments (e.g., zoo), diversification and elaboration of classroom topics (e.g., roles of species), and more robust discussion of the needs of various animal groups (e.g. pet, domestic, wild) are made.
The Bottom Line