Access to this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from International Journal of Qualitative Methods
This content is subject to copyright.
Regular Article
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume 20: 1–16
© The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/16094069211037492
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Using a Deductive Approach to Develop a
Picture Elicitation Technique to Explore
the Human-Nature Nexus
Andrea Marais-Potgieter
1
and Andrew Thatcher
1
Abstract
The field of ecopsychology focuses on the affective relationship between individuals and nature that is based on the premise that
what individuals love and care for, they will protect. There is however a methodological gap within the field of ecopsychology
that relates to the qualitative exploration of the human-nature nexus. Elicitation techniques are a popular method used for
exploring subconscious processes or to engage participants in a subject that might seem abstract such as affect towards nature.
Currently, there exists no methodological guideline on how to develop a picture elicitation technique to explore the human-
nature nexus and there is no technique to assist with this exploration. This article describes the methodology used to develop
the Nature Nexus Elicitation Technique to enable the tacit exploration of the affective relationship that individuals have with
nature. Six phases of the elicitation technique development are explained. The phases included a Systematic Literature Review,
parallel study conducted online (N= 43), emergent category validation, technique visual development, feasibility testing (N= 5),
and technique use (N= 44). The results show the technique development processes as well as the output which is a range of
cards that cover human-nature expressions that include intimacy, empathy, engagement, ambivalence, apathy, and alienation.
Keywords
photo elicitation, mixed methods, secondary data analysis, qualitative evaluation, grounded theory
Introduction
Visual research methods (VRMs) are psychologically con-
structed procedures that use a visual representation in order to
unearth the depth of a specific phenomenon contained within
the psyche. Elicitation methods have been used in psychology
following the work that Freud conducted on paranoia in 1911.
Since then, the development of elicitation methods has notably
included the Rorschach Ink Blot Test and the Thematic Ap-
perception Test (Boddy, 2005;Donoghue, 2000). An elici-
tation technique is defined as a set of visual triggers that use an
indirect approach to elicit responses from participants that
potentially have an unconscious source (Will et al., 1996). An
elicitation technique aims to access unfiltered perceptions and
feelings by projecting it onto images which enables the re-
searcher to explore hidden meanings not accessed in everyday
life (Donoghue, 2000;Porr et al., 2011). Elicitation is seen to
provide different insights compared to interviews that use the
spoken word alone (Pless & Katznelson, 2020;Roger &
Blomgren, 2019). There are different types of visual elicita-
tion techniques: association (picture impressions), completion
(picture completions and mind mapping), expression (draw-
ing) and collection (collect pictures and comment) techniques
(Comi et al., 2014).
Individuals increasingly have difficulties in expressing
their feelings about nature due to the growing disconnect from
nature in society. The disconnectedness from nature is due to
aspects such as westernisation/economic development
(Lovelock, 2006;Pope, 2011;Roszak, 1992;Shepard, 1982),
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE
and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
1
Department of Psychology, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa
Corresponding Author:
Andrea Marais-Potgieter, Department of Psychology, School of Human and
Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts
Ave, Johannesburg-Braamfontein 2000, South Africa.
Email: andrea@plunge.co.za
repression (Adams, 2005;Yunt, 2001), dissociation (Swim
et al., 2009), sensory deprivation (Kaza, 1993), religion
(Gifford & Nilsson, 2014;Pike et al., 2008), individualism
(Frantz et al., 2005), psychological distance from the climate
crisis (McKinnon, 2009) and colonisation (Salih & Corry,
2020). There is a need for a VRM elicitation technique when
studying the human-nature nexus in order to make it easier for
researchers to access information and feelings related to nature
that might be hidden in the depth of the psyche within the
unconscious.
Elicitation Techniques
A psychologically constructed elicitation technique has the
main benefit of using a visual representation in order to un-
earth the depth contained inside the psyche and help indi-
viduals make sense of complex or abstract ideas where words
alone cannot express or explain the phenomenon (Copeland &
Agosto, 2012). Other benefits are the ability of these tech-
niques to explore hidden attitudes and feelings (Donoghue,
2000), allows for multiple interpretations (Basu, 2014), en-
courages participants to express their experiences, allows for
emotional engagement (Comi et al., 2014), reduces social
desirability, increases cognitive access (overcomes bounded
rationality) (Bond & Ramsey, 2010), is less intrusive for
participants in that they are under less pressure compared to
direct questioning (Will et al., 1996), interviews tend to be
richer (Meo, 2010), it allows for the expression of values,
provides access to sensitive topics (Donoghue, 2000), pro-
vides an organising framework for data analysis (Comi et al.,
2014), and has the ability to activate memory recall
(Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009).
Although there are benefits to using elicitation techniques,
they are said to have questionable psychometric properties
(Lilienfeld et al., 2000). To address this issue, Comi et al.
(2014) maintain that the data collected from elicitation
techniques are complex and should be integrated with in-
formation gained from an interview in order to ensure accurate
interpretations. Therefore, the interpretation of elicitation
techniques can be seen as subjective, and therefore it needs to
be combined with participant commentary to understand the
meaning for the participants and to reduce misinterpretation
by the researcher (Copeland & Agosto, 2012), which in turn
increases validity.
Another shortcoming is limited methodological informa-
tion on how to develop a visual elicitation technique. Westphal
(2007) described developing a clinical projective test aimed to
assess experience of attachment in middle childhood. The
process started with pencil drawings inspired by scenes from
children’s books and then trialled for their appropriateness and
effectiveness. The data were used to build a coding framework
grounded in theory, and then the pictures were amended based
on their ability to elicit internal representations. Thereafter, the
technique was piloted with a non-clinical and clinical sample
(Westphal, 2007). Porr et al. (2011) developed an elicitation
technique in four phases to facilitate the design of a logo. Their
phases consisted of emotional exploration by open-ended
questions with embedded images, a sentence completion
task, development of themed visuals around the emergent
information and finally collation of all the information into the
construction of symbolic visuals from which a logo emerged.
Other studies generally demonstrate the use, rather than the
development of elicitation techniques, such as graphic elici-
tation (Copeland & Agosto, 2012), participant-directed photo
elicitation (Pless & Katznelson, 2020 and participatory visual
approaches (Roger & Blomgren, 2019).
Understanding People’s Connection to Nature
The affective relationship that individuals have with the
natural world is varied (Baillie, 2003;Hinds & Sparks, 2009)
and critical in shaping beliefs, values and attitudes towards the
environment and impacts behaviour (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002;Ojala, 2012). Although there are studies that explore
one’s connection to nature (Capaldi et al., 2014;Clayton et al.,
2013) and quantitative measurements (Frantz et al., 2005;
Perkins, 2010), one existing gap is the in-depth exploration of
nuanced differences in ‘connection to nature’that surpasses
concepts linked to attitudes and behaviour. Current cognitive
and affective quantitative measures include commitment to the
environment (Davis et al., 2009), connectedness to nature
(Mayer & Frantz, 2004), emotional affinity toward nature
(Kals et al., 1999), environmental identity (Clayton et al.,
2013) and inclusion of nature in self (Wesley Schultz, 2001).
Some researchers have identified different types of relation-
ships, but they are reductionistic and attitudinal, structured
around prioritising self versus others versus nature
(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001;Liu & Lin, 2014;Wesley
Schultz & Zelezny, 1999). There is a need for a qualitative
elicitation technique that could be used to understand the
deeper affective processes involved in different types of re-
lationships individuals have with nature.
Research Aims
To address the dearth of methodological information re-
garding the development of a visual elicitation technique to
explore the human-nature nexus, the aim of this article is to
demonstrate the process of technique development using
deduction, followed by its application. The next section will
describe the methods used during the six phases of the elic-
itation technique development: Systematic Literature Review
(SLR), parallel qualitative online study (N= 43), emergent
category validation, technique visual development, feasibility
testing (N= 5) and technique use (N= 44).
Method
Ethical clearance (number H15/11/15) was granted uncon-
ditionally by the University’s Human Research Ethics
2International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Committee (non-medical). A concurrent triangulation method
was used as it allows the researcher to validate the findings
generated by each phase through using evidence produced by
one phase to inform the next phase. Figure 1 shows the an-
alytical framework used for the six phases of the study.
The research process started by conducting the first two
phases (SLR and a qualitative study) in parallel. The SLR
identified six categories, namely, intimacy, empathy, en-
gagement, ambivalence, apathy and alienation. At the same
time a qualitative study was conducted online with 43 par-
ticipants that gathered initial participant data to compare and
validate the emerging SLR categories, as well as provide
textual and symbolic data to be used for visual card concept
design. The third phase included category confirmation, re-
duction, or expansion and identification of visual represen-
tation for each category. Based on these findings, phase four
included the development of 14 pictures through numerous
iterations. A new set of pictures was developed (rather than
using existing ones) in order to ensure no copyright in-
fringement and that they each had the same expression, style
and colour scheme to avoid participants choosing a picture
that might be clearer or printed brighter. In this way, each
elicitation picture had the same chance of being chosen by the
participant. Phase five consisted of a quantitative feasibility
survey that included open-ended questions amongst five en-
vironmentally oriented psychologists/practitioners in order to
test the ability of each picture to be descriptive, usable, un-
derstandable and able to elicit relevant affect. Based on their
feedback, 10 pictures were confirmed, two were amended, two
were deleted and two new replacement cards developed. Phase
six consisted of using the final set of pictures during 44
qualitative interviews that explored individual’s relationship
with nature in order to test the enabling ability of the
technique.
Phase 1: Create Categories and Themes using a SLR
A systematic literature review was used to find relevant lit-
erature in a transparent, unbiased and rigorous manner (Ropret
Homar & Kneˇ
zevi´
c Cvelbar, 2021) to create categories. The
scope of the review was to understand the human-nature nexus
from an affective, cognitive and intrinsic perspective. A five-
stage grounded theory SLR method (define, search, select,
analyse and present) proposed by Wolfswinkel et al. (2013)
was used as a guide since it is inductive, allows salient
concepts to emerge from the literature, insights can be taken to
the next level of research and is at an overall level concept-
centric. While using this specific grounded theory SLR
method, PRISMA guidelines were consulted (Fleming et al.,
2014;Liberati et al., 2009).
The first stage of this method included defining the criteria
for inclusion/exclusion, identifying the field of research, de-
termining appropriate sources and deciding specific search
terms. The criteria for inclusion/exclusion and field of research
remained relatively broad in order to allow for the emergence
of any information that could address the scope of the review.
Scopus has 1.4 billion cited references dating back to 1970 and
was used for this review (Vieira & Gomes, 2009). Possible
search terms were formulated through consulting theoretical
texts that deal with aspects of ecopsychology (Capra, 1996;
Flint et al., 2013;Herbert, 2014;Macy & Brown, 2014;
Martin, 2004;Puhakka, 2014;Simms, 2014;Swim et al.,
2009). The second stage dealt with searching and the third
stage with selecting texts. Search terms identified were
Figure 1. Summary of the overall deductive approach to develop the Nature Nexus Enabling Technique.
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 3
combined in instances where the search results were too large,
in order to increase the specificity of the results. Texts selected
had to relate to the boundaries of the scope of the study and
therefore explain the human-nature nexus from an affective,
cognitive or intrinsic perspective. Table 1 shows the search
terms used, results, exclusion and final papers selected.
Stage four dealt with the analysis of the corpus of papers.
The papers were analysed through differentiating, integrating,
partitioning and imagining the types of relationships with
nature being described or suggested both explicitly and im-
plicitly (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). Through a process of open,
axial and selective coding in Atlas.ti (Friese, 2016), categories
and sub-categories were identified that described the human-
nature nexus. Table 2 shows the categories and their associated
sub-categories that emerged from the grounded theory SLR
analysis process. Stage five (presentation of results) was not
relevant since the findings were taken to the next phase for the
technique development. The goal of identifying categories and
sub-categories was to allow for the categorisation of the
participant visual and textual data gathered in the next phase.
The categories that emerged were intimacy, empathy, en-
gagement, ambivalence, apathy and alienation.
During the SLR, an overlap emerged between the idea of
intimacy and empathy in relation to nature. They were often
described as integrated concepts because they contained
similar constructs in that to be intimate with nature, one could
assume that there was a degree of empathy present. However,
an intimate relationship with nature emerged more strongly as
containing interdependent and selfless qualities versus em-
pathy, which in comparison emerged as more dependent and
potentially non-altruistic. Herbert (2014, p. 30) described
the difference between empathy and intimacy as: ‘It is
easiest for us to recognize consciousness in the forms of life
with characteristics most familiar to us, but the reach of
intersubjectivity can extend far beyond our anthropocentric
perceptions of consciousness’. In transcendental phenome-
nological work, the idea of subjective self-awareness intimacy
is described as state of intersubjectivity and interdependence
where there is a lack of experienced boundary between the
person and nature (Herbert, 2014;Martin, 2004;Silvia, 2002).
Table 1. Literature Search and Selection.
Terms used Results
After
exclusion References
‘mother earth’AND ‘connection’;‘nature connection’AND
‘empathy’;‘deep ecology’AND ‘ecological self’;
‘connectedness to nature’;‘relationship to nature’;
‘emotional affinity’AND ‘nature’;‘structure of environ*’
AND ‘environ* attitudes’AND ‘environmental concern’;
‘alienation’AND ‘nature’;‘environmental concern’AND
‘anthropomorphism’
341 21 Baker (2013);Bragg (1996);Crimston et al. (2016);
Warner & Diaz (2020);Frantz et al., (2005);Hoffman
and Sandelands (2005);Hoggett (2020);Kals et al.
(1999);Kamitsis and Francis (2013);Lokhorst et al.
(2014);Lumber et al. (2017);Maguire et al. (2020);
Pointon (2014);Randall (2005);Wesley Schultz
(2001);Stone (2014);Tam (2013);Trigwell et al.
(2014);Vess et al. (2012); Warner & Yang et al.
(2018)
Table 2. Categories and Sub-Categories.
Categories Sub-categories Categories Sub-categories
Intimacy Interdependence
Commitment to nature
Nature as sacred and with spiritual value
Sense of oneness with nature
Emotional closeness
Ambivalence Binary antagonism
Fear
Denial
Repression
Splitting
Projecting
Empathy Anthropomorphism
Sympathy
Shared emotional experience
Conservation tendencies
Compassion
Moral expansion
Apathy Nature as out there
Individualistic
Moral awareness
Emotionally disconnected
Engagement Experience of nature based on recreation
Experience of nature based on theology
Sense of moral obligation
Non-altruistic concern
Control
Alienation Anthropocentric
Narcissistic
Entitlement
Objectification
4International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Intimacy with nature coincides with Wesley Schultz’s (2001)
self-expansion theory, ecological self (Bragg, 1996) and
Shamanic ideology which recognises that there is an inclusion
of nature in the self-concept and social identity (Winkelman,
2013) that shows commitment to nature. The category of
intimacy emerged under the condition that nature was sacred
and with spiritual value (Kamitsis & Francis, 2013;Martin,
2004;Trigwell et al., 2014) as can been seen in some In-
digenous cultures (Salmón, 2000). This aligns with Puhakka
(2014, p. 12) who described intimacy as ‘that mysterious,
delightful, at times dreadful interweaving of two that are of
one essence’and which elicits the awe emotion (Yang et al.,
2018). Included in this concept is that humans are part of an
intricate system and that there is a sense of oneness and
emotional closeness with nature, with embodied experience
that recognises the sentience in animals, plants, landscapes
and air (Herbert, 2014).
Dispositional Empathy with Nature is a tendency to un-
derstand and share an emotional experience with the natural
world (Tam, 2013) and can be characterised by moral ex-
pansion (Crimston et al., 2016). People with an empathic
relationship with nature are likely to show compassion to-
wards and possibly anthropomorphise nature and animals
(Lumber et al., 2017;Tam, 2013). Anthropomorphism has the
potential to influence conservation behaviour (Lokhorst et al.,
2014;Maguire et al., 2020;Tam, 2013) because it involves the
attribution of human characteristics, emotions or intentions to
nature and animals (Martin, 2004;Wesley Schultz, 2001).
This affinity towards nature can evoke feelings of guilt or
anger towards others that degrade the environment (Kals et al.,
1999). Empathy is not induced by self-other merging (as in the
case of intimacy) and rather is explained by perspective-taking
that is to say, to put yourself into the place of the other (Wesley
Schultz, 2001). Perspective-taking is associated with feelings
of compassion, tenderness and sympathy but could also be
described as non-altruistic in that being concerned about the
protection and survival of nature could at the same time in-
dicate concern about one’s own survival (Cialdini et al., 1997).
Martin’s (2004) category of travelling through nature
emerged in the category of recreational engagement that in-
cluded a degree of concern that was not necessarily empathic
nor altruistic, but a concern to protect nature for the benefitof
oneself and a sense of moral obligation. This relationship was
categorised by having an interest in nature that motivated
experiencing nature and gathering knowledge, but it was neither
intimate nor empathic (Kals et al., 1999). A second theoretically
emerging category was theological engagement that described
man and nature as separate creations of God and was en-
trenched in Cartesian dualism (Capra, 1996). Hoffman and
Sandelands (2005) created a concept called Theocentrism,
which is an environmental expression of religion that advocates
values such as humility, respect for God’s creation and re-
sponsibility. This type of relationship was categorised by
population growth encouragement and also to engage with
nature as a creation of God. One has to respect nature because it
is created by God and also one can connect with God through
experiencing nature. Religion may be negatively associated
with feelings of connectedness to nature (Vess et al., 2012).
Ambivalence emerged as a relationship with nature that
was inherently contradictory where humans were seen as from
nature, but at the same time superior and separate (Hoggett,
2020). Ambivalence was also expressed through binary an-
tagonism (Baker, 2013) which is that the earth is experienced
as generous yet vindictive. This relationship with nature was
expressed by the view that humans were both part of and yet
isolated from nature while perceiving the ‘otherness’of nature
(Pointon, 2014). In order to deal with the anxiety experienced
by this ambivalence humans split, deny, repress, project or
destruct. Splitting occurs when one thing that is known in a
part of the mind is unknown to the other, and later the splitting
progresses to a state where things that are connected are
experienced as disconnected (Randall, 2005). This category
was characterised by, for example, the denial of the rela-
tionships between consumerism and depletion of natural re-
sources. It could also be expressed when people attribute the
environmental problems as caused by somebody else or that
somebody else will solve the problem (Randall, 2005).
Apathy towards nature is where a person is conscious of
what is moral and right but lacks the empathy to adjust their
environmentally destructive behaviour (Puhakka, 2014). The
ego-centric view of self-enhancement could describe this
category in that people with this type of relationship to nature
did not define other people or other living things within their
boundary of self and therefore had less biospheric concerns
(Wesley Schultz, 2001). Therefore, there was disinterest,
abandonment or lack of concern as seen in their emotional
distance from nature (Simms, 2014). The idea of Nature
Deficit Disorder is one that overlaps with both apathy and
alienation (Louv, 2012). Individuals with an apathetic rela-
tionship with nature were likely to show behavioural intent,
only in instances where they would directly benefit from their
actions (Warner & Diaz, 2020).
Disconnection from nature at its most extreme could be
called alienation or isolation (Martin, 2004) characterised by
extreme dissociation (Swim et al., 2009), chronic distraction,
sensory shutdown and objectification of self and others
(Puhakka, 2014). This degree of disconnection was reflected
in anthropocentric ways of objectifying nature, spending most
of the time indoors and forming complex relationships with
man-made objects (Herbert, 2014). This lack of connection
was linked to narcissistic traits such as exploitativeness, en-
titlement and objective self-awareness (Frantz et al., 2005).
The self was experienced as autonomous with no emotion
towards nature (Silvia, 2002). The experience of the natural
world is likely to be alien as the person would be unable to
understand the consequences of his/her actions (Stone, 2014).
Following the SLR a qualitative study was conducted
online to validate the emerging categories and to explore
visual and textual expressions of the relationship that indi-
viduals have with nature.
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 5
Phase 2: Exploring the Human-Nature Nexus
In order to be able to test the validity of the emergent SLR
categories as well as gain an understanding of visual ex-
pressions for the cards, primary data were collected using an
online research tool (https://www.surveygizmo.com) to source
both textual and visual data. Participants were recruited pri-
marily using social media. As remuneration for time and
effort, participants who completed the questionnaire were
entered into a lucky draw, which formed part of a larger study.
Participants were asked to complete demographic ques-
tions and then upload one picture that represented ‘what they
think, believe, feel, and how they see nature’. This question
was positioned first to get a spontaneous visually represen-
tative idea of their relationship to nature. After uploading the
picture, participants were asked to describe in words their
thoughts, beliefs, visualisations and feelings that they asso-
ciated with nature in the picture they chose to upload.
In total, 43 responses were gathered of which 34 completed
both textual and visual responses, eight participants provided
only textual responses (included in analysis), and one partic-
ipant only provided a visual response (excluded from analysis).
25 participants were female and 18 were male. Most partici-
pants were from Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Pretoria (all
large metropolitan cities) and surrounding areas with the ma-
jority of participants (81.4%) indicating they were Christian.
Phase 3: Validate Categories
Phase 3 consisted of combined textual and visual content
analysis (Mayring, 2000) of the data gathered in phase 2 and
then matching it to the emergent categories from phase 1.
Deductive category application was applied by using the
derived categories and connecting them with the text and
visuals. All pictures and texts were analysed and assigned by
looking at the emergence of the most codes in a particular
category. Not all codes had to be present for a text and visual to
be allocated to a particular category.
Based on the analysis, there emerged two overarching di-
mensions that underpinned the categorisation. These were the
degree to which people were connected to nature and whether
they saw nature as being/subject or doing/object. These two
dimensions were used to develop a matrix on which to plot the
emerging visual themes. The matrix provided a visual analytical
tool to understand what the pictures and ideas had in common
and also assisted in collectively suggesting a unified idea for the
development of visual expressions for that category. Figure 2
shows the matrix (phase 3), grouping some of the pictures from
participants (phase 2) and categories (phase 1).
This analysis showed that the six emergent SLR categories
were confirmed and as suspected, the engagement category
produced two dimensions, namely, theological engagement
and recreational engagement. The qualitative study also
showed that each category can have a positive or a negative
expression that needed to be considered during the devel-
opment of the set of pictures.
Phase 4: Develop Set of Pictures
A set of pictures were then developed using creative inputs,
namely, the categories (phase 1), pictures and text that
emerged from the participant data (phase 2). The visual
groupings in the matrix confirmed that both positive and
negative aspects emerged for each category where associated
emotions, experiences or relationships needed to be consid-
ered. As such, the card categories were developed to have both
a positive and negative expression to provide the participants
with more options for self-expression relating to their rela-
tionship with nature.
An independent artist was commissioned to artistically
design the set of elicitation pictures using the categories and
sub-categories, matrix, and participant visual and textual data
as a guideline. The artist was briefed to design two pictures per
category with one picture representing a positive expression of
the category and one picture representing a negative ex-
pression of the category. Unlike the other categories, en-
gagement had two sub-sections (recreational and theological
engagement) that had to be briefed as two separate categories
for card development because the underlying components
emerged as distinct. The artist provided the primary researcher
with artistic impressions which were evaluated across four
iterations and amended based on (1) their ability to express the
categories in a manner that incorporated aspects of the par-
ticipant data; (2) their ability to be interpreted in different
ways; (3) being creative and distinctive and (4) ability to elicit
a meaningful affective response.
After the iterations and cross-checking creative outputs
with categories and participant data, 14 cards were finalised
for the next phase of the research.
Phase 5: Test Feasibility of Picture Set
Following the development of the pictures, an additional
survey with professionals (N= 5) in South Africa, Italy and
Uruguay (psychologists working in environmental and
ecopsychology) was conducted to test the ability of each
picture to be descriptive, usable, understandable and enabling.
Based on these results, pictures were confirmed, amended or
deleted from the set.
Professionals were invited to participate in the study via
e-mail. Those who agreed to participate were sent a back-
ground document that described the nature of the study and
the Nature Nexus Elicitation Technique (NNET). Profes-
sionals were asked to rate the extent to which each card
design represented each category on a scale of 1 (does not do
this) to 5 (does this sufficiently) based on being theoretically
substantiated and sufficiently descriptive of a type of rela-
tionship to nature based on their experience in their field.
They were then asked to rate each card on the same scale
based on its ability to be descriptive, constructive, under-
standable, having relatable content and being enabling.
Professionals were asked to provide comments based on their
6International Journal of Qualitative Methods
ratings of each card. Finally, on the same scale, professionals
wereaskedtoratetheNNETasanoverallelicitation
technique based on its ability to access hidden attitudes,
meaning, feelings, beliefs and motives related to the rela-
tionship individuals have with nature; ability to provide a
useful framework for analysis of the human-nature nexus;
ability to activate memory recall; ability to provide greater
emotional engagement in the in-depth interview relating to
the topic ‘your relationship with nature’; ability to overcome
social desirability; ability to increase deeper cognitive access
(preconscious, conscious, intuitive, associative); ability to
reduce pressure on participants and to allow for exploration
and expression without direct questioning and perceived
efficacy to allow participants to express feelings and
thoughts they might find difficult to articulate. Based on the
resultsfromthisphase,10pictureswereconfirmed, two were
amended, two were deleted, and two new replacement cards
developed. Deleted cards were not able to be descriptive,
constructive, understandable, relatable or enabling, or did not
fit with any particular category. The cards that were amended
required slight creative adjustments to meet the above cri-
teria. Tab le 3 shows the cards that were deleted and amended,
and Tab le 4 shows the final NNET cards.
Phase 6: Using the NNET
The final phase consisted of in-depth interviews that were
conducted (N= 44) in order to test the usability of the cards to
elicit responses regarding the relationship that individuals had
with nature. The NNET usability was determined by its ability
to get participants to talk about the abstract concept (their
relationship with nature), its ability to displace the focus of the
interview onto the external stimuli, and to surface ideas that
might often be implicit (Barton, 2015).
Participants volunteered to participate in in-depth inter-
views as part of a larger mixed methods project. The inter-
views were on average an hour in length.
The NNET was used at the start of the interview in order to
create a point from which all questions could launch. Participants
were asked to choose a picture/s from the NNET set that they felt
represented their relationship with nature as well what they felt
would demonstrate their opposite relationship with nature (see
Tab le 5 Cards chosen during qualitative fieldwork). Participants
were allowed to choose more than one card to represent their
relationship with nature. Once the cards were chosen, their re-
lationship (and the opposite) was verbally explored to ascertain
what types of responses the cards were able to elicit.
Figure 2. Connectedness to nature matrix, pictures, categories.
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 7
Table 3. Cards Deleted and Amended.
Deleted
Amended
8International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Table 4. Confirmed Set of Nature Nexus Elicitation Technique Cards.
Expression Typically associated with positive feelings Typically associated with negative feelings
Intimacy
Empathy
(continued)
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 9
Table 4. (continued)
Expression Typically associated with positive feelings Typically associated with negative feelings
Theological
engagement
Recreational
engagement
(continued)
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Table 4. (continued)
Expression Typically associated with positive feelings Typically associated with negative feelings
Ambivalence
Apathy
(continued)
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 11
The main finding from testing the usability of the NNET in
the in-depth interviews was that although each card was
developed from an emerging category (which was used to
develop the set initially), these categories were not absolute
since a card that was developed to represent intimacy might
represent alienation for a participant when listening to their
verbal elicited response. This was often the case for indi-
viduals who had an intimate connection with nature. Because
of their affect and connectedness to nature, they were aware of
how they are also alienated from nature because of being a
human. For example, one participant said:
Participant: I suppose it is an individual.
Researcher: Tell me about that...
Participant: Look, I’m under no illusions on the impact that I’m
having on the world...like no ilusions whatsoever. I’m hugely
wasteful doing very little to actually do anything positive about it.
Researcher: Could you describe what you see?
Participant: It’s sort of an individual, I suppose who’s caricatured
as civilisation; a human figure bending over with sort of a mass of
factories and civilisation blowing smoke off his back while he’s
busy consuming sort of the natural world beneath him. I fear that’s
me, in a nutshell. I don’t really do enough about it. I live in a block
of flats. The only way I can touch the ground is by every morning,
I go out and walk in a park. Otherwise, I buy all my food in plastic.
Table 4. (continued)
Expression Typically associated with positive feelings Typically associated with negative feelings
Alienation
Table 5. Cards Chosen during Qualitative Fieldwork.
Card chosen Relationship Opposite relationship Total
Intimacy 10 5 15
Empathy 4 2 6
Theological engagement 12 3 15
Recreational engagement 7 8 15
Ambivalence 9 11 20
Apathy 3 10 13
Alienation 9 15 24
Total 54 54 108
12 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
I don’t grow any of my own food. I’m not a vegetarian, by any
stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, I don’t really have
enough money to be able to buy, basically, reared meat. Whether
there’s sort of any logic in that statement itself is another story. I’m
a mass consumer like everyone else.
The interviews also showed that the NNET was able to
assist participants in making meaning about their relationship
with nature as is the case with one participant who chose
theological engagement:
Researcher: What does it tell us about your relationship with
nature?
Participant: Here it talks about people who are appreciating nature
and then what God gave them. So, they are giving thanks to Him.
They are praying. They’re saying ‘Thanks for this universe.
Thanks for the trees that you gave us. Thanks for everything that
you gave us, because, even, these buildings and stuff is the
wisdom that has been impacted on the people to do it and to create
and everything. These are trees that give them the shade when it’s
sunny. That’s where they need to appreciate and thank God for it.
Maybe, also, if it has fruits, it gives them fruits. If it’s raining, then,
it’s still going to give them the shelter.
Researcher: How do you feel about nature? You’ve chosen this
card with the Bible and the tree. When you think about your
relationship with nature, what comes to mind?
Participant: Sometimes you look and then wonder ‘how did this
happen? How did God create this?’Having those questions. It
gives you this thing of saying ‘You need to be very thankful for
everything’, and it’s amusing. It makes you wonder how this
happened, because even when you look at the creepiest animals,
or the creepiest things that are crawling, and the things that are in
the ocean, you say ‘and, this one, and He chose, specifically, to do
this one, also’.It’s, just, amazing.
Ambivalence would be a topic that participants would
normally find difficult to express (Will et al., 1996), but using
the NNET, one participant was able to describe the rela-
tionship as:
Participant: I think this one I identify very strongly to nature
because it links to a lot of what I feel in terms of, obviously, the
right-hand side with the beautiful nature area is something that I’m
drawn to. That’s something that’s quite precious. It looks kind of
like where I grew up in terms of the forest, and the grain fields kind
of, and, obviously, the other side represents the way we live now,
and is it sustainable and, maybe, the guilt in terms of what’s going
on. There’s a lot going on there, but it wouldn’t be enough for an
individual, like myself, to make any difference in that picture,
necessarily, unless, I tie myself to a tree.
Researcher: What more comes up for you?
Participant: Then, obviously, the contrast and the follow-on be-
tween the two and, maybe, anxiety from that because of the pace
of the left-hand side, and of being, I mean I think they’re fine in
terms of their impact. Down in [x] where I grew up in a small
town, there is the forest which was planted, though, to be cut down
eventually by the [x] Recycled Paper Pulp Factory. They tend to
be fine, I think, in terms of their environmental impact. Anyway,
where I grew up, there was a factory with lots and lots of different
huge trees, and lots and lots of different smoke and steam coming
off it, literally, next to the forest which they cut down. So, I
personally identify with it, as well. There are various sort of things
I can interpret why I identified with this, probably, for the reasons,
I just said.
Researcher: Would the [x] Forest be nature?
Participant: I’d say so, because, although, they were constructed
as such, there’s nothing going on in there besides when they come
to chop down the trees, necessarily, but, they do [have] quite a lot
of vegetation. There’s nothing going on there that wouldn’t,
maybe, it’s curated nature, but, it’s pretty natural. I know that they
have wildlife in there, very quiet, and lots of bird life in there, that
sort of thing. It’s more about the contrast between it’s going to get
influenced at some point versus, still, maybe, at some point.
Through focussed probing, the interviewer was able to
move from asking a question to elicitation using the NNET as
a methodological guidepost bringing responses and probes
back to the NNET and moving backwards and forwards to-
wards and away from the technique throughout the interview.
The results show that all cards in the NNET had the ability
to be selected by participants to elicit responses regarding their
relationship with the natural world. Interestingly the empathy
and apathy cards were least often selected to represent a re-
lationship or the opposite relationship. This could just be an
artefact of the sample. Using the NNET in in-depth interviews
showed that participants were able to use the cards to explore
their relationship with nature.
Conclusion and Discussion
Discussion around elicitation techniques is few, especially on
how to develop them in a methodologically rigorous way
(Barton, 2015). The aim of this article was to demonstrate the
development of an enabling technique (using concurrent
triangulation) that could be used during in-depth interviews
to explore the human-nature nexus. The article builds on
existing methodological knowledge (Alshenqeeti, 2014;
Creswell, 2003;Lamont & Swidler, 2014) by describing the
in-depth process that can be followed for the empirical
development of a visual elicitation technique in the field of
ecopsychology,that to our knowledge has not been published
before. The value in following the process described in this
article is that it is rigorous, transparent, uses different streams
of methodological information and is developed with a
specific phenomenon in mind. This phased process also
demonstrates the difficultyinexploringthehuman-nature
nexus as it is an abstract concept that often invites trite
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 13
answers such as to profess to be environmentally conscious
when individuals actually aren’t. Exploring the human-
nature nexus is a complex task that requires methodologi-
cal innovation.
The NNET also has the potential to add methodological
value to the interviewing process as it enables the researcher to
move beyond socially desirable answers that do not address
underlying components (affect, childhood experience, sub-
conscious conflicts, antagonism, etc.) that influences the
human-nature nexus. The technique also provided a
grounding position for reflecting and redirecting the discus-
sion during the interviewing process.
Although the NNET has the potential to be an important
methodological tool for researchers hoping to elicit deeper and
more subconscious processes related to the human-nature
nexus, some limitations need to be considered. The NNET,
although tested with international experts, will need to be
validated with the general public in other countries before it is
used as a research tool to ascertain cultural and other population
nuances. Furthermore, there is a need to conduct a comparative
study with a control group that does not have access to an
elicitation tool in order to establish the degree to which the
NNET is able to provide deeper and more meaningful insight,
acknowledging that the accompaniment of an in-depth inter-
view is needed for interpretation of the NNET. On a more
practical level, individuals who are colour-blind or struggle to
see form could find the use of the NNET challenging.
Finally, researchers would benefit from following our
methodological process for the development of an elicitation
tool because of the rigorous approach and testable outputs.
This process adds to methodological literature as it explicitly
describes how to develop a tool of this nature which currently
is missing in the literature (Barton, 2015;Copeland & Agosto,
2012;Pless & Katznelson, 2020;Porr et al., 2011;Roger &
Blomgren, 2019).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Andrea Marais-Potgieter https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4647-6154
References
Adams, W. W. (2005). Ecopsychology and phenomenology: Toward a
collaborative engagement. Existential Analysis,16(2), 269-283.
Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A
critical review. English Linguistics Research,3(1), 39-45.
Baillie, R. (2003). Applied ecopsychology in Australia: Approaches
to facilitating human-nature connections. Gaterings: Seeking
Ecopsychology. 8(August). http://www.ecopsychology.org/
journal/gatherings8/html/spirit/applied_baillie.html (Accessed
24 September 2014).
Baker, J. (2013). What have we done to Mother Earth? Psychody-
namic thinking applied to our current world crisis. Psychody-
namic Practice,19(1), 55-67.
Barton, K. C. (2015). Elicitation techniques: Getting people to talk
about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory & Research in
Social Education,43(2), 179-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00933104.2015.1034392.
Basu, J. (2014). Psychologists’ambivalence toward ambiguity:
Relocating the projective test debate for multiple interpretative
hypotheses. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental
health,21(1), 25-36.
Boddy, C. (2005). Projective techniques in market research: Val-
ueless subjectivity or insightful reality? International Journal of
Market Research,47(3), 239-254.
Bond, D., & Ramsey, E. (2010). The role of information and
communication technologies in using projective techniques as
survey tools to meet the challenges of bounded rationality.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,13(4),
430-440.
Bragg, E. A. (1996). Towards an ecological self: Deep ecology meets
constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy,16, 93-108.
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The rela-
tionship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-
analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 976-1015.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. Anchor.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L.
(1997). Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism relationship:
When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,73(3), 481-494.
Clayton, S., Luebke, J., Saunders, C., Matiasek, J., & Grajal, A.
(2013). Connecting to nature at the zoo: Implications for re-
sponding to climate change. Environmental Education Re-
search,20(4), 460-475.
Comi, A., Bischof, N., & Eppler, J. M. (2014). Beyond projection:
Using collaborative visualization to conduct qualitative inter-
views. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Manage-
ment: An International Journal,9(2), 110-133.
Copeland, A. J., & Agosto, D. E. (2012). Diagrams and relational
maps: The use of graphic elicitation techniques with inter-
viewing for data collection, analysis, and display. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods,11(5), 513-533.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Crimston, C. R., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., & Bastian, B. (2016).
Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of
the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
111(4), 636-653.
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with
the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and envi-
ronmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
29(2), 173-180.
14 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research.
Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences,28, 47-53.
Fleming, P. S., Koletsi, D., & Pandis, N. (2014). Blinded by
PRISMA: Are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and
ignoring other guildines?. PLoS One,9(5), e96407. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096407.
Flint, C. G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y., & Penker, M. (2013).
Exploring empirical typologies of human-nature relationships
and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and
Urban Planning,120, 208-217.
Frantz, C., Mayer, F. S., Norton, C., & Rock, M. (2005). There is no
“I”in nature: The influence of self-awareness on connectedness
to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,25, 427-436.
Friese, S. (2016). CAQDAS and grounded theory analysis. Max
Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Retrieved from: https://www.mmg.mpg.de/61773/WP_16-07_
Friese-Theory-Analysis.pdf.
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that
influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review.
International Journal of Psychology,49(3), 141-157.
Herbert, I. (2014). Mountain reflections: Reverence for the con-
sciousness of nature. In D. A. Vakoch, & F. Castrillon (Eds.),
Ecopsychology, phenomenology, and the environment (pp. 27-46).
Springer.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2009). Investigating environmental identity,
well-being, and meaning. Ecopsychology,4(1), 181-186.
Hoffman, A. J., & Sandelands, L. E. (2005). Getting right with nature.
Organization & Environment,18, 141-162.
Hoggett, P. (2020). The nature within. Journal of Social Work
Practice,34(4), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.
2020.1771689.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity
toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Envi-
ronment and Behavior,31(2), 178-202.
Kamitsis, I., & Francis, A. J. P. (2013). Spirituality mediates the
relationship between engagement with nature and psychological
wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology,36, 136-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.013.
Kaza, S. (1993). Conversations with trees: Toward an ecologically
engaged spirituality. Revision,15(3), 128-137.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people
act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-
environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,
8(3), 239-260.
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and an-
thropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons
dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology,21, 2-12.
Lamont, M., & Swidler, A. (2014). Methodological pluralism and
the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Soci-
ology,37(2), 153-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-
9274-z.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., &
Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting sys-
tematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology,62, e1-e34.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific
status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest,1(2), 27-66.
Liu, S.-C., & Lin, H.-s. (2014). Undergraduate students’ideas about
nature and human-nature relationships: An empirical analysis of
environmental worldviews. Environmental Education Re-
search,20(3), 412-429.
Lokhorst, A. M., Hoon, C., le Rutte, R., & de Snoo, G. (2014). There
is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conser-
vation. Land Use Policy,39, 121-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.005.
Louv, R. (2012). The nature principle. Algonquin BooksChapel Hill.
Lovelock, J. (2006). The revenge of Gaia: Earth’s climate crisis and
the fate of humanity. Basic Books.
Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond
knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and
beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS One,12(5),
e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186.
Macy, J., & Brown, M. (2014). Coming back to life. Gabriola Is-
landNew Society.
Maguire, P., Kannis-Dymand, L., Mulgrew, K. E., Schaffer, V., &
Peake, S. (2020). Empathy and experience: Understanding
tourists’swim with whale encounters. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife,25(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.
2019.1695024.
Martin, P. (2004). Outdoor education for human/nature relationships.
Paper presentation]. International outdoor education research
conference. Connections and disconnections: Examining the
reality and rhetoric. International perspectives on outdoor edu-
cation theory and practice, Victoria, Australia, Latrobe University.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature
scale: A measure of individuals’feeling in community with
nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,24, 503-515.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative
Social research,1(2), online journal. http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204. Art. 20. Accessed from the World
Wide Web on 14 April 2016:
McKinnon, C. (2009). Runaway climate change: A justice-based
case for precautions. Journal of Social Philosophy,40(2),
187-203.
Meo, A. I. (2010). Picturing students’habitus: The advantages and
limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing in a qualitative
study in the city of Buenos Aires. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods,9(2), 149-171.
Ojala, A. (2012). What makes us environmentally friendly? Social
psychological studies on environmental concern, components of
morality and emotional connectedness to nature. [Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Helsinki].
Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,30(4), 455-463.
Pike, C., Herr, M., Minkow, D., & Weiner, H. (2008). The ecological
roadmap: A guide to American social values and environmental
engagement. Earthjustice.
Marais-Potgieter and Thatcher 15
Pless, M., & Katznelson, N. (2020). How to capture motivation in
pictures? Visual methods in research on young people’s school
life and motivation. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods,19, 1-11.
Pointon, P. (2014). ‘The city snuffs out nature’: Young people’s
conceptions of and relationship with nature. Environmental
Education Research,20(6), 776-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13504622.2013.833595.
Pope, A. (2011). Modern materialism through the lens of Indo-
Tibetan Buddhism. The International Journal of Transper-
sonal Studies,30(1/2), 171-178.
Porr, C., Mayan, M., Graffigna, G., Wall, S., & Vieira, E. R. (2011).
The evocative power of projective techniques for the elicitation
of meaning. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
10(1), 30-41.
Puhakka, K. (2014). Intimacy, otherness, and alienation: The inter-
twining of nature and consciousness. In D. A. Vakoch, & F.
Castrillon (Eds.), Ecopsychology, phenomenology, and the
environment (pp. 11-26). Springer.
Randall, R. (2005). A new climate for psychotherapy? Psychotherapy
and Politics International,3(3), 165-179.
Roger, K. S., & Blomgren, C. (2019). Elicitation as a mind-set: Why
visual data matter? International Journal of Qualitative
Methods,18, 1-9.
Ropret Homar, A., & Kneˇ
zevi´
c Cvelbar, L. (2021). The effects of
framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature
review. Ecological Economics,183, 106950.
Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecop-
sychology. Simon & Schuster.
Salih, R., & Corry, O. (2020). Displacing the anthropocene: Colo-
nisation, extinction and the unruliness of nature in Palestine.
Environmental and Planning E: Nature and Space. January
2021, doi: 10.1177/2514848620982834.
Salmón, E. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the
human-nature relationship. Ecological Applications,10(5),
1327-1332.
Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. Sierra Club.
Silvia, P. J. (2002). Self-awareness and emotional intensity. Cogni-
tion and Emotion,16(2), 195-216.
Simms, E.-M. (2014). The invisibility of nature: Garbage, play forts,
and the deterritorialization of urban nature spaces. In D. A.
Vakoch, & F. Castrillon (Eds.), Ecopsychology, phenomenology
and the environment. The Experience of Nature (pp. 237-250).
Springer Science.
Stone, A. (2014). Alienation from nature and early German roma-
niticism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,17, 41-54.
Swim, J., Clayton, S., Doherty, T., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Reser, J.,
Stern, P., & Weber, E. (2009). Psychology and global climate
change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of
challenges. A report by the American psychological
Association’s task force on the interface between psychology
and global climate change. Retrieved October 9 2014, from
http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.
aspx.
Tam, K.-P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,35, 92-104.
Trigwell, J. L., Francis, A. J. P., & Bagot, K. L. (2014). Nature
connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: Spirituality as a
potential mediator. Ecopsychology,6(4), 241-251. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1089/eco.2014.0025.
Vess, M., Arndt, J., & Cox, C. R. (2012). Faith and nature: The effect
of death-relevant cognitions on the relationship between reli-
gious fundamentalism and connectedness to nature. Social
Psychological and Personality Science,3(3), 333-340. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1948550611420303.
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of scopus
and web of science for a typical university. Scientometrics,
81(2), 587-600.
Warner, L. A., & Diaz, J. M. (2020). Amplifying the theory of
planned behavior with connectedness to water to inform im-
pactful water conservation program planning and evaluation.
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,27, 229-253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771.
Wesley Schultz, P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern:
Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,21(4), 327-339.
Wesley Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of
environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14
countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology,19, 255-265.
Westphal, E. (2007). Development of a projective technique to assess
experience of attachment in middle childhood”A pilot study.
[Unpublished Dissertation, Victoria University].
Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept
maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods,8(3), 68-83.
Will, V., Eadie, D., & MacAskill, S. (1996). Projective and enabling
techniques explored. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,14(6),
38-43.
Winkelman, M. (2013). Shamanism and psychedelics: A biogenetic
structuralist paradigm of ecopsychology. European Journal of
Ecopsychology,4, 90-115.
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2013).
Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing
literature. European Journal of Information Systems,22, 45-55.
Yang, Y., Hu, J., Jing, F., & Nguyen, B. (2018). From awe to
ecological behavior: The mediating role of connectedness to
nature. Sustainability,10, 2477. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
su10072477.
Yunt, J. D. (2001). Jung’s contribution to an ecological psychology.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology,41(2), 96-121.
16 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
