SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akademik Açı / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

Nature Connectedness and Ecological Dominance Orientation as Mediators in the Relationship Between Dimensions of Religıosity and Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Dindarlık Boyutlarının Çevre Yanlısı Tutumlarla İlişkisinde Doğaya Bağlılık ve Ekolojik Baskınlık Yöneliminin Aracı Rolü

Nazan Avcı0000-0002-5718-7748
Ezgişan Özdemir(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ODTÜ KUZEY KIBRIS KAMPUSU (KKTC-GÜZELYURT))0009-0009-3978-781X
Pages
19–36
Publication Date
2026-04-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Keywords: Religiosity, Pro-environmental attitudes, Nature connectedness, Intrinsic religious orientation, Fundamentalist religious orientation

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While the relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental attitudes has been examined across various religions and denominations, studies conducted within Islamic samples have produced mixed results regarding the direction and strength of this relationship.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, an online survey was conducted with 276 participants residing in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Keywords: Religiosity, Pro-environmental attitudes, Nature connectedness, Intrinsic religious orientation, Fundamentalist religious orientation
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dindarlık · Çevre Yanlısı Tutumlar · Doğaya Bağlılık

Abstract

While the relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental attitudes has been examined across various religions and denominations, studies conducted within Islamic samples have produced mixed results regarding the direction and strength of this relationship. This highlights the need for studies that examine the relationship between different dimensions of religiosity and pro-environmental attitudes in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, the present study investigated the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and four dimensions of religiosity in Islam: intrinsic religious orientation, extrinsic religious orientation, quest religious orientation, and fundamentalist religious orientation. In addition, the potential mediating roles of ecological dominance orientation and connectedness to nature in these relationships were examined. The model provides further insight into how religiosity may indirectly influence pro-environmental attitudes. The importance participants placed on religion was included in the model as a control variable. To this end, an online survey was conducted with 276 participants residing in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Mediation analysis conducted using JASP revealed that only the sense of being part of nature mediated the relationship between intrinsic religious orientation and pro-environmental attitudes. Moreover, the positive direct effect of intrinsic religious orientation on pro-environmental attitudes remained significant within this mediation model. The results also showed that fundamentalist religious orientation had a significant and direct negative effect on pro-environmental attitudes. On the other hand, neither extrinsic nor quest religious orientations had any significant direct or indirect effects on pro-environmental attitudes. Keywords: Religiosity, Pro-environmental attitudes, Nature connectedness, Intrinsic religious orientation, Fundamentalist religious orientation

Özet

Çevre yanlısı tutumların dindarlıkla ilişkisi farklı din ve mezhepler bağlamında incelenmiş, ancak İslam bağlamında yürütülen araştırmalar bu ilişkinin yönü ve gücü bakımından farklı sonuçlar ortaya koymuştur. Bu durum, dindarlığın alt boyutlarının çevre yanlısı tutumlarla ilişkisini bağlama özgü biçimde inceleyen çalışmalara duyulan ihtiyacı göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, mevcut çalışmada çevre yanlısı tutumların Müslümanlıkta dindarlığın dört farklı boyutu (içsel güdümlü dini yönelim, dışsal güdümlü dini yönelim, sorgulayıcı dini yönelim ve köktendinci dini yönelim) ile ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, bu ilişkilerde ekolojik baskınlık yönelimi ve doğaya bağlılık değişkenlerinin olası aracı rolü incelenmiş; katılımcıların dine verdikleri önem ise kontrol değişkeni olarak modele dâhil edilmiştir. Bu model, dindarlığın çevreye yönelik tutumları dolaylı olarak nasıl şekillendirdiğine dair bir açıklama önermektedir. Bu amaçla, Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde (KKTC) yaşayan 276 katılımcıyla çevrim içi anket uygulanmıştır. JASP aprogramında yürütülen aracı değişken analizi bulguları, yalnızca doğanın bir parçası olarak hissetmenin, içsel güdümlü dini yönelimin çevre yanlısı tutumlar üzerindeki etkisinde aracı rol oynadığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu modelde, içsel güdümlü dini yönelimin çevre yanlısı tutumlar üzerindeki doğrudan pozitif etkisi de anlamlı biçimde devam etmiştir. Ayrıca, köktendinci dini yönelimin çevre yanlısı tutumlar üzerinde doğrudan, negatif ve anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmuştur. Buna karşılık, dışsal güdümlü dini yönelim ve sorgulayıcı dini yönelimin çevre yanlısı tutumlar üzerinde ne doğrudan ne de dolaylı bir etkisi tespit edilmemiştir. Bulgular, katılımcıların dine verdikleri önemin çevreye yönelik tutumlarını doğrudan belirlemediğini, ancak dini yönelimleri şekillendirerek dolaylı yoldan etkide bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dindarlık, Çevre Yanlısı Tutumlar, Doğaya Bağlılık, İçsel Güdümlü Dini Yönelim, Köktendinci Dini Yönelim

🔖

Cite This Article

Avcı, N., Özdemir, E. (2026). Nature Connectedness and Ecological Dominance Orientation as Mediators in the Relationship Between Dimensions of Religıosity and Pro-Environmental Attitudes. Akademik Açı, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.59597/akademikaci.1760111

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261–277.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
  3. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.
  4. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133.
  5. Arli, D., Van Esch, P., & Cui, Y. (2023). Who cares more about the environment, those with an intrinsic, an extrinsic, a quest, or an atheistic religious orientation?: Investigating the effect of religious ad appeals on attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05174-y
  6. Arli, D., & Tjiptono, F. (2017). God and green: Investigating the impact of religiousness on green marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(3), e1580. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1580
  7. Atik, A. D., Sarı, H. İ., & Doğan, Y. (2023). The effects of closeness to nature, connectedness to nature and eco-friendly behaviours on environmental identity: A study of public university students in South-eastern Turkey. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.36
  8. Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15(1), 29–45.
  9. Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4), 416–429.
  10. Bektaş, F., Kural, B., & Orçan, F. (2017). Turkish version of the Connectedness to Nature Scale: Reliability and validity study. Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 77–86.
  11. DeVille, N. V., Tomasso, L. P., Stoddard, O. P., Wilt, G. E., Horton, T. H., Wolf, K. L., … & James, P. (2021). Time spent in nature is associated with increased pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147498
  12. Dunlap, 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), 425–442.
  13. Ercan, N. (2009). The predictors of attitudes toward physical wife abuse: Ambivalent sexism, system justification and religious orientation (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
  14. Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2018). Religiousness and environmental concern: A multilevel and multi-country analysis of the role of life satisfaction and indulgence. Journal of Business Research, 91, 304–312.
  15. Félonneau, M. L., & Becker, M. (2008). Pro-environmental attitudes and behavior: Revealing perceived social desirability. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 21(4), 25–53.
  16. Hitzhusen, G. E. (2006). Religion and environmental education: Building on common ground. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 11(1), 9–25.
  17. JASP Team (2024). JASP (Version 0.18.3) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
  18. Kiral Uçar, G., Kaynak Malatyali, M., & Kaynak, B. D. (2023). Social and ecological dominance orientations, climate change denial, and pro-environmental behavior. Global Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12941
  19. Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
  20. 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(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
  21. Messay, B., Dixon, L. J., & Rye, M. S. (2012). The relationship between quest religious orientation, forgiveness, and mental health. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(3), 315–333.
  22. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740.
  23. Pasaribu, D., Takwin, B., & Martens, P. (2022). The role of religious narratives and religious orientation towards concerns for the natural environment and animal welfare. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0271515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271515
  24. Preston, J. L., & Baimel, A. (2021). Towards a psychology of religion and the environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.013
  25. Preston, J. L., & Shin, F. (2022). Opposing effects of spirituality and religious fundamentalism on environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80, 101772.
  26. Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1145–1167.
  27. Richardson, M., & Butler, C. W. (2022). The nature connection handbook. Finding Nature. https://findingnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/the-nature-connection-handbook.pdf
  28. Pereira, M., & Forster, P. (2015). The relationship between connectedness to nature, environmental values, and pro-environmental behaviours. Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research, 8(2).
  29. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: Understanding human-nature interactions. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Springer.
  30. Skalski, S. B., Loichen, T., Toussaint, L. L., Uram, P., Kwiatkowska, A., & Surzykiewicz, J. (2022). Relationships between spirituality, religious fundamentalism and environmentalism: The mediating role of right-wing authoritarianism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13242.
  31. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
  32. Tucker, M. E., & Grim, J. (2001). Religion and ecology: Can the climate change? Daedalus, 130(4), 1–22.
  33. Uenal, F., Sidanius, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022a). Social and ecological dominance orientations: Two sides of the same coin? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(6), 1555–1576.
  34. Uenal, F., Sidanius, J., Maertens, R., Hudson, S. K. T., Davis, G., & Ghani, A. (2022b). The roots of ecological dominance orientation: Assessing individual preferences for an anthropocentric and hierarchically organized world. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101783.
  35. Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134370
  36. White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203