Abstract

Do people need to attribute agency to nature to morally care for it? The answer to this question has significant implications for our understanding of social cognitive effects on moral judgment. Despite its relevance during an environmental crisis, surprisingly little is known about the answer. Across two studies, we explored whether attributing agency to nonhuman natural entities like the Earth has a causal influence on environmental moral concern and intrinsic valuing of nature (biocentrism). In Study 1, we used an experimental design, assigning U.S. urban adults to one of three videos about the history of Earth's ecosystems. Two of them described the Earth as an agent: either as a thoughtful person (psychological) or as a living animal (vitalist). The third described the Earth as a nonagentic object (control). Participants in either agentic condition showed greater environmental moral concern and biocentrism than participants in the nonagentic condition. In Study 2, we examined whether—absent any agency cues—a scientifically informative video about Earth's history would prompt environmental moral concern and have a greater effect than watching awe‐inspiring depictions of the Earth or learning irrelevant information in a control condition. No significant differences were found. However, patterning with Study 1, individuals’ tendencies to attribute mind to the Earth predicted environmental moral reasoning. Carefully invoked, vitalist agency attributions—which deviate less from scientific understandings of the Earth than psychological ones—can mobilize conservationist attitudes among U.S. adults. Overall, our results suggest that agentic attributions of life are required to engage significant moral concern.