With rapid industrialization and development, environmental degradation has emerged as one of its major byproducts. Underdeveloped regions often bear the negative consequences of this destruction while being excluded from the benefits of growth. A parallel form of inequality exists along gender lines. Women are often marginalized through exclusionary mechanisms related to social resources, such as land, wages, and career advancement. Both phenomena reflect a shared patriarchal logic of “those who suffer are those excluded” which forms a theoretical and empirical intersection for ecofeminist inquiry. Ecofeminism considers there is a deep, intrinsic connection between the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature. Existing research has mainly remained within philosophical area and Western case studies. Empirical, cross-cultural, and cross-gender quantitative evidence remains to be discussed. To address these gaps, this study employed a reaction-time–based Implicit Association Test (IAT) to examine the automatic cognitive associations linking “women–nature” and “men–environmental destruction” among the Chinese public. It further investigated whether exposure to environmental protection information could enhance gender equality awareness. Results revealed that participants who received environmental protection information exhibited significantly faster reaction time in gender inequality identification tasks. It suggests that such information can effectively strengthen gender equality awareness and the effect is more significant among male participants. IAT data also showed significantly shorter reaction time in incompatible trials compared to compatible ones. D-score approaches the theoretical maximum range (−1 to 1). This indicates a strong implicit association between “men–environmental destruction” and “women–nature”. This association is stronger among women. Overall, this study provides experimental evidence supporting the ecofeminist “nature–gender” hypothesis through quantitative analysis. It demonstrates a cognitive linkage between environmental protection and gender equality. It extends ecofeminism from theoretical reflection to practical application. Moreover, it offers a novel method for advancing gender equality through environmental consciousness.

Peng Yunqi. Implicit Associations between Gender and Nature: Experimental Evidence of Ecofeminism. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2025), Vol. 7, Issue 7: 75-81. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2025.070712.

[1] IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.

[2] World Bank. (2021). Groundswell part 2: Acting on internal climate migration. World Bank Group.

[3] UNDRR. (2021). The human cost of disasters: An overview of the last 20 years (2000-2019). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

[4] UN Women & UN DESA. (2022). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2022. United Nations. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2022.

[5] WHO. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018. World Health Organization.

[6] Neumayer, E., & Plümper, T. (2007). The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x

[7] Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Rowman & Littlefield.

[8] Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2011.0017.

[9] Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.

[10] Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564.

[11] Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407.

[12] Stern, C., & West, T. V. (2021). Ceiling and floor effects in social psychological experiments. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245921997392.

[13] Zhang, Q., & Chen, X. (2015). The implicit association between women and nature among Chinese university students: An IAT study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(Suppl.), 142–143.

[14] Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177

[15] Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

[16] Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.