Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Relationship between Ecological - Sensory Intelligence and Well-Being

Durlabh Singh Kowal*, Naveen Mangal

Scientist É’, DRDO, Selection Centre Central (SCC), Bhopal, India

Abstract: There are multiple evolutionary adaptations and multiple intelligences found in human and non-human living beings. The ecological-sensory intelligence is thread of general intelligence that permeates into both human and non-human beings. It is defined as the uniting quanta of general intelligence among all living beings measured by the ability of acquiring environmental awareness, consciousness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems. Human receive a sense of psychological well-being from interacting with the environment. There exists a natural intelligence which is the root criterion of ecological sensitivity and well-being in all life forces. This paper tries to explore the relationship between eco-sensory intelligence and well-being of the human individuals. Total 304 male subjects participated in the study. The environment awareness ability measure, PGI general well-being measure and test of general intelligence were used to measure the variables of the study. The results showed that significant difference was found between general intelligence IQ and well-being (F=3.44; p<.01), no significant difference was found between general intelligence and eco-sensory intelligence. The significant mean differences found among pairs of above average IQ (level 1) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 5.31, SE=1.50 (p<.01); average IQ (level 3) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 4.21, SE=1.37 (p<.05) and just below average IQ (level 4) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 4.68, SE=1.53 (p<.05). A significant positive relationship was found between eco-sensory intelligence and well-being (r = 0.231; p <.01).

Keywords: Ecological-Sensory Intelligence, well-being, general intelligence and environment awareness

Received January 07, 2021; Revised February 08, 2021; Accepted February 22, 2021

Citation: Durlabh Singh Kowal, Naveen Mangal, Relationship between Ecological - Sensory Intelligence and Well-Being. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 9 (2). 286-295. January 2021. doi:10.12691/aees-9-2-21

1. Introduction

Intelligence is the innate ability of all living beings to respond to their environment for survival, growth and fulfilment. All the living species of various kingdoms of plants, animals and humans apply and adopt themselves to solve problems. All organisms inherit nature’s intelligence. Intelligence is such a null hypothesis that states no difference in general intelligence between human and non-human beings. It reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings - catching-on, making sense of things or figuring out, what to do [1]. Whatever that evolves is intelligence, be it in humans or non-human beings. There are multiple intelligences found in humans and multiple evolutionary adaptations in non-human beings [2,3]. There are evidences [4], of general intelligence ‘g’ in non-human beings also, which will be figured out in the later section of the paper. Hence, a thread of general intelligence ‘g’ runs into both human and non-human beings. The commonality of g intelligence in plants, animals and humans is known as Ecological - Sensory Intelligence (ESI), in short Eco-sensory Intelligence. The common link of g intelligence is ‘Nature’, an ecological consciousness. Over the course of development, the g emerges because of mutually beneficial interactions between human and non-human beings. The mutualism model of intelligence emphasises on commonalities and variations between species of human and non-human beings to which mutually beneficial interactions between cognitive processes arise during development [5].

1.1. Ecological-Sensory Intelligence and General Intelligence

The replicated studies on intelligence in the differential psychology across various performance tasks consistently reveals a single factor that can explain a significant amount of variations is general intelligence, termed as g. The factor-analytic approach explains 40% of variance due to g, rest is explained by group factors and variance unique to specific tasks [6]. The g is also a good predictor for various measures of life outcomes, achievements, successes, adjustment, health and survival [7,8]. The evolutionary origin of g and cultural intelligence approach suggest evidences of intelligence in both human and non-human living beings [9,10]. The general intelligence underlying all species is an adaptation in the ecology. An adaptation is the estimates of the ‘g’ which exhibits predictive validity of the concept g. The general intelligence seems evolutionarily implausible because the consciousness of living beings is populated by a large number of adaptive specializations that are functionally organised to solve evolutionary typical and recurrent problems of survival and reproduction [11,12].

The exact nature of ‘g’ continues to be a major puzzle for researchers [13]. The presence of ecological cognitive adaptations in both human and non-human living beings is more likely to evolve where the process of problem solving is socially and ecologically channelized. The social learning, exploration, skill acquisition and survival in seasonal habitats channelize to find out the solutions of the problems of ecological nature [4]. The mutualism model [14] and alternative theories of general intelligence consider ‘g’ as composite of independent but overlapping or interacting processes rather than as single top-down ability, hence it is regarded more as developmental consequence or emergent property rather than as an underlying latent variable and are fully compatible with the constructive nature of domain-general cognition. It is possible that g factor that exists within species at the level of individual differences have somewhat different factorial characteristics for each species [15]. Even if g is an emergent property of several cognitive and even non-cognitive processes, natural selection should evaluate the degree to which these processes are compatible or even how they synergize to produce organised and appropriate behaviour.

1.2. Ecological Sensory Intelligence (ESI)

Ecological psychology treats organisms in mutual relations to their environment which surrounds and supports the organism’s way of life, perception, action, changes and development [16]. ESI is a link between general intelligence of human and non-human living beings bridging mutuality of the environment with organisms. Several large scales quantitative studies illuminated ESI and ecological consciousness are entwined with strong feelings of embeddedness, kinship or belonging to nature and sense of well-being rooted in their experience of being connected with nature [17,18]. ESI is a function of an embodied integration of disposition, habits, feelings and assumptions that orient way one perceives, understands and lives in the world. It is critically reflected in the basic premises of thoughts, feelings and actions fostering personal, social and ecological values such as connection, generosity, partnership and celebration by the individuals [19]. It can be marked by vital environmental awareness of relationships, processes, and practices leading to nurturance and sustainability of both human and non-human living beings. Hence, the present study attempts to define Eco-Sensory Intelligence (ESI) as, ‘’the uniting quanta of general intelligence among all living beings’’. To measure ESI one has to test the environmental awareness of the individual.

1.3. Environmental Awareness (EA)

Environmental awareness is a state of acquiring consciousness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems [20]. Knowledge of ecological principles, processes and phenomena in nature enriches an individual to perceive the environment as a whole [21]. One of the significant determinants of ecological sensory intelligence is the environmentally-aware behaviour [22,23]. The rich ecological sensory experience of direct connection with nature have been linked to increased creativity, awareness, wellness, environmental sensitivity, development of ecological consciousness, a sense of awe and personal transformation [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Environmental awareness refers to how people perceive themselves in reference to nature, as living, breathing beings connected to the rhythms of the Earth [30].

Several researchers have attempted to find the level of EA in different samples of population such as, moderate level of EA was found among higher primary school teachers in Mysore district of Karnataka [31] and teacher trainees in Trichy district of Tamilnadu [32], very high level of EA was reported among inhabitants of Brace Jerkovic village, Belgrade, Serbia [33], high level of EA was reported among university students [34], high level of EA was found among secondary school students in Balikesir, Turkey [35], and fairly good EA was reported among degree college students in Dharamshala district of Himachal Pradesh [32]. Some correlated variables found significantly different with high level of EA, such as students of science subjects [32,36,37,38] and urban families of higher income and education [32,39,40]. The eco-centric approach of awareness, self-reflection and sensitivity are an important aspect of emotional intelligence and well-being [29,41]. Direct exposure to the natural world is essential for a child’s healthy emotional and psychological development [28,29]. A significant positive correlation between ecological sensory intelligence (ESI) and general mental health has been reported by a study conducted on sample of Indian population [42], thus harped upon to arouse the level of consciousness about the importance of ESI on general mental health of the individuals.

1.4. Well-Being (WB)

Psychological well-being can be conceptualised as a combination of positive affective states and the ability to function at an optimal effectiveness in one’s individual and social life [43]. Ecological sensitivity and awareness have positive effects as well as negative effects on well-being [44]. People place higher value on the loss of an environment features than do for an equivalent gain of that feature [45]. The flourish values model (FVM) promotes an understanding of the ecological self and is implemented as a holistic framework that shows the deep relationship between self, others and the natural world. The model reflects ecology of well-being that conveys the importance of always looking at well-being of the whole system intimately connected to the well-being of others and the planet. The well-being encompasses a balance between assets & inputs and outcomes & outputs. It relies on shaping up of values, belief and behaviour by positive early developmental environments and experiences. Well-being flourishes when personal challenge, struggle and growth are involved than simply happiness and it ultimately focuses on creating preferred future [46]. Anxiety is defined as the subjective feeling of apprehension, worry, and tension caused by the perception of situations as psychologically or physically threatening [47]. Therefore, individuals should avoid anxiety in their life to flourish well-being. Researchers distinguish between trait and state anxiety as dispositional and transitory experience respectively. The test anxiety is an anxiety experienced by the individuals in a test situation which differs on nature of test and purpose of undergoing test. A significant negative correlation between well-being and test anxiety was found indicating that low well-being will result in high test anxiety and vice versa [48].

The term ‘biophilia’ to refer to the psychological well-being humans receive from interacting with the environment [49]. Happier people are more likely to exhibit positive attitude towards the environment [50]. The statistically and economically significant result of several studies and surveys indicate that human care about biodiversity [51]. A study on affective states of well-being revealed that female’s average score was significantly greater than male’s average score on the ‘attentive’ dimension of positive affect and male’s average score was significantly greater than female’s average score on the ‘active’ dimension of positive affect. Male and female differed on positive affect while there was no significant difference on negative affect [52]. Even the most conservation interpretation of the relationship between income and well-being is not determined by consumption alone [53,54]. Thus, there exists a natural intelligence which is the root criterion of ecological sensitivity and well-being in all life forces. This study recognises the importance of eco-sensory intelligence as uniting quanta of general intelligence among all species and tries to explore the relationship between eco-sensory intelligence and well-being of the human individuals.

2. Objectives of the Study

The study aimed to analyse treatment effects of different levels of general intelligence ‘g’ IQ with respect to means of environment awareness ability and well-being in order to carry out multiple comparison of all possible simple and complex pairs of means among variables of the study. In addition it will also find possibility of any contrast through application of ANOVA and Scheffe statistical methods and graphical presentations of the data.

2.1. Independent Variable

General intelligence measured in terms of IQ has been studied as independent variable to analyse its direct effect on the dependent variables.

2.2. Dependent Variable

Well-being and Eco-Sensory Intelligence have been taken as dependent variables to look possible effect of different levels of IQ.

3. Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference between General Intelligence (IQ) and Well-Being (WB).

2. There is no significant difference between General Intelligence (IQ) and Eco-Sensory Intelligence (ESI).

3. There is no significant difference between different levels of General Intelligence (IQ) and Well-Being (WB).

4. There is no significant difference between different levels of General Intelligence (IQ) and Eco-Sensory Intelligence (ESI).

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample

The sample comprised of 304 literate unemployed job seeker male subjects age ranging from 20-25 years from various walks of the country, India.

5. Tools Used

5.1 The Environment Awareness Ability Measure (EAAM) was used to measure the Eco-Sensory Intelligence [20]. The fifty-one item bilingual (Hindi and English) scale measures environmental sensitivity under five dimensions of environmental awareness namely, cause of pollution, conservation of soil forest, air etc., energy conservation, conservation of human health, conservation of wild-life and animal husbandry. The respondents have to choose between agree or disagree response for each items by marking a tick in one of the response category which will reflect the level of awareness and sensitivity about the environment one live in. Each agreed item carries the value of 1 (one) mark and each disagree item of zero mark but the negative items were scored inversely. Three indices of reliability were determined for the development of the scale namely, K-R method (0.84), Test-retest method (0.74 & 0.71) and Split-half reliability (0.61). The validity of the EAAM was determined by the coefficient of correlation between the scores of the EAAM scale and Environment Awareness Scale to be 0.83. The scale also possesses face and content validity since experts judged each item.

5.2 Post Graduate Institute (PGI) General Well Being Measure [55]. A 20 item self administered bilingual (Hindi and English) scale was an Indian adaptation of General Well-Being Schedule developed by [56], later modified [57]. This scale was considered likely to be useful in a variety of research and applied setting such as a quality of life, a mental health status appraisal, a measure of psychotherapy outcome evaluation and a social indicator of measuring population changes in sense of well being over time. Each item was scored against two categories with final score ranging from 0 to 20. Test-retest reliability (0.91) and KR-20 (0.98) were found for English version and (0.86) for the Hindi version [58]. Validity of the scale was correlated with a number of tests such Bradburn Well-Being Scale (r = 0.53), General Satisfaction Level Rating (r = 0.23), Learned Helpless Scale (r = 0.49), PGI Quality of Life Scale ( r = 0.54) and PGI Locus of control Scale (r = 0.41).

5.3 Test of General Intelligence (TGI) for college students was used [59]. It is verbal bilingual (Hindi and English) test for measuring general intelligence under six sub tests namely word meaning, number series, analogy, code transformation, classification and syllogism for measuring verbal facility ability, analytical thinking ability, classification ability, numerical reasoning ability, symbolic transformation ability and syllogistic reasoning ability respectively. It consists 10 items for each sub-test making total 60 item test. The difficulty value ranged from 20 to 73 and discrimination index ranged from 20 to 85 were found in item analysis. The respondents were required to solve each sub-test in four minutes. It was told that it was not expected from them to answer all questions correctly. Scoring was carried out with the help of answer key. The raw scores obtained were converted into normalised standard scores as per the manual. The split-half reliability of the total test was 0.95 and Test-retest reliability was found 0.81. The product moment co-efficient of correlation was found 0.68 for Criterion validity calculated between scores on TGI and scores on Cattell’s Culture Fair Test of Intelligence.

6. Procedure

The random sample was collected from the 304 male unemployed subjects who were job seekers. The job seekers were selected as a sample of population because of their typical characteristics of awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills and willingness to participate. The job seekers are required to update themselves regarding general awareness of local, regional, national and international environmental management, programmes and persisting issues studied during their school and college education. They show more willingness to participate in research, frank in responding and seeking change to improve quality of life. The questionnaires were administered to them after completion of their employment interviews.

7. Result

Table 1 reveals the descriptive statistics of sample of the study (N=304). The independent variable general intelligence measured in terms of IQ has been categorised into five levels 1 to 5 ranging from above average to below average based on obtained scores. IQ level 1 indicates above average, 2 - just above average, 3- average, 4- just below average and 5 as below average. The means, standard deviations and errors of two dependent variables Well-Being (WB) and Eco-Sensory Intelligence (ESI) have been calculated for five levels of IQ. The total mean WB of the sample was found 15.22 (SD = 4.6). Mean WB of above average IQ level 1 was found highest 16.48 (lowest SD =2.94) while mean WB of below average IQ level 5 was found lowest 11.16 (highest SD=5.99). The total mean ESI of the sample was found 44.52 (SD=3.54). ESI Means of IQ level 1 to 4 were more or less same, mean ESI of just below average IQ level was found highest 44.78 (SD=4.45) while mean ESI of below average was lowest 41.66 (highest SD=4.8).

Table 1. Descriptive Statistic

Normal probability curves (Figure 1 to Figure 3) have been depicted below for the scores obtained by the sample (N=304) on TGI, EAAM and PGI-WB measures. Graphical representation of means of WB and ESI with respect to IQ has also been depicted below in (Figure 4).

Table 2 reveals that test of variances found significant for both well-being (Levene stat = 2.55 p <0.05) and eco-sensory intelligence (Levene stat = 4.15 p <0.01), thus rejected the null hypothesis of equal variance across five groups of intelligence and accepting that variances in WB and ESI were not equal for all five groups of intelligence.

Table 3 reveals analysis of variance in total, between and within subjects. There was significant difference found between IQ and WB (F=3.44; p<.01), hence null hypothesis stated there will be no significant difference between IQ and WB was rejected. There was no significant difference found between IQ and ESI (F=2.15; p>.05), hence null hypothesis stated that there will be no difference between IQ and ESI was accepted. Thus, both intelligences, general and eco-sensory have commonality between them.

Figure 1. Normal Probability Curve (NPC) of scores obtained by the subjects on the TGI N=304; M=2.58; SD=0.97

Figure 2. Normal Probability Curve (NPC) of scores obtained by the subjects on the EAAM N=304; M=44.518; SD=3.54

Figure 3. Normal Probability Curve (NPC) of scores obtained by the subjects on the PGI-WB N=304; M=15.22; SD=4.61

Figure 4. Graphical Representation of Means of ESI and WB with respect to IQ Upper Line - Mean of ESI Lower Line - Mean of WB

Table 2. Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Table 3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Table 4 & Table 5 reveal pair wise multiple comparisons of levels of IQ with respect to WB and ESI to find out the exact significant differences within variable. As stated above there was significant difference found only between IQ and WB. The significant mean differences found among pairs of above average IQ (level 1) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 5.31, SE=1.50 (p<.01); average IQ (level 3) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 4.21, SE=1.37 (p<.05) and just below average IQ (level 4) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 4.68, SE=1.53 (p<.05). There was no significant difference in WB found between pair of just above average IQ (level 2) and below average IQ (level 5) or any other pair of IQ except the ones stated above.

Table 4. Scheffe Pairwise Multiple Comparisons & Contrasts

No significant difference found between IQ and ESI. However, there was no pair wise significant difference found at 0.05 level within ESI among five levels of IQ, but a pair of just above average IQ (level 2) and below average IQ (level 5) with mean difference = 3.06, SE=1.06 (p<.08) have reached approximately to the 0.05 significant level. Therefore, null hypothesis can be marginally rejected for the pair.

Table 5. Scheffe Pairwise Multiple Comparisons & Contrasts

Table 6. Scheffe Homogeneous Subsets for Well-Being

Table 7. Scheffe Homogeneous Subsets for Eco-Sensory Intelligence

Figure 5. Homogeneous subset for WB and IQ

Figure 6. Homogeneous subset for ESI and IQ

Table 6 & Table 7 reveal means of IQ at five levels for WB and ESI arranged from least to greatest in homogeneous subsets along with graphical representation in Figure 5 & Figure 6 respectively.

Table 8 reveals the Pearson correlation among the variables under study. IQ was negatively correlated with no significant relationship found between WB (r = -0.099) and ESI (r = -0.068) while positive relationship between WB and ESI was found though significant but weak (r = 0.231) at 0.01 level.

Table 8. Pearson Correlation among Variables

8. Discussion

Intelligence has been variedly defined because of its nature and diversity found in a wide range of environments. There exists a simple, common and elegant underlying principle of evolutionary adaptation in all living beings which directs to behave in a certain distinct way paves the foundation to understand intelligence as a synergy of biological and ecological phenomenon. Thus intelligence becomes requisite component of all forms of life. The underlying intelligence found in all species is eco-sensory intelligence. This paper defines it as, ‘uniting quanta of general intelligence among all living beings’. The results of the study reveal that there was no significant difference found between general intelligence IQ and ESI (F=2.15; p>.075) which suggests that both intelligences have some commonalities in them. However, the correlation between two was found negative though not significant. The negative relationship of IQ and ESI reflects ruthless exploitation of natural resources by human as a part of industrial and other human-centred development, forgetting the simple fact that human species is only one among the multifarious member of the cosmos, has already wrecked havoc to the environment it lives in [60].

Many researchers and scholars have speculated that superior reasoning leads to greater well-being. Various large scale studies have shown no significant relationship between standard measures of intelligence and well-being [61,62,63]. However, some studies found a significant association between wise reasoning and wide range of well-being indicators. Participant who scored high on wise reasoning reported less negative affect in daily life, better relationship quality, greater life satisfaction, less tendency to brood and a more positive way of talking about societal conflicts but not more positive affect in daily life [64]. The results of present study confirm the speculations about relationship between reasoning ability and well-being is correct. There was significant difference found between IQ and WB (F=3.44; p<.01), while both were negatively correlated though not significant. Reference [65] showed that general (fluid) intelligence was significantly associated with life satisfaction among young and middle-aged adults, but not among older adults. There were several empirical reasons to accept general intelligence as a significant determinant of well-being because of its significant correlation with lot of variable of well-being over the life course. Intelligence was found significantly correlated with education and wealth [66,67] and control over life circumstances [68,69]. Studies in positive psychology showed that intelligent individuals experience less variability in their well-being over time and return to their baseline of well-being after major life events, both positive and negative [70].

Eco-sensory intelligence and its awareness are becoming increasingly evident in the era of Covid-19 pandemic and the worsening of environment due to human exploitation have revealed how human well-being is fundamentally nested in the well-being of the Planet. Eco-sensory intelligence promotes well-being of all inmates of the ‘global nest’ in unison with the cosmic rhythm. Deep ecology advocates striving an eco-sensitivity and balance of complex interrelationships between human and nature for sustainable well-being [71,72,73]. The results of the present study reveal that ESI and WB have comparatively significant positive relationship (r = 0.23; p<0.01) similar to the results reported in a study by Brown & Kasser (2005) where subjective well-being and ecologically responsible behaviour in adolescents and adults were found significantly related. Their findings also suggested that ecological sustainable way of life enhances both personal and collective well-being.

9. Limitations and Future Research

The study comprised of a sample of only male subjects and job seekers by nature. Female subjects could have been involved in the study to study gender differences especially in eco-sensory intelligence. The nature of the sample could have been made broad to include larger variety of people from the human society. Though ESI has been measured through environment awareness ability, the concept ESI can be further researched rigorously to be operationally defined and a new test can be developed to measure the concept.

10. Conclusion

The study (N=304) was aimed to analyse treatment effects of five different levels of general intelligence IQ on eco-sensory intelligence (ESI) and well-being (WB). The IQ has been categorised into five levels ranging from the level 1 (above average), level 2 (just above average), level 3 (average), level 4 (just below average) and level 5 (below average). The mean of WB was found highest among IQ level 1 (above average) subjects and lowest among IQ level 5 (below average). The mean of ESI was found lowest among IQ level 5 (below average) and more or less same among IQ levels 1 to 4. The variances were found not equal for all five groups. Thus it can be firmly concluded that IQ level (below average) showed lowest mean of WB and ESI. Thus it can be concluded that higher IQ level have higher eco-sensory intelligence and well-being in life.

The study found the significant difference between IQ and WB but not between IQ and ESI. The pair wise multiple comparisons of different levels of IQ with WB and ESI showed the significant mean differences also. Pairs of IQ levels (1&5; 3&5; and 4&5) showed the significant mean differences with respect to WB. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected stated that no significant differences in WB with respect to different levels of IQ. Thus, it can be concluded that level of IQ plays significant role in the well-being of an individual. The higher IQ level subjects can be distinctly differentiated with lower IQ level subjects on the scale of well-being.

There was no significant difference found among different levels of IQ with ESI. The both intelligences, general and eco-sensory have commonalities. The only pair of IQ level (2&5) with respect to ESI has reached approximately to the 0.05 level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis was marginally rejected for this pair and accepted for rest of the pairs of IQ levels. Finally WB and ESI were found significantly positively correlated though relationship was found weak. Thus, it can also be conclude that well-being in life can be improved with ecological literacy. The ecological sensitivity, awareness, knowledge and literacy should be promoted in order to recognize and understand the multiple interwoven relationship among the living and non-living systems of the Earth for well-being enhancement of the humans.

Authors’ Note

The authors confirm that the study design, data collection, and analysis are original piece of research work.

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

There was no funding or financial support received by any of the organisation.

References

[1]   | Gottfredson, L.S., “Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography,” Intelligence, 24. 13-23. 1997.
[2]   | Gardner, H., Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993.
[3]   | Cosmides, L.and Tooby, J., “Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation,” Annual Review of Psychology, 64. 201-29. 2013.
[4]   | van Woerden, J.T., Willems, E.P., van Schaik, C.P. and Isler, K., “Large brains buffer energetic effects of seasonal habitats in catarrhine primates,” Evolution, 66 (1). 191-99. 2012.
[5]   | Schuppli, C., Isler, K. and van Schaik, C.P., “How to explain the unusually late age at skill competence among humans,” Journal of Human Evolution, 63(6). 843-50. 2012.
[6]   | Plomin, R., “The genetics of g in human and mouse,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(2). 136-41. 2001.
[7]   | Deary, I.J., Penke, L. and Johnson, W., “The neuroscience of human intelligence differences,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3). 201-11. 2010.
[8]   | Reeve, C.L., “Differential ability antecedents of general and specific dimensions of declarative knowledge: More than g,” Intelligence, 32(6). 621-52. 2004.

[9]  
Burkart, J.M., Allon, O., Amici, F., Fichtel, C., Finkenwirth, C., Heschl, A., Huber, J., Isler, K., Kosonen, Z., Martins, E., Meulman, E., Richiger, R., Rueth, K., Spillmann, B., Wiesendanger, S. and van Schaik, C.P., “The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation,” Nature Communications, 5. 4747. 2014.

[10]   | Flynn, J. R., “Does your family make you smarter: Nature, nurture, and human autonomy. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[11]   | Cosmides, L., Barrett, H.C. and Tooby, J., “Adaptive specializations, social exchange, and the evolution of human intelligence,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107(Supplement 2). 9007-14. 2010.
[12]   | Wang, X.T., “Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts,” Cognition, 60(1).31-63.1996.
[13]   | Deary, I.J., Cox, S.R. and Ritchie, S.J., “Getting Spearman off the skyhook: One more in a century (since Thomson, 1916) of attempts to vanquish g,” Psychological Inquiry, 27(3). 192-99. 2016.
[14]   | van der Maas, H.L.J., Dolan, C.V, Grasman, R.P.P.P., Wicherts, J.M., Huizenga, H.M. and Raijmakers, M.E.J., “A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism,” Psychological Review, 113 (4). 842-61. 2006.
[15]   | Burkart, J.M., “The evolution and consequences of sociality. In: Oxford handbook of comparative psychology,” ed. J. Call, G.M. Burghardt, I.M. Pepperberg, C.T. Snowdon and T. Zentall, Oxford University Press. 2017.
[16]   | Gibson, E.J., and Pick, A.D., “An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development,” Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2010.
[17]   | Mayer, F.S., & Frantz, C.M., “The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4). 503-515. 2004.
[18]   | Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M. and Murphy, S.A., “The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour,” Environment and Behaviour, 41(5). 715-740. 2009.
[19]   | Morrel, A., and O’Connor, M.A., “Introduction: In expanding the boundaries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and practise edited by O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A. and O’Connor, M.A, Palgrave, New York,2002.
[20]   | Jha, P. K., “Manual for environmental awareness ability,” National Psychological Corporation, Agra (UP), 1998.
[21]   | Gereke, Z., “Ecology and the organisation,” Znamen, Belgrade, 24-33. 1995.
[22]   | Chan, R.Y. and Yam, E., “Green movement in a newly industrial area: A survey on the attitudes and behaviour of the Hong Kong citizens,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5. 273-284. 1995.
[23]   | Hungerford, H.R. and Volk, T.L., “Changing learner behaviour through environmental education,” Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3). 8-21. 1990.
[24]   | Matthiessen, P., “Introduction: courage for the earth,” Houghton Miffin company, New York, 2007.
[25]   | Carson, R., “The sense of wonder,” Harper Collins, New York, NY.1956 /1998.
[26]   | Kellert, S. R., “Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive and evaluative development in children,” In P.H. Kahn, Jr, & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), “children and nature: psychological, socio-cultural and evolutionary investigations,” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 117-152, 2002.
[27]   | Chiarotto, L., “Natural curiosity: a resource for teachers,” D. Lemon (Ed.), Maracle Press Ltd., Oshawa, 2011.
[28]   | Louv, R., “Last child in the wood,” Algonquin books, Chapel Hill, 2008.
[29]   | Louv, R., “The nature principle: Reconnecting with life in a virtual age,” Algonquin books, Chapel Hill, 2012.
[30]   | Thomashow, M., “Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995.
[31]   | Larijani, M., “Assessment of environmental awareness among higher primary school teachers,” Journal Human Ecology, 3(12). 121-124. 2010.
[32]   | Sharma, N.K., “A study on environmental awareness of college students in relation to sex, rural-urban background and academic streams wise,” Journal of New Horizons in Education, 4(2). 15-20. 2014.
[33]   | Bulatovic, J. and Rajovic, G., “Environmental awareness for sustainability: Pilot survey in the Belgrade settlement Brace Jerkovic,” International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 2(1). 20-27. 2013.
[34]   | Abbas, M.Y. and Singh, R., “A survey of environmental awareness, attitude and participation amongst university students: A case study,” International Journal of Science and Research, 3(5). 1755-1760. 2014.
[35]   | Altin, A., Tecer, S., Tecer, L., Altin, S. and Kahraman, B.F., “Environmental awareness level of secondary school students: A case study in Balikesir (Turkiye),” 4th World Conference of Learning Teaching and Educational Leadership (WCLTA-2013), Social and Behaviour Sciences, 141, 1208-1214. 2014.
[36]   | Sebastian, S. and Nima, D., “Awareness of Bio-diversity and its conservation among higher secondary school students in Nayyatinkara district,” Research & Reflection on Education, 3(2). 3-8. 2005.
[37]   | Sengupta, M., Das, J. and Maji, P.K., “Environmental awareness and environment related behaviour of twelfth grade students in Kolkata: Effects of stream and gender,” Anwesa, 5. 1-8. 2010.
[38]   | Astalin, P.K., “A study of environmental awareness among higher secondary students and some educational factors affecting it,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(7). 90-101. 2011.
[39]   | Ali, R. and Sinha, B., “A study of environmental awareness and ecological behaviour among female B.Ed. students,” Educational Perspective, 2(1). 41-50. 2013.
[40]   | Ghosh, K., “Environmental awareness among secondary school students of Golaghat District in the State of Assam and their attitude towards environmental education,” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(3). 30-34. 2014.
[41]   | Bekoff, M., “The emotional lives of animals,” New World Library, Novato, CA, 2008.
[42]   | Jain, J., “Mental health in a changing world: Impact of eco-sensory intelligence,” Indian Journal of Health & Well-Being, 8(7). 608-610. 2017.
[43]   | Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., “Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains,” Personality Social Psychological bulletin, 27. 930-942. 2008.
[44]   | Layard, “Happiness: lessons from a new science,” Penguin Press, New York, 2005.
[45]   | Brown, T. and Gregory, R., “Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters,” Ecological Economics, 28. 323-335. 1999.
[46]   | Spielberger, C.D., “Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research,” Academic Press, New York, 481- 492.1972.
[47]   | Ellyatt, W., “Flourish project: the ecology of well-being,” 2020. [Online] Available: www.flourishproject.net; https://www.reserachgate.net/publication 326930750.
[48]   | Kowal, D.S. and Shukla, A., “Correlation of test anxiety and well-being in an employment interview among job applicants,” Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology Research, 4(4). 418-427. 2020.
[49]   | Wilson, E.O., “Biophilia,” Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.1984.
[50]   | Frey, B. and Stutzer, A., “What can economists learn from happiness research?” Journal of Economics Literature, 40. 402-435.
[51]   | Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Van de Berg, J.C.J.M., “Monetary valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?” Ecological Economics, 39.203-222. 2001.
[52]   | Kowal, D.S. and Dadhwal, M.K., “Gender difference in affect of job applicants on completion of projective test battery of personality assessment in armed forces,” Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 27(2). 190-196. 2019.
[53]   | Blanchflower, D. and Oswald, A., “Well-being over time in Britain and the USA,” Journal of public economics, 88. 1359-1386. 2004.
[54]   | Keely, L., “Why isn’t growth making us happier: Utility on the hedonic treadmill,” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 57. 333-355. 2005.
[55]   | Verma, S.K. and Verma, A., “Manual for PGI General Well-being Measure,” Ankur Psychological Agency, Lucknow. 1989.
[56]   | Dupuy, H.J., “The General Well-being Schedule,” In I. McDowell & C. Newell (Eds.),,” Oxford University Press, USA,1970.
[57]   | Fazio, A.F., “A Concurrent Validation Study of the NCHS General Well Being Schedule, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” DHEW Publication (HRA), 78-1347. 1977.
[58]   | Moudgil, A.C., Verma, S.K., Kaur, K. and Pal, M., “P.G.I. Well-Being Scale,” Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13. 195-198. 1986.
[59]   | Misra, K.S. and Pal, S.K., “Test of General Intelligence for College Students,” National Psychological Corporation, Agra, 1991.
[60]   | Sundareswaran, N.K., “Samskrtakairalian,” Journal for Indological Studies, publication division, University of Calicut, India. 2017.
[61]   | Sigelman, L., “Is ignorance bliss? A reconsideration of the folk wisdom,” Human Relations, 34(11). 965-974.1981.
[62]   | Watten, R.G., Syversen, J.L. and Myhrer, T., “Quality of life, intelligence and mood,” Social Indicators Research, 36(3). 287-299. 1995.
[63]   | Wirthwein, L. and Rost, D.H., “Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults,” Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2).182-186.2011.
[64]   | Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M.E., Park, D.C., Kitayama, S. and Nisbett, R.E., “Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(16). 7246-7250. 2010.
[65]   | Siedlecki, K.L., Tucker-Drob, E.M., Oishi, S. and Salthouse, T.A., “Life satisfaction across adulthood: different determinants at different ages?” Journal of Positive Psychology, 3. 153-164. 2008.
[66]   | Brown, K.W. and Kasser, T., “Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness and lifestyle,” Social Indicators Research, 74. 349-368. 2005.
[67]   | Snow, R.E. and Yalow, E., “Education and intelligence,” In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), “Handbook of human intelligence”, Cambridge University Press, 493-585, 1982.
[68]   | Lynn, R., Hampson, S. and Magee, M., “Home background, intelligence, personality and education as predictor of unemployment in young people,” Personality and Individual Differences, 5. 549-557. 1984.
[69]   | Smith, D.I. and Kirkham, R.W., “Relationship between intelligence and driving record,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14. 439-442. 1982.
[70]   | Lucas, R.E., “Adaptation and set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events?” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16.75-80. 2007.
[71]   | Naess, A., “The shallow and the deep, Long-Range ecology movement,” Inquiry, 16. 95-100. 1973.
[72]   | Devall, B. and Sessions, G., “Deep ecology,” G.M. Smith, Salt lake city, 1985.
[73]   | Fox, W., “Toward a transperonal ecology: developing new foundations for environmentalism”, Shambhala publications, Boston, 1990.