- Email: [email protected]
Desiring to connect to nature: The effect of ostracism on ecological behavior
Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
Desiring to connect to nature: The effect of ostracism on ecological behavior Kai-Tak Poon a, *, Fei Teng b, Jason T. Chow c, Zhansheng Chen d, * a
Department of Psychological Studies and Centre for Psychosocial Health, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong Department of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China c Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong d Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 9 January 2015 Received in revised form 28 February 2015 Accepted 7 March 2015 Available online 10 March 2015
Three experiments tested whether ostracism increases ecological behaviors through increased desires to connect to nature. Compared with non-ostracized participants, ostracized participants reported higher desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and were more willing to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Furthermore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations (Experiment 3). Together, these findings suggest that people try to cope with the pain of ostracism by connecting to the natural environment and behaving ecologically. They also highlight the significance of desires for nature connectedness in explaining why ostracism increases ecological behavior. Implications are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ostracism Social exclusion Ecological behavior Nature connectedness
“Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one.” Zhuangzi (369BCe286BC).
1. Introduction The opening quote from Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher, suggests that people are inseparable from nature. Western ecopsychologists share a similar view; they assert that people have a strong innate inclination to connect to nature (the biophilia hypothesis; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). However, in modern societies, people may behave in ways that damage natural environments by over-consuming and under-conserving natural resources (Oskamp, 2000). As the sustainability of natural resources is critical for human well-being, the question of how to achieve such sustainability and promote ecological lifestyles has become a hot social and research issue in most modern societies. Environmental and social psychologists have attempted to understand the antecedents that can promote ecological inclinations and behaviors, almost exclusively from a perspective that focuses * Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-T. Poon), [email protected] (Z. Chen). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.003 0272-4944/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
on people's perceived relationships between their self and nature. In particular, research has found that individuals who dispositionally feel connected to nature are more inclined to behave ecologically (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). However, relatively little research effort has been devoted to examine how interpersonal experiences might influence nature-related and ecological behaviors. Given that social and interpersonal experiences often guide people through events in daily life (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which may provide another useful perspective in understanding who are more inclined towards ecological behavior. The present research aims to fill this knowledge gap by testing a novel prediction that ostracism increases ecological inclinations through increased desires to connect to nature. Because the need to belong is one of the most fundamental human needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people should be motivated to restore their thwarted feelings of belonging following ostracism (Williams, 2007, 2009). As natural environments are readily perceived as sources of bonding and connection (Kellert & Wilson, 1993), and exposure to nature can ameliorate life difficulties and work stresses (e.g., Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & €rling, 2003; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, Ga 2009), people may seek to connect to nature when they encounter interpersonal setbacks, such as ostracism. In this regard, ostracized people should have increased desires to connect to nature, especially when there are no clear indicators of possible reconnection
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
117
with other individuals. We further predict that increased desires to connect to nature should carry behavioral implications. If ostracized people have increased desires to connect to nature, they should also be more ecologically-oriented to protect natural environments because nature represents an important source that can help them more effectively cope with the pain of ostracism. To summarize, the present research has two aims. First, it aims to provide the first experimental evidence that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and increases their inclinations to engage in ecological behaviors (Experiments 2 and 3). Second, it aims to show that increased desires to connect to nature mediate the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations (Experiment 3).
indicate that ostracized people have a strong desire to restore their feelings of belonging and may even perceive nonhuman objects as potential sources of affiliation. Having increased sensitivity to stimuli and situations that signal social connections and affiliations may imply that ostracized people may have increased desire to connect to nature, which should also have implications on subsequent ecological behaviors. The next section offers additional justifications for why ostracism may increase people's desires to connect to nature, which is followed by a section that discusses why ostracism may increase ecological behaviors.
1.1. Ostracism and relationship seeking
Nature connectedness refers to the degree to which one feels connected to nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). It is often construed as a personality trait (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), but recent research suggests that it can be experimentally induced. For example, a recent study finds that anthropomorphizing nature promotes one's perceived connection with natural environments (Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013). The present research tests whether ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature, which in turn motivates them to behave ecologically. One defining aspect of ostracism is reduced feelings of belonging (Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people should also try to restore the threatened feelings of belonging following ostracism. According to basic motivation principles, people generally seek convenient ways to satisfy their desires when they are deprived (Geen, 1995; Shah & Gardner, 2007). Natural environments provide an ideal avenue for restoration and coping because people need not worry whether they (or their request) will be rejected by nature. Research has shown that exposure to nature helps people cope with life difficulties and work stresses (e.g., Hartig et al., 2003; Mayer et al., 2009). Feeling connected to nature also promotes well-being (Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011). As nature represents an importance source of bonding and connection (see Kellert & Wilson, 1993), ostracized people should have an increased desire to connect to nature in order to restore their threatened feelings of belonging. The next section fleshes out the conceptual framework for why increased desires to connect to nature may increase ostracized people's inclinations towards ecological behaviors.
People have an evolved need to belong to groups and individuals (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Positive and sustainable social relationships are critical to people's physical and psychological well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Ostracism, which is defined as being rejected or ignored, thwarts people's pervasive need for belonging and cuts off people's access to the benefits associated with social connection (Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people often experience intense hurtful feelings when they perceive minimal and ambiguous cues of ostracism (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012). Given that belonging is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people should also try their best to restore the threatened feelings of belonging following ostracism. Prior research has shown that ostracized people have strong interest in connecting with other individuals, whom they perceive as providing potential sources of renewed affiliation (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). To increase their prospects of reconnections, ostracized people pay more attention to social information (e.g., Hess & Pickett, 2010; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004) and behave more pro-socially (e.g., Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). Following a brief episode of ostracism, people also identified smiling faces among an array of faces with different emotional expressions more quickly and also fixated on smiling faces longer (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009). These findings unanimously point out that ostracized people have an increased desire to seek social relationships and prefer stimuli that signal potential future affiliations. In addition to actively seeking to reconnect with humans, ostracized people are interested in forming parasocial relationships with non-humans. For example, Epley, Akalis, Waytz, and Cacioppo (2008) found that compared with their non-ostracized counterparts, ostracized participants were more likely to believe in supernatural agents (e.g., God and angels) and to anthropomorphize pets to make them become more humanlike. In a related vein, Aydin, Fischer, and Frey (2010) found that ostracized individuals had higher intentions to engage in religious behavior and that a religious prime can weaken the devastating impacts of ostracism. Moreover, researchers have found that animals can also provide feelings of belonging. In particular, pet owners tend to have better well-being and fulfillment of their social needs than non-pet owners (McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Study 1 and 2). Moreover, following an ostracism prime, people who thought about their pets restored their feelings of belonging more than their counterparts who thought about a control activity (McConnell et al., 2011; Study 3). Similarly, the mere presence of a dog during an ostracism episode can offset the negative impacts of ostracism on well-being (Aydin et al., 2012). These findings clearly
1.2. Ostracism and the desire to connect to nature
1.3. Ostracism and ecological behavior To engage in ecological behavior, people may need to override their own benefits and advantages for the sake of the environment's well-being. For example, people who decide not to drive to work may lower air pollution, but the use of public transportation may likely reduce people's comfort level and increase their transit time. People who use environmentally friendly or recycled products may reduce pollution, but these products are likely more expensive. Because ecological behaviors may sometimes bring inconveniences and disadvantages to one's self, people may need to view nature as an entity to which they belong before they engage in behaviors to protect the environment (c.f. Leopold, 1949). Modern ecopsychologists have further suggested that a sense of connection and belonging to nature is a critical antecedent to ecological behaviors. In particular, they theorized that people with high nature connectedness expand their self by including natural environments (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008; Roszak, 1995). The inclusion of nature into their self-concept should promote ecological behaviors because such people will be regarded as self-destructive if they refuse to protect natural environments (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Roszak, 1995).
118
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
2.2. Results
The speculation that nature connectedness promotes environmental protection has received burgeoning empirical support. For example, research has shown that nature connectedness is a moderate predictor of ecological behavior (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). As noted in the previous section, we propose that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature in this research because nature is perceived as an important source to help ostracized people restore their threatened feelings of belonging. If ostracized people have higher desires to connect to nature, these increased desires should in turn motivate them to behave ecologically to protect natural environments, which can readily provide feelings of acceptance and connection.
2.2.2. Desire to connect to nature Ostracized participants (M ¼ 4.39, SD ¼ 1.50) reported higher desires to connect to nature than control participants did (M ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 1.15), F(1, 63) ¼ 7.54, p < .01, h2p ¼ .11.
1.4. Current research
2.3. Discussion
Three experiments tested the hypothesis that ostracism increases people's desire to connect to nature and increases ecological behavior. In each experiment, participants were first exposed to a manipulation of ostracism. Next, they completed measures assessing their desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and/or their inclinations to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 3 also tested whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations.
Experiment 1 provided the first experimental evidence for the prediction that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature by engaging in more nature-related activities. Consistent with prior works, ostracized participants are interested in naturerelated activities that enable them to restore their thwarted feelings of belonging. For example, compared to participants in the control condition, participants in the ostracism condition demonstrated a higher intention to lie on grassland and plant flowers.
2.2.1. Manipulation check Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.69; SD ¼ 1.16) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than participants in the control condition did (M ¼ 1.97, SD ¼ 1.26), F(1, 63) ¼ 154.03, p < .001, h2p ¼ .71. Therefore, the manipulation was successful.
3. Experiment 2 2. Experiment 1 Experiment 1 examined whether ostracism increases one's desire to connect to nature. To manipulate ostracism, participants first imagined an ostracism or control experience (e.g., Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Poon, Chen, & DeWall, 2013). Next, participants reported how they would behave in a series of situations that involved an opportunity to connect to nature. We predicted that ostracism would increase one's desire to engage in nature-related activities. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and design Sixty-five undergraduates (23 men; mean age ¼ 20.07; SD ¼ 1.47) participated in this study in exchange for a small monetary reward. They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or control condition. 2.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed an imagination task to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Poon et al., 2013). Participants were asked to imagine that they were now working at an internship. By random assignment, participants in the ostracism condition imagined that they were being ostracized by colleagues and classmates, whereas participants in the control condition imagined that they were generally being accepted. Afterward, they responded to two statements (“I feel socially excluded” and “I feel ignored”; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree), which were averaged to check the manipulation (r ¼ .89, p < .001). In the second part, participants were told that the student center invited the lab to conduct a survey to investigate how likely undergraduates were to engage in five nature-related activities (i.e., lying on grassland, planting flowers, visiting the country-side, eating organic food, and planting trees in a local farm) if they had the opportunity (1 ¼ very unlikely; 7 ¼ very likely). The scores were averaged to index participants' desires to connect to nature (a ¼ .82). A debriefing followed.
Experiment 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 in three ways. First, we adopted a different paradigm to induce feelings of ostracism. Second, we assessed participants' intention to engage in various ecological behaviors. Third, we explored whether the potential differences in mood across the experimental conditions could account for our observed results. To manipulate ostracism, participants were either included or ostracized in an online ball tossing game by random assignment (Cyberball; e.g., Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Williams & Jarvis, 2006). Next, participants reported their mood and how ecologically they would behave in various situations. We predicted that ostracism would increase ecological inclinations. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and design Forty-seven undergraduates (9 men; mean age ¼ 20.06; SD ¼ 1.34) participated in this study in exchange for a small monetary reward. They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or control condition. 3.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed a mental visualization task by playing an online ball-tossing game (Cyberball) to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Williams et al., 2000; Williams & Jarvis, 2006). Participants were told that they were playing the game with two other participants. However, the game was completely pre-programmed. By random assignment, participants in the ostracism condition received only two of the total thirty ball tosses, whereas participants in the control condition received approximately one-third of the ball tosses. Afterward, they responded to two manipulation check questions (“I was ignored” and “I was excluded”; 1 ¼ agree; 5 ¼ disagree; r ¼ .95, p < .001). Participants also completed the positive (e.g., “I feel happy”) and negative mood (e.g., “I feel sad”) measure adopted from previous Cyberball research (1 ¼ not at all; 5 ¼ extremely; e.g., Williams et al., 2000; Williams, 2009). The scores were averaged to index positive (a ¼ .87) and negative mood (a ¼ .90), respectively.
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
In the second part, participants completed an unrelated survey that was ostensibly conducted by the student center. Participants indicated the likelihood that they would engage in 12 ecological behaviors (e.g., recycling, taking shorter showers) if they had the opportunity (1 ¼ very unlikely; 7 ¼ very likely). This measure was adapted from previous research (e.g., Kaiser, Doka, Hofstetter, & Ranney, 2003; Tam, 2013), which demonstrated the measure as a valid and reliable indicator of ecological inclinations in different samples (i.e., a Hong Kong Chinese undergraduate sample and an American community sample; see Tam, 2013). The scores were averaged to index participants' willingness to engage in ecological behaviors (a ¼ .77). A debriefing followed. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Manipulation check Ostracized participants (M ¼ 1.46, SD ¼ .76) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than control participants did (M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 1.16), F(1, 45) ¼ 66.60, p < .001, h2p ¼ .60. Therefore, the ostracism manipulation was successful. 3.2.2. Positive and negative mood Ostracized participants (M ¼ 2.10, SD ¼ .56) reported lower positive moods than control participants did (M ¼ 2.91, SD ¼ .97), F(1, 45) ¼ 12.49, p ¼ .001, h2p ¼ .22. Moreover, ostracized participants (M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ .68) reported higher negative moods than control participants did (M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ .92), F(1, 45) ¼ 39.13, p < .001, h2p ¼ .47. 3.2.3. Ecological behavior Ostracized participants (M ¼ 4.25, SD ¼ .72) reported a higher willingness to engage in ecological behaviors than control participants did (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼ .65), F(1, 45) ¼ 6.15, p < .02, h2p ¼ .12. Moreover, the effect of ostracism on ecological behaviors remained unchanged after controlling for the effects of positive and negative mood, F(1, 43) ¼ 6.08, p < .02, h2p ¼ .12. 3.2.4. Mediation analysis A multiple mediators bootstrapping analysis was also conducted (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), in which positive mood and negative mood were simultaneously entered as mediators. The experimental condition was coded as 1 (ostracism) or 1 (control condition). The results revealed that the indirect path coefficient via positive mood (.08 to .17) and negative mood (.39 to .08) included zero. Therefore, there was no statistical evidence that mood mediated the relationship between ostracism and ecological inclinations.
119
4. Experiment 3 Experiment 3 aimed to extend the previous findings in two ways. First, it compared the effects of ostracism on desires for nature connectedness and ecological behaviors with that of a negative non-social experience. Second, it tested whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. To manipulate ostracism, participants recalled a past ostracism or physical pain experience (e.g., Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008; Duclos, Wan, & Jiang, 2013). Next, participants reported their desires to connect to nature and their inclinations to behave ecologically. We predicted that their desires to connect to nature should account for the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and design Sixty-seven individuals in the United States (40 men; mean age ¼ 32.28; SD ¼ 12.65) completed this study via Amazon's Mechanical Turk in exchange for a small monetary reward (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or physical pain condition. 4.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed a memory task by recalling a past experience to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Duclos et al., 2013). Participants were instructed to describe these experiences in as much detail as possible. By random assignment, participants either recalled a past ostracism or physical pain experience. Afterward, they responded to three manipulation check questions (“The experience is negative”, “I feel socially excluded”, and “I feel ignored”; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree). The first item checked whether participants rated their respective experience as equally negative. The latter two items were averaged to check the ostracism manipulation (r ¼ .84, p < .001). Next, participants' desires to connect to nature were assessed by the modified version of the connectedness to nature scale (e.g., “I want to feel a sense of oneness with the natural environment around me”; “I want to feel disconnected from nature” (R); Mayer & Frantz, 2004; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree; a ¼ .84). In the second part, participants completed an unrelated survey that was ostensibly conducted by a marketing company. As with Experiment 2, participants indicated the likelihood that they would engage in 12 ecological behaviors (a ¼ .91). A debriefing followed. 4.2. Results
3.3. Discussion Experiment 2 provided evidence that ostracism increases inclinations to behave ecologically, even when the effects of moods were controlled for. Although the findings of Experiment 2 were clear, the mechanism underlying this causal relationship remained unclear. Prior research has shown that nature connectedness is related to ecological behavior (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). We propose that the increased desire to connect to nature following ostracism should account for the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. Moreover, the experimental conditions in previous experiments not only differed in social relationship status but also in valence. It was desirable to replicate the findings by comparing the effect of ostracism on desires to connect to nature and ecological behavior with a negative non-social control condition. To address these issues, we conducted Experiment 3.
4.2.1. Manipulation check Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 2.14) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 2.45, SD ¼ 1.21), F(1, 65) ¼ 34.25, p < .001, h2p ¼ .35. Moreover, participants rated their respective ostracism (M ¼ 5.79, SD ¼ 1.55) and physical pain (M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.62) experiences as equally negative, F(1, 65) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .71, h2p ¼ .002. Therefore, the manipulation was successful. 4.2.2. Desire to connect to nature Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.03, SD ¼ 1.02) reported higher desires to connect to nature than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ .96), F(1, 65) ¼ 6.58, p ¼ .01, h2p ¼ .09.
120
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
4.2.3. Ecological behavior Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 4.88, SD ¼ 1.26) reported a higher willingness to engage in ecological behaviors than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 4.27, SD ¼ 1.12), F(1, 65) ¼ 4.55, p < .04, h2p ¼ .07. 4.2.4. Mediation analysis A bootstrapping mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) with 5000 iterations was conducted to examine whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. The experimental condition was coded as 1 (ostracism) or 1 (physical pain). The 95% confidence interval for the indirect path coefficient excluded zero (0.06 to 0.42), suggesting a significant indirect effect (see Fig. 1). Therefore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. 4.3. Discussion Experiment 3 provided additional evidence for our observed effects of ostracism on people's desires to connect to nature and on ecological inclinations, compared with negative non-social experiences. Specifically, it showed that compared with participants in the physical pain condition, participants in the ostracism condition had higher inclinations to engage in ecological behavior, which was mediated by their increased desires to connect to nature. 5. General discussion Humans and nature are evolutionarily inter-dependent; thus, people have innate bonds of affiliation with nature, which creates feelings of nature connectedness (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). The ingrained bonding between humans and nature inspires us to investigate whether people have increased desires to connect to natural environments following ostracism, an aversive interpersonal experience that deprives people of social connection. We further examined whether increased desires to connect to nature following ostracism promote ecological behaviors. Across the three experiments, we found that ostracized individuals, compared with their non-ostracized counterparts, reported higher desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and higher inclinations to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Furthermore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior (Experiment 3). Moreover, in Experiment 2, positive and negative moods did not mediate the effect of ostracism on ecological inclination, and the effect of ostracism on ecological inclination still held when moods were controlled. In Experiment 3, participants who recalled an ostracism experience indicated higher desires to connect to nature and higher inclinations towards ecological behaviors than
Desire to Connect to Nature β = .60***
β= .30**
β= .26* Ecological Behavior
Ostracism (β= 0.07, ns)
Fig. 1. The desire to connect to nature mediates the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior (Experiment 3). ***p < .001; **p .01; *p < .05.
participants who recalled a non-social aversive experience. Overall, these findings suggest that ostracism increases ecological inclinations because ostracized people have increased desires to connect to nature (but not because of general emotional changes following ostracism). This finding is consistent with past studies consistently demonstrating that emotions and moods generally do not mediate the behavioral impact of ostracism (see Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009, for a meta-analytic review). The present findings are consistent with past research linking ostracism with prosocial behaviors (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Maner et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2000). In these investigations, compared with non-ostracized participants, ostracized participants donated more to charity, conformed more to other individuals, and spent more money to build social relationships with people whom they perceived positively. These researchers unanimously explained their findings in terms of people's increased desires to connect to other individuals following ostracism. The present findings contribute to the literature by showing that ostracism also increases people's desires to connect to natural environments, which in turn increases their inclinations towards pro-nature ecological behaviors. To be sure, the inclination towards interpersonal pro-social behavior is different from the intention to behave ecologically. People can be pro-social but not ecological. In daily life, attempts to behave ecologically can bring significant costs to individuals. In particular, it may be more costly, effortful, inconvenient, and uncomfortable to use environmentally friendly, recycled products or to take shorter showers. However, natural environments readily provide feelings of connection and acceptance (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), which is particularly attractive to those who currently lack these feelings. As ostracism deprives people of social connection and belonging, ostracized people should be particularly willing to restore the thwarted feelings of belonging (see Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people have higher desires to connect to nature following ostracism, and they are also more willing to sacrifice their personal benefits for the sake of protecting natural environments. In sum, the present findings go beyond the past findings that ostracism increases one's inclination towards interpersonal helping behavior by showing that ostracism also increases ecological behavior to protect natural environments through increased desires to connect to nature. 5.1. Limitations and future directions The present research provided converging evidence that ostracism increases people's desire to connect to nature, which increases their inclination to behave ecologically. However, there were some limitations that may serve as new avenues for future research. First, the present research employed self-report measures to assess participants' desires for nature connectedness. Although these measures are novel and are able to capture people's desires for nature connectedness in different situations, the validity of these measures should be further examined in future research. Moreover, the present research only examined ecological inclinations. Although behavioral intention is generally a strong predictor of actual behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991), future research should also examine whether ostracism increases actual ecological behavior. Second, we found that increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations. Other psychological processes may also be involved in this relationship. In particular, a sense of commitment to the environment, which is defined as the psychological attachment and long-term orientation
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
to the natural world, is an important prerequisite for environmental protection (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011). Because ostracism creates a desire to connect to nature, ostracized people may have a higher commitment to nature. This increased commitment to nature may then promote ecological inclinations. Self-presentation (or impression management), which refers to one's efforts to control the impressions that others form of them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), may also play a role in the relationship between ostracism and ecological inclination. Ostracized people desire to reconnect with other individuals. To achieve this goal, they are often motivated to present themselves positively by engaging in socially desirable activities (Maner et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). It may be possible that ostracized people are more inclined towards ecological behavior because they want to be liked by others. Future research may also examine the role of meaning in explaining the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations. Human prioritize a presence of meaning in their lives. People are motivated to restore their meaning system when it is threatened (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). When people are ostracized, they lose their meaning in life because they question their sense of purpose, self-worth, and value, as well as their ability to control their own goals and outcomes (Stillman et al., 2009). Therefore, ostracized people should have a stronger motivation to search for meaning. Given that meaning is associated with nature connectedness (e.g., Howell, Passmore, & Buro, 2013), ostracism may promote ecological behavior and greater concern about the condition and sustainability of the natural environment through increased motivation to search for meaning. These possibilities await future research. Third, we did not assess participants' personality characteristics in the present research. Future research may investigate who are more or less inclined towards ecological behavior following ostracism. For example, people who are high in dispositional nature connectedness (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) and commitment to the environment (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009) may be more likely to engage in behaviors that are related to environmental protection. Therefore, they may be more motivated to behave ecologically following ostracism. In contrast, narcissists (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and people who are rejection sensitive (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008) tend to respond to ostracism with destructive or retaliatory responses. Therefore, they may be less motivated to behave ecologically following ostracism. Finally, future research may examine whether exposure to nature may weaken various long-term and short-term detrimental impacts of ostracism. Prior research has shown that exposure to nature help to cope with stresses and life difficulties (e.g. Mayer et al., 2009; Hartig et al., 2003; see Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). Recent research also finds that exposure to nature counteracts the negative effect of ego-depletion on selfcontrol performance (Chow & Lau, 2015). The present findings that ostracized people desire to connect to nature may imply that exposure to nature may ameliorate the pain and negative consequences of ostracism. Ostracism leads to various undesirable outcomes, such as increasing hurtful feelings (Williams et al., 2000), activating brain areas that are involved in experiencing physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003), and reducing intellectual capacity (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Future research may examine whether exposing ostracized individuals to natural environments can effectively reduce these negative impacts. In a related vein, people who are immersed in the natural environment often have higher intrinsic aspirations and other-focused value orientations (Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2009). Future research may also examine whether exposing ostracized individuals to nature can promote intrinsic generosity and caring behavior.
121
6. Conclusion Ostracism is inevitable and detrimental, which may motivate people to behave in ways that can restore the feelings of connection and belonging. To date, no experimental research has examined the potential impact of ostracism on people's desires to connect to nature or their ecological inclinations. The current research showed that ostracism increased ecological inclinations, which was mediated by increased desires to connect to nature. These findings carry both theoretical and practical implications for the critical role of nature in one's coping with negative interpersonal experiences. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council's General Research Fund (HKU742411H). References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179e211. Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to god in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742e753. Aydin, N., Krueger, J. I., Fischer, J., Hahn, D., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2012). “Man's best friend:” How the presence of a dog reduces mental distress after social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 446e449. € Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejectionAyduk, O., aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775e782. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497e529. Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817e827. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269e309. Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3e5. Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (Eds.). (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143e153. Chen, Z., Williams, K. D., Fitness, J., & Newton, N. C. (2008). When hurt will not heal: Exploring the capacity to relive social and physical pain. Psychological Science, 19, 789e795. Chow, J. T., & Lau, S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: Exposure to nature counteracts ego-depletion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 70e85. Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173e180. Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 257e265. DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 729e741. Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2013). Show me the honey! Effects of social exclusion on financial risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 122e135. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290e292. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114e120. Filipkowski, K. B., & Smyth, J. M. (2012). Plugged in but not connected: Individuals' views of and responses to online and in-person ostracism. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1241e1253. Geen, R. G. (1995). Human motivation: A social psychological approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & G€ arling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109e123. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance Model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88e110.
122
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
Hess, Y. D., & Pickett, C. L. (2010). Social rejection and self-versus other-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 453e456. Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166e171. Howell, A. J., Passmore, H., & Buro, K. (2013). Meaning in nature: Meaning in life as a mediator of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1681e1696. Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11e20. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34e47. Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In H. Wayment, & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 137e147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42e55. 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, 503e515. Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? the role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607e643. McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239e1252. Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 373e390. Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095e1107. Poon, K. T., Chen, Z., & DeWall, C. N. (2013). Feeling entitled to more: Ostracism increases dishonest behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1227e1239.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717e731. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 802e823. Roszak, T. (1995). Where psyche meets Gaia. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 1e20). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Shah, J., & Gardner, W. (2007). Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Press. Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., DeWall, C. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 686e694. Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64e78. Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 514e521. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261e272. Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315e1329. Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). To be looked at as though air: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23, 166e168. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425e452. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279e314). New York: Academic Press. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748e762. Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 174e180. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
Desiring to connect to nature: The effect of ostracism on ecological behavior Kai-Tak Poon a, *, Fei Teng b, Jason T. Chow c, Zhansheng Chen d, * a
Department of Psychological Studies and Centre for Psychosocial Health, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong Department of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China c Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong d Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 9 January 2015 Received in revised form 28 February 2015 Accepted 7 March 2015 Available online 10 March 2015
Three experiments tested whether ostracism increases ecological behaviors through increased desires to connect to nature. Compared with non-ostracized participants, ostracized participants reported higher desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and were more willing to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Furthermore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations (Experiment 3). Together, these findings suggest that people try to cope with the pain of ostracism by connecting to the natural environment and behaving ecologically. They also highlight the significance of desires for nature connectedness in explaining why ostracism increases ecological behavior. Implications are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ostracism Social exclusion Ecological behavior Nature connectedness
“Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one.” Zhuangzi (369BCe286BC).
1. Introduction The opening quote from Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher, suggests that people are inseparable from nature. Western ecopsychologists share a similar view; they assert that people have a strong innate inclination to connect to nature (the biophilia hypothesis; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). However, in modern societies, people may behave in ways that damage natural environments by over-consuming and under-conserving natural resources (Oskamp, 2000). As the sustainability of natural resources is critical for human well-being, the question of how to achieve such sustainability and promote ecological lifestyles has become a hot social and research issue in most modern societies. Environmental and social psychologists have attempted to understand the antecedents that can promote ecological inclinations and behaviors, almost exclusively from a perspective that focuses * Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-T. Poon), [email protected] (Z. Chen). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.003 0272-4944/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
on people's perceived relationships between their self and nature. In particular, research has found that individuals who dispositionally feel connected to nature are more inclined to behave ecologically (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). However, relatively little research effort has been devoted to examine how interpersonal experiences might influence nature-related and ecological behaviors. Given that social and interpersonal experiences often guide people through events in daily life (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which may provide another useful perspective in understanding who are more inclined towards ecological behavior. The present research aims to fill this knowledge gap by testing a novel prediction that ostracism increases ecological inclinations through increased desires to connect to nature. Because the need to belong is one of the most fundamental human needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people should be motivated to restore their thwarted feelings of belonging following ostracism (Williams, 2007, 2009). As natural environments are readily perceived as sources of bonding and connection (Kellert & Wilson, 1993), and exposure to nature can ameliorate life difficulties and work stresses (e.g., Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & €rling, 2003; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, Ga 2009), people may seek to connect to nature when they encounter interpersonal setbacks, such as ostracism. In this regard, ostracized people should have increased desires to connect to nature, especially when there are no clear indicators of possible reconnection
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
117
with other individuals. We further predict that increased desires to connect to nature should carry behavioral implications. If ostracized people have increased desires to connect to nature, they should also be more ecologically-oriented to protect natural environments because nature represents an important source that can help them more effectively cope with the pain of ostracism. To summarize, the present research has two aims. First, it aims to provide the first experimental evidence that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and increases their inclinations to engage in ecological behaviors (Experiments 2 and 3). Second, it aims to show that increased desires to connect to nature mediate the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations (Experiment 3).
indicate that ostracized people have a strong desire to restore their feelings of belonging and may even perceive nonhuman objects as potential sources of affiliation. Having increased sensitivity to stimuli and situations that signal social connections and affiliations may imply that ostracized people may have increased desire to connect to nature, which should also have implications on subsequent ecological behaviors. The next section offers additional justifications for why ostracism may increase people's desires to connect to nature, which is followed by a section that discusses why ostracism may increase ecological behaviors.
1.1. Ostracism and relationship seeking
Nature connectedness refers to the degree to which one feels connected to nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). It is often construed as a personality trait (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), but recent research suggests that it can be experimentally induced. For example, a recent study finds that anthropomorphizing nature promotes one's perceived connection with natural environments (Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013). The present research tests whether ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature, which in turn motivates them to behave ecologically. One defining aspect of ostracism is reduced feelings of belonging (Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people should also try to restore the threatened feelings of belonging following ostracism. According to basic motivation principles, people generally seek convenient ways to satisfy their desires when they are deprived (Geen, 1995; Shah & Gardner, 2007). Natural environments provide an ideal avenue for restoration and coping because people need not worry whether they (or their request) will be rejected by nature. Research has shown that exposure to nature helps people cope with life difficulties and work stresses (e.g., Hartig et al., 2003; Mayer et al., 2009). Feeling connected to nature also promotes well-being (Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011). As nature represents an importance source of bonding and connection (see Kellert & Wilson, 1993), ostracized people should have an increased desire to connect to nature in order to restore their threatened feelings of belonging. The next section fleshes out the conceptual framework for why increased desires to connect to nature may increase ostracized people's inclinations towards ecological behaviors.
People have an evolved need to belong to groups and individuals (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Positive and sustainable social relationships are critical to people's physical and psychological well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Ostracism, which is defined as being rejected or ignored, thwarts people's pervasive need for belonging and cuts off people's access to the benefits associated with social connection (Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people often experience intense hurtful feelings when they perceive minimal and ambiguous cues of ostracism (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012). Given that belonging is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people should also try their best to restore the threatened feelings of belonging following ostracism. Prior research has shown that ostracized people have strong interest in connecting with other individuals, whom they perceive as providing potential sources of renewed affiliation (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). To increase their prospects of reconnections, ostracized people pay more attention to social information (e.g., Hess & Pickett, 2010; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004) and behave more pro-socially (e.g., Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). Following a brief episode of ostracism, people also identified smiling faces among an array of faces with different emotional expressions more quickly and also fixated on smiling faces longer (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009). These findings unanimously point out that ostracized people have an increased desire to seek social relationships and prefer stimuli that signal potential future affiliations. In addition to actively seeking to reconnect with humans, ostracized people are interested in forming parasocial relationships with non-humans. For example, Epley, Akalis, Waytz, and Cacioppo (2008) found that compared with their non-ostracized counterparts, ostracized participants were more likely to believe in supernatural agents (e.g., God and angels) and to anthropomorphize pets to make them become more humanlike. In a related vein, Aydin, Fischer, and Frey (2010) found that ostracized individuals had higher intentions to engage in religious behavior and that a religious prime can weaken the devastating impacts of ostracism. Moreover, researchers have found that animals can also provide feelings of belonging. In particular, pet owners tend to have better well-being and fulfillment of their social needs than non-pet owners (McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Study 1 and 2). Moreover, following an ostracism prime, people who thought about their pets restored their feelings of belonging more than their counterparts who thought about a control activity (McConnell et al., 2011; Study 3). Similarly, the mere presence of a dog during an ostracism episode can offset the negative impacts of ostracism on well-being (Aydin et al., 2012). These findings clearly
1.2. Ostracism and the desire to connect to nature
1.3. Ostracism and ecological behavior To engage in ecological behavior, people may need to override their own benefits and advantages for the sake of the environment's well-being. For example, people who decide not to drive to work may lower air pollution, but the use of public transportation may likely reduce people's comfort level and increase their transit time. People who use environmentally friendly or recycled products may reduce pollution, but these products are likely more expensive. Because ecological behaviors may sometimes bring inconveniences and disadvantages to one's self, people may need to view nature as an entity to which they belong before they engage in behaviors to protect the environment (c.f. Leopold, 1949). Modern ecopsychologists have further suggested that a sense of connection and belonging to nature is a critical antecedent to ecological behaviors. In particular, they theorized that people with high nature connectedness expand their self by including natural environments (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008; Roszak, 1995). The inclusion of nature into their self-concept should promote ecological behaviors because such people will be regarded as self-destructive if they refuse to protect natural environments (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Roszak, 1995).
118
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
2.2. Results
The speculation that nature connectedness promotes environmental protection has received burgeoning empirical support. For example, research has shown that nature connectedness is a moderate predictor of ecological behavior (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). As noted in the previous section, we propose that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature in this research because nature is perceived as an important source to help ostracized people restore their threatened feelings of belonging. If ostracized people have higher desires to connect to nature, these increased desires should in turn motivate them to behave ecologically to protect natural environments, which can readily provide feelings of acceptance and connection.
2.2.2. Desire to connect to nature Ostracized participants (M ¼ 4.39, SD ¼ 1.50) reported higher desires to connect to nature than control participants did (M ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 1.15), F(1, 63) ¼ 7.54, p < .01, h2p ¼ .11.
1.4. Current research
2.3. Discussion
Three experiments tested the hypothesis that ostracism increases people's desire to connect to nature and increases ecological behavior. In each experiment, participants were first exposed to a manipulation of ostracism. Next, they completed measures assessing their desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and/or their inclinations to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 3 also tested whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations.
Experiment 1 provided the first experimental evidence for the prediction that ostracism increases people's desires to connect to nature by engaging in more nature-related activities. Consistent with prior works, ostracized participants are interested in naturerelated activities that enable them to restore their thwarted feelings of belonging. For example, compared to participants in the control condition, participants in the ostracism condition demonstrated a higher intention to lie on grassland and plant flowers.
2.2.1. Manipulation check Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.69; SD ¼ 1.16) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than participants in the control condition did (M ¼ 1.97, SD ¼ 1.26), F(1, 63) ¼ 154.03, p < .001, h2p ¼ .71. Therefore, the manipulation was successful.
3. Experiment 2 2. Experiment 1 Experiment 1 examined whether ostracism increases one's desire to connect to nature. To manipulate ostracism, participants first imagined an ostracism or control experience (e.g., Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Poon, Chen, & DeWall, 2013). Next, participants reported how they would behave in a series of situations that involved an opportunity to connect to nature. We predicted that ostracism would increase one's desire to engage in nature-related activities. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and design Sixty-five undergraduates (23 men; mean age ¼ 20.07; SD ¼ 1.47) participated in this study in exchange for a small monetary reward. They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or control condition. 2.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed an imagination task to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Poon et al., 2013). Participants were asked to imagine that they were now working at an internship. By random assignment, participants in the ostracism condition imagined that they were being ostracized by colleagues and classmates, whereas participants in the control condition imagined that they were generally being accepted. Afterward, they responded to two statements (“I feel socially excluded” and “I feel ignored”; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree), which were averaged to check the manipulation (r ¼ .89, p < .001). In the second part, participants were told that the student center invited the lab to conduct a survey to investigate how likely undergraduates were to engage in five nature-related activities (i.e., lying on grassland, planting flowers, visiting the country-side, eating organic food, and planting trees in a local farm) if they had the opportunity (1 ¼ very unlikely; 7 ¼ very likely). The scores were averaged to index participants' desires to connect to nature (a ¼ .82). A debriefing followed.
Experiment 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 in three ways. First, we adopted a different paradigm to induce feelings of ostracism. Second, we assessed participants' intention to engage in various ecological behaviors. Third, we explored whether the potential differences in mood across the experimental conditions could account for our observed results. To manipulate ostracism, participants were either included or ostracized in an online ball tossing game by random assignment (Cyberball; e.g., Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Williams & Jarvis, 2006). Next, participants reported their mood and how ecologically they would behave in various situations. We predicted that ostracism would increase ecological inclinations. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and design Forty-seven undergraduates (9 men; mean age ¼ 20.06; SD ¼ 1.34) participated in this study in exchange for a small monetary reward. They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or control condition. 3.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed a mental visualization task by playing an online ball-tossing game (Cyberball) to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Williams et al., 2000; Williams & Jarvis, 2006). Participants were told that they were playing the game with two other participants. However, the game was completely pre-programmed. By random assignment, participants in the ostracism condition received only two of the total thirty ball tosses, whereas participants in the control condition received approximately one-third of the ball tosses. Afterward, they responded to two manipulation check questions (“I was ignored” and “I was excluded”; 1 ¼ agree; 5 ¼ disagree; r ¼ .95, p < .001). Participants also completed the positive (e.g., “I feel happy”) and negative mood (e.g., “I feel sad”) measure adopted from previous Cyberball research (1 ¼ not at all; 5 ¼ extremely; e.g., Williams et al., 2000; Williams, 2009). The scores were averaged to index positive (a ¼ .87) and negative mood (a ¼ .90), respectively.
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
In the second part, participants completed an unrelated survey that was ostensibly conducted by the student center. Participants indicated the likelihood that they would engage in 12 ecological behaviors (e.g., recycling, taking shorter showers) if they had the opportunity (1 ¼ very unlikely; 7 ¼ very likely). This measure was adapted from previous research (e.g., Kaiser, Doka, Hofstetter, & Ranney, 2003; Tam, 2013), which demonstrated the measure as a valid and reliable indicator of ecological inclinations in different samples (i.e., a Hong Kong Chinese undergraduate sample and an American community sample; see Tam, 2013). The scores were averaged to index participants' willingness to engage in ecological behaviors (a ¼ .77). A debriefing followed. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Manipulation check Ostracized participants (M ¼ 1.46, SD ¼ .76) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than control participants did (M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 1.16), F(1, 45) ¼ 66.60, p < .001, h2p ¼ .60. Therefore, the ostracism manipulation was successful. 3.2.2. Positive and negative mood Ostracized participants (M ¼ 2.10, SD ¼ .56) reported lower positive moods than control participants did (M ¼ 2.91, SD ¼ .97), F(1, 45) ¼ 12.49, p ¼ .001, h2p ¼ .22. Moreover, ostracized participants (M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ .68) reported higher negative moods than control participants did (M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ .92), F(1, 45) ¼ 39.13, p < .001, h2p ¼ .47. 3.2.3. Ecological behavior Ostracized participants (M ¼ 4.25, SD ¼ .72) reported a higher willingness to engage in ecological behaviors than control participants did (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼ .65), F(1, 45) ¼ 6.15, p < .02, h2p ¼ .12. Moreover, the effect of ostracism on ecological behaviors remained unchanged after controlling for the effects of positive and negative mood, F(1, 43) ¼ 6.08, p < .02, h2p ¼ .12. 3.2.4. Mediation analysis A multiple mediators bootstrapping analysis was also conducted (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), in which positive mood and negative mood were simultaneously entered as mediators. The experimental condition was coded as 1 (ostracism) or 1 (control condition). The results revealed that the indirect path coefficient via positive mood (.08 to .17) and negative mood (.39 to .08) included zero. Therefore, there was no statistical evidence that mood mediated the relationship between ostracism and ecological inclinations.
119
4. Experiment 3 Experiment 3 aimed to extend the previous findings in two ways. First, it compared the effects of ostracism on desires for nature connectedness and ecological behaviors with that of a negative non-social experience. Second, it tested whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. To manipulate ostracism, participants recalled a past ostracism or physical pain experience (e.g., Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008; Duclos, Wan, & Jiang, 2013). Next, participants reported their desires to connect to nature and their inclinations to behave ecologically. We predicted that their desires to connect to nature should account for the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and design Sixty-seven individuals in the United States (40 men; mean age ¼ 32.28; SD ¼ 12.65) completed this study via Amazon's Mechanical Turk in exchange for a small monetary reward (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). They were randomly assigned to the ostracism or physical pain condition. 4.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of two unrelated parts. In the first part, participants completed a memory task by recalling a past experience to induce feelings of ostracism (e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Duclos et al., 2013). Participants were instructed to describe these experiences in as much detail as possible. By random assignment, participants either recalled a past ostracism or physical pain experience. Afterward, they responded to three manipulation check questions (“The experience is negative”, “I feel socially excluded”, and “I feel ignored”; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree). The first item checked whether participants rated their respective experience as equally negative. The latter two items were averaged to check the ostracism manipulation (r ¼ .84, p < .001). Next, participants' desires to connect to nature were assessed by the modified version of the connectedness to nature scale (e.g., “I want to feel a sense of oneness with the natural environment around me”; “I want to feel disconnected from nature” (R); Mayer & Frantz, 2004; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree; a ¼ .84). In the second part, participants completed an unrelated survey that was ostensibly conducted by a marketing company. As with Experiment 2, participants indicated the likelihood that they would engage in 12 ecological behaviors (a ¼ .91). A debriefing followed. 4.2. Results
3.3. Discussion Experiment 2 provided evidence that ostracism increases inclinations to behave ecologically, even when the effects of moods were controlled for. Although the findings of Experiment 2 were clear, the mechanism underlying this causal relationship remained unclear. Prior research has shown that nature connectedness is related to ecological behavior (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). We propose that the increased desire to connect to nature following ostracism should account for the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. Moreover, the experimental conditions in previous experiments not only differed in social relationship status but also in valence. It was desirable to replicate the findings by comparing the effect of ostracism on desires to connect to nature and ecological behavior with a negative non-social control condition. To address these issues, we conducted Experiment 3.
4.2.1. Manipulation check Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 2.14) reported feeling more excluded and ignored than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 2.45, SD ¼ 1.21), F(1, 65) ¼ 34.25, p < .001, h2p ¼ .35. Moreover, participants rated their respective ostracism (M ¼ 5.79, SD ¼ 1.55) and physical pain (M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.62) experiences as equally negative, F(1, 65) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .71, h2p ¼ .002. Therefore, the manipulation was successful. 4.2.2. Desire to connect to nature Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.03, SD ¼ 1.02) reported higher desires to connect to nature than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ .96), F(1, 65) ¼ 6.58, p ¼ .01, h2p ¼ .09.
120
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
4.2.3. Ecological behavior Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 4.88, SD ¼ 1.26) reported a higher willingness to engage in ecological behaviors than participants in the physical pain condition did (M ¼ 4.27, SD ¼ 1.12), F(1, 65) ¼ 4.55, p < .04, h2p ¼ .07. 4.2.4. Mediation analysis A bootstrapping mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) with 5000 iterations was conducted to examine whether increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. The experimental condition was coded as 1 (ostracism) or 1 (physical pain). The 95% confidence interval for the indirect path coefficient excluded zero (0.06 to 0.42), suggesting a significant indirect effect (see Fig. 1). Therefore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. 4.3. Discussion Experiment 3 provided additional evidence for our observed effects of ostracism on people's desires to connect to nature and on ecological inclinations, compared with negative non-social experiences. Specifically, it showed that compared with participants in the physical pain condition, participants in the ostracism condition had higher inclinations to engage in ecological behavior, which was mediated by their increased desires to connect to nature. 5. General discussion Humans and nature are evolutionarily inter-dependent; thus, people have innate bonds of affiliation with nature, which creates feelings of nature connectedness (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). The ingrained bonding between humans and nature inspires us to investigate whether people have increased desires to connect to natural environments following ostracism, an aversive interpersonal experience that deprives people of social connection. We further examined whether increased desires to connect to nature following ostracism promote ecological behaviors. Across the three experiments, we found that ostracized individuals, compared with their non-ostracized counterparts, reported higher desires to connect to nature (Experiments 1 and 3) and higher inclinations to behave ecologically (Experiments 2 and 3). Furthermore, increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior (Experiment 3). Moreover, in Experiment 2, positive and negative moods did not mediate the effect of ostracism on ecological inclination, and the effect of ostracism on ecological inclination still held when moods were controlled. In Experiment 3, participants who recalled an ostracism experience indicated higher desires to connect to nature and higher inclinations towards ecological behaviors than
Desire to Connect to Nature β = .60***
β= .30**
β= .26* Ecological Behavior
Ostracism (β= 0.07, ns)
Fig. 1. The desire to connect to nature mediates the effect of ostracism on ecological behavior (Experiment 3). ***p < .001; **p .01; *p < .05.
participants who recalled a non-social aversive experience. Overall, these findings suggest that ostracism increases ecological inclinations because ostracized people have increased desires to connect to nature (but not because of general emotional changes following ostracism). This finding is consistent with past studies consistently demonstrating that emotions and moods generally do not mediate the behavioral impact of ostracism (see Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009, for a meta-analytic review). The present findings are consistent with past research linking ostracism with prosocial behaviors (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Maner et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2000). In these investigations, compared with non-ostracized participants, ostracized participants donated more to charity, conformed more to other individuals, and spent more money to build social relationships with people whom they perceived positively. These researchers unanimously explained their findings in terms of people's increased desires to connect to other individuals following ostracism. The present findings contribute to the literature by showing that ostracism also increases people's desires to connect to natural environments, which in turn increases their inclinations towards pro-nature ecological behaviors. To be sure, the inclination towards interpersonal pro-social behavior is different from the intention to behave ecologically. People can be pro-social but not ecological. In daily life, attempts to behave ecologically can bring significant costs to individuals. In particular, it may be more costly, effortful, inconvenient, and uncomfortable to use environmentally friendly, recycled products or to take shorter showers. However, natural environments readily provide feelings of connection and acceptance (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), which is particularly attractive to those who currently lack these feelings. As ostracism deprives people of social connection and belonging, ostracized people should be particularly willing to restore the thwarted feelings of belonging (see Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, people have higher desires to connect to nature following ostracism, and they are also more willing to sacrifice their personal benefits for the sake of protecting natural environments. In sum, the present findings go beyond the past findings that ostracism increases one's inclination towards interpersonal helping behavior by showing that ostracism also increases ecological behavior to protect natural environments through increased desires to connect to nature. 5.1. Limitations and future directions The present research provided converging evidence that ostracism increases people's desire to connect to nature, which increases their inclination to behave ecologically. However, there were some limitations that may serve as new avenues for future research. First, the present research employed self-report measures to assess participants' desires for nature connectedness. Although these measures are novel and are able to capture people's desires for nature connectedness in different situations, the validity of these measures should be further examined in future research. Moreover, the present research only examined ecological inclinations. Although behavioral intention is generally a strong predictor of actual behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991), future research should also examine whether ostracism increases actual ecological behavior. Second, we found that increased desires to connect to nature mediated the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations. Other psychological processes may also be involved in this relationship. In particular, a sense of commitment to the environment, which is defined as the psychological attachment and long-term orientation
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
to the natural world, is an important prerequisite for environmental protection (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011). Because ostracism creates a desire to connect to nature, ostracized people may have a higher commitment to nature. This increased commitment to nature may then promote ecological inclinations. Self-presentation (or impression management), which refers to one's efforts to control the impressions that others form of them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), may also play a role in the relationship between ostracism and ecological inclination. Ostracized people desire to reconnect with other individuals. To achieve this goal, they are often motivated to present themselves positively by engaging in socially desirable activities (Maner et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). It may be possible that ostracized people are more inclined towards ecological behavior because they want to be liked by others. Future research may also examine the role of meaning in explaining the effect of ostracism on ecological inclinations. Human prioritize a presence of meaning in their lives. People are motivated to restore their meaning system when it is threatened (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). When people are ostracized, they lose their meaning in life because they question their sense of purpose, self-worth, and value, as well as their ability to control their own goals and outcomes (Stillman et al., 2009). Therefore, ostracized people should have a stronger motivation to search for meaning. Given that meaning is associated with nature connectedness (e.g., Howell, Passmore, & Buro, 2013), ostracism may promote ecological behavior and greater concern about the condition and sustainability of the natural environment through increased motivation to search for meaning. These possibilities await future research. Third, we did not assess participants' personality characteristics in the present research. Future research may investigate who are more or less inclined towards ecological behavior following ostracism. For example, people who are high in dispositional nature connectedness (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) and commitment to the environment (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009) may be more likely to engage in behaviors that are related to environmental protection. Therefore, they may be more motivated to behave ecologically following ostracism. In contrast, narcissists (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and people who are rejection sensitive (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008) tend to respond to ostracism with destructive or retaliatory responses. Therefore, they may be less motivated to behave ecologically following ostracism. Finally, future research may examine whether exposure to nature may weaken various long-term and short-term detrimental impacts of ostracism. Prior research has shown that exposure to nature help to cope with stresses and life difficulties (e.g. Mayer et al., 2009; Hartig et al., 2003; see Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). Recent research also finds that exposure to nature counteracts the negative effect of ego-depletion on selfcontrol performance (Chow & Lau, 2015). The present findings that ostracized people desire to connect to nature may imply that exposure to nature may ameliorate the pain and negative consequences of ostracism. Ostracism leads to various undesirable outcomes, such as increasing hurtful feelings (Williams et al., 2000), activating brain areas that are involved in experiencing physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003), and reducing intellectual capacity (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Future research may examine whether exposing ostracized individuals to natural environments can effectively reduce these negative impacts. In a related vein, people who are immersed in the natural environment often have higher intrinsic aspirations and other-focused value orientations (Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2009). Future research may also examine whether exposing ostracized individuals to nature can promote intrinsic generosity and caring behavior.
121
6. Conclusion Ostracism is inevitable and detrimental, which may motivate people to behave in ways that can restore the feelings of connection and belonging. To date, no experimental research has examined the potential impact of ostracism on people's desires to connect to nature or their ecological inclinations. The current research showed that ostracism increased ecological inclinations, which was mediated by increased desires to connect to nature. These findings carry both theoretical and practical implications for the critical role of nature in one's coping with negative interpersonal experiences. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council's General Research Fund (HKU742411H). References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179e211. Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to god in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742e753. Aydin, N., Krueger, J. I., Fischer, J., Hahn, D., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2012). “Man's best friend:” How the presence of a dog reduces mental distress after social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 446e449. € Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejectionAyduk, O., aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775e782. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497e529. Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817e827. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269e309. Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3e5. Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (Eds.). (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143e153. Chen, Z., Williams, K. D., Fitness, J., & Newton, N. C. (2008). When hurt will not heal: Exploring the capacity to relive social and physical pain. Psychological Science, 19, 789e795. Chow, J. T., & Lau, S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: Exposure to nature counteracts ego-depletion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 70e85. Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173e180. Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 257e265. DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 729e741. Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2013). Show me the honey! Effects of social exclusion on financial risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 122e135. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290e292. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114e120. Filipkowski, K. B., & Smyth, J. M. (2012). Plugged in but not connected: Individuals' views of and responses to online and in-person ostracism. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1241e1253. Geen, R. G. (1995). Human motivation: A social psychological approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & G€ arling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109e123. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance Model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88e110.
122
K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 116e122
Hess, Y. D., & Pickett, C. L. (2010). Social rejection and self-versus other-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 453e456. Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166e171. Howell, A. J., Passmore, H., & Buro, K. (2013). Meaning in nature: Meaning in life as a mediator of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1681e1696. Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11e20. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34e47. Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In H. Wayment, & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 137e147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42e55. 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, 503e515. Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? the role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607e643. McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239e1252. Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 373e390. Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095e1107. Poon, K. T., Chen, Z., & DeWall, C. N. (2013). Feeling entitled to more: Ostracism increases dishonest behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1227e1239.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717e731. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 802e823. Roszak, T. (1995). Where psyche meets Gaia. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 1e20). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Shah, J., & Gardner, W. (2007). Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Press. Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., DeWall, C. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 686e694. Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64e78. Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 514e521. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261e272. Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315e1329. Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). To be looked at as though air: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23, 166e168. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425e452. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279e314). New York: Academic Press. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748e762. Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 174e180. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.